<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2014-08-08</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Lauren Proux</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Checklist: x Add TEMPHEAD, change DATE, validate x Add DIV TYPEs, validate x Review structure, use BODY or rarely GROUP x Check PB placement and completeness, ensure sequence of N="" x Proof title page(s) x Check HEAD TRAILER ARGUMENT EPIGRAPH OPENER CLOSER SIGNED SALUTE BYLINE x Check ^, oe, abq (Esq;), italic I / J, _Initals, &amp;c. x Check # @ -- UNCLEAR LB FIGURE x Check q; startq endq Q&#62;
- Correct illegibles from proofsheet x Check illegible page, para, line, span, word, dollar signs Final validate Corrected [ ] illegible groups out of [ ]. Converted [ ] illegible groups to GAP DESC="illegible". DONE</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="B27854">
<STC T="W">P453</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">[ocm]11242926</BIBNO>
<VID>204979</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1">
<PB REF="1">
<P>AN ACCOUNT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE <HI>Chri&s;tian Church,</HI> FOR The fir&s;t Six Hundred YEARS.</P>
<P>Particularly Shewing,
<LIST>
<ITEM>I. The Apo&s;tolical Practice of Dioce&s;an and Metropolitical Epi&s;copacy.</ITEM>
<ITEM>II. The U&s;urpation of Patriarchal and Papal Authority.</ITEM>
<ITEM>III. The War of Two Hundred Years between the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome</HI> and <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> for Univer&s;al Supremacy.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>By <HI>Samuel Parker</HI> D. D. Arch-Deacon of <HI>CANTERB&V;RY.</HI></P>
<P><HI>LONDON:</HI> Printed for <HI>John Baker</HI> at the three <HI>Pigeons</HI> in St. <HI>Paul</HI>'s Church Yard, MDCLXXXIII.</P>
<PB REF="2">
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="table of contents">
<PB REF="2" MS="y">
<HEAD>THE CONTENTS.</HEAD>
<P><LIST>
<ITEM><HI>Sect. I.</HI> THe Apo&s;tles Bi&s;hops over the Churches of their own Planting. St. <HI>James</HI> proper Bi&s;hop of <HI>Jeru&s;alem.</HI> The Epi&s;copal and Apo&s;tolical Office the &s;ame, <HI>Page</HI> 1.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>II.</HI> The Vanity of the Argument for Parity from the Promi&s;cuous u&s;e of the Words Bi&s;hop and Presbyter in the Apo&s;tolical Age; The Texts of Scripture Alledged by the Presbyterians turn'd upon them&s;elves, <HI>p.</HI> 11.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>III.</HI> The Conte&s;ts between the Presbyters and Deacons at <HI>Rome</HI> in St. <HI>Jerom</HI>'s time, occa&s;ion'd both his and the Counterfeit <HI>Am|bro&s;e,</HI> and the Author of the Que&s;tions upon the Old and New Te&s;tament, high Ex|pre&s;&s;ions about the Presbyters Office; the An|cients that divide the Clergy into two Or|ders of Priest and Deacon, Subdivide the Prie&s;thood into Bi&s;hop and Presbyter, <HI>p.</HI> 28.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>IV.</HI> No unknown Interval of time after the Apo&s;tles, the known Succe&s;&s;ion to them in the greate&s;t Churches by &s;ingle Per&s;ons, <HI>p.</HI> 46.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>V.</HI> The Community of the names Bi&s;hop and Presbyter proper to the Apo&s;tolical times, the destruction of the Names ob&s;erved by all the Fathers, <HI>p.</HI> 54.</ITEM>
<PB REF="3">
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>VI.</HI> St. <HI>Clement</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> an undoubted Witne&s;s of Epi&s;copal Superiority, and vindicated from the Cavils of the Adver|&s;aries, e&s;pecially <HI>Blondel.</HI> And his dream of &s;ucceeding in the Pre&s;idency by meer Seni|ority largely confuted, <HI>p.</HI> 61.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>VII.</HI> The Testimonies of <HI>Ignatius</HI> and <HI>Policarp</HI> clear'd, <HI>p.</HI> 85.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>VIII.</HI> The Te&s;timonies of <HI>Hermas,</HI> Pope <HI>Pius,</HI> the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> at the time of <HI>Marcion</HI>'s coming thither, <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr, Papias,</HI> the <HI>Gallican</HI> Church, <HI>Ireneus, Victor</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> and <HI>Clemens Alexandri|nus</HI> vindicated, <HI>p.</HI> 93.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>IX.</HI> The woful Di&s;ingenuity of <HI>Blon|del</HI> in his Allegations from <HI>Tertullian, Ori|gen,</HI> St. <HI>Cyprian, Eu&s;ebius,</HI> St. <HI>Hillary,</HI> &amp;c. Sufficiently di&s;played and expo&s;ed, <HI>p.</HI> 106.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>X.</HI> The Practice of the Apo&s;tolical Church the be&s;t Evidence of our Saviours Institution. The bounds of Churches Accom|modated to the Civil Government, <HI>p.</HI> 123.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>XI.</HI> The fir&s;t Church Society a Bi&s;hop with his Presbyters Pre&s;iding over a City and its Territories. And the fir&s;t Rule of their Government that nothing be done with|out the Bi&s;hop, <HI>p.</HI> 128.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>XII.</HI> The Practice and Canons of the Ancient Church for one Bi&s;hop over a City and its Territories, <HI>p.</HI> 137.</ITEM>
<PB REF="3">
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>XIII.</HI> Of the Ri&s;e, Nature and Office of the <HI>Chorepi&s;copi</HI> in the Ancient Church: That they were true and Proper Bi&s;hops, <HI>p.</HI> 145.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>XIV.</HI> The Apo&s;tolical In&s;titution of Metropolitans, <HI>p.</HI> 161.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>XV.</HI> Various In&s;tances of the Practice of Metropolitical Government in the Primi|tive Church. <HI>Salma&s;ius</HI> his Vanity, in En|deavouring to oppo&s;e it, largely prov'd, <HI>p.</HI> 171.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>XVI.</HI> The ri&s;e of Patriarchates was by meer &V;&s;urpation, and all along oppo&s;ed by the Laws and Canons of the Church, <HI>p.</HI> 188.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>XVII.</HI> The &s;ixth Canon of <HI>Nice</HI> to be under&s;tood of Metropolitical not Patriarchal Preheminences, this proved at large again&s;t <HI>Petrus de Marca</HI> and <HI>Vale&s;ius, p.</HI> 197.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>XVIII.</HI> Patriarchates not erected by the &s;econd General Council at <HI>Con&s;tantin|ople. Socrates</HI> his mi&s;take that they were. The Te&s;timonies of St. <HI>Jerom, Innocent</HI> the fir&s;t, and <HI>Johannes Schola&s;ticus</HI> confuted and overthrown. Pope <HI>Innocent</HI> the fir&s;t noted to have been the fir&s;t Author of &V;&s;urpation, <HI>p.</HI> 213.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>XIX.</HI> The <HI>Con&s;tantinopolitan</HI> Canon farther explained again&s;t Patriarchal Pow|er, and the third General Council at <HI>Ephe|&s;us</HI> &s;hewn expre&s;ly and indu&s;triou&s;ly to oppo&s;e the &s;ame &V;&s;urpation, <HI>p.</HI> 225.</ITEM>
<PB REF="4">
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>XX.</HI> No Patriarchal Power known to the more ancient Provincial Synods, particu|larly tho&s;e of <HI>Antioch</HI> and <HI>Sardica, p.</HI> 235.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>XXI.</HI> The Patriarchal &V;&s;urpation fir&s;t begun at <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> the occa&s;ion of it the Grandeur of the City, and <HI>Theodo&s;ius</HI> his favour to it, but was fir&s;t own'd and rati|fied by the Council of <HI>Calcedon, p.</HI> 243.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>XXII.</HI> The Story of this &V;&s;urpation by the Communicatory Bi&s;hops &s;et up by <HI>Theo|do&s;ius,</HI> by <HI>Nectarius</HI> of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> and the <GAP DESC="foreign"> or Synod ca&s;ually, and yet perpetually there re&s;iding, <HI>p,</HI> 255.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>XXIII.</HI> This &V;&s;urpation farther im|proved by the uncanonical Proceedings of St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom,</HI> whil&s;t Arch-Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con|&s;tantinople. p.</HI> 263.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>XXIV.</HI> The farther Advancement of this &V;&s;urpation to the time of the <HI>Calcedon</HI> Council. Of the <HI>Exarchs</HI> of Dioce&s;&s;es, <HI>p.</HI> 276.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>XXV.</HI> The compleat &s;ettlement of this &V;&s;urpation by the Council of <HI>Calcedon, p.</HI> 285.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>XXVI.</HI> The &s;tout Oppo&s;ition of Pope <HI>Leo</HI> the fir&s;t in defence of the <HI>Nicene Canons</HI> and the rights of Metropolitans. The <HI>Con&s;tan|tinopolitan</HI> U&s;urpation, Recovered to its full height by <HI>Acacius</HI> in &s;pite of all the Power of <HI>Rome, p.</HI> 296.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>XXVII.</HI> The Earne&s;t but vain En|deavours of the Popes, <HI>Felix, Gela&s;ius,</HI>
<PB REF="4"> and <HI>Symmachus</HI> to have the name of <HI>A|cacius</HI> expunged out of the Dypticks, <HI>p.</HI> 305.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>XXVIII.</HI> Pope <HI>Hormi&s;das</HI> his ab&s;olute Conque&s;t over the <HI>Con&s;tantinopolitans, p.</HI> 312.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>XXIX.</HI> How and when the Title of Patriarchs came into the Church. By what means the See of <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> became Patri|archal, <HI>p.</HI> 317.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>XXX.</HI> The Tran&s;actions in the Contro|ver&s;ie between <HI>Rome</HI> and <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> in the time of <HI>Boniface</HI> the &s;econd, as far as the conte&s;t concern'd <HI>Illyricum, p.</HI> 324.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>XXXI.</HI> The Depo&s;ition of <HI>Anthimus</HI> of <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> by Pope <HI>Agapetus.</HI> A large account of Pope <HI>Vigilius</HI> his wild and extra|vagant Actings, and <HI>P. de Marca</HI>'s Apology in his behalf an&s;wer'd and confuted, <HI>p.</HI> 332.</ITEM>
<ITEM>&sect;. <HI>XXXII.</HI> The conte&s;t about the Title of &V;niver&s;al Bi&s;hop between <HI>John</HI> of <HI>Con&s;tan|tinople</HI> and <HI>Gregory</HI> of <HI>Rome</HI> in the Reign of <HI>Mauritius. Gregory</HI>'s Sordid Flattery of the Tyrant <HI>Phocas, Boniface</HI> the third fir&s;t declared by <HI>Phocas</HI> head of the &V;niver&s;al Church. A bold challenge of <HI>Baronius</HI> ac|cepted, again&s;t all the Champions of the <HI>Roman</HI> &V;&s;urpation. <HI>p.</HI> 344.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="errata">
<PB REF="5">
<HEAD>The mo&s;t material ERRATA that di&s;turbe the Sen&s;e, are the&s;e.</HEAD>
<P><HI>PAge</HI> 49. <HI>Line</HI> 10. <HI>Where after</HI> Antichri&s;tian <HI>&s;hould be put this point? and l.</HI> 11. <HI>after</HI> principles <HI>this, p.</HI> 82. <HI>l.</HI> 11. <HI>after</HI> &s;ucceeded <HI>is left out,</HI> without any further Con&s;e|cration, and that. <HI>p.</HI> 83. <HI>l.</HI> 14. <HI>for</HI> tell <HI>read</HI> tells. <HI>p.</HI> 100. <HI>l.</HI> 10. <HI>for</HI> that rea&s;on <HI>r.</HI> what rea&s;on. <HI>p.</HI> 109. <HI>la&s;t line but one, for</HI> Diaconum <HI>r.</HI> Diaconorum. <HI>p.</HI> 114. <HI>l.</HI> 25. <HI>for</HI> I if <HI>r.</HI> if I. <HI>p.</HI> 178. <HI>l.</HI> 19. <HI>for</HI> two <HI>r.</HI> too. <HI>p.</HI> 179. <HI>l.</HI> 12. <HI>for</HI> po&s;&s;ibly <HI>r.</HI> po&s;itively. <HI>ib. l.</HI> 18. <HI>for</HI> Conons <HI>r.</HI> Canons. <HI>p.</HI> 183. <HI>l.</HI> 7. <HI>for</HI> leep&s;i <HI>r.</HI> lap&s;i. <HI>p.</HI> 187. <HI>l.</HI> 1. <HI>for</HI> ca&s;e <HI>r.</HI> ca&s;t. <HI>p.</HI> 211. <HI>l.</HI> 4. <HI>for</HI> he <HI>r.</HI> We. <HI>p.</HI> 225. <HI>l.</HI> 17. <HI>for</HI> gives <HI>r.</HI> give. <HI>p.</HI> 252. <HI>l.</HI> 4. <HI>for</HI> Gregoruis <HI>r.</HI> Gregorius. <HI>p.</HI> 273. <HI>l.</HI> 12. <HI>after</HI> u&s;urp'd it, <HI>there wants</HI> what. <HI>p.</HI> 277. <HI>l.</HI> 10. <HI>for</HI> his <HI>r.</HI> their. <HI>p.</HI> 297. <HI>l.</HI> 27. <HI>for</HI> about <HI>r.</HI> above. <HI>p.</HI> 311. <HI>l.</HI> penult. <HI>after</HI> &s;ome <HI>there wants</HI> of. <HI>p.</HI> 331. <HI>l.</HI> 25. <HI>for</HI> in&s;crip. <HI>r.</HI> manu&s;cript. <HI>p.</HI> 334. <HI>l.</HI> 17. <HI>for</HI> third <HI>r.</HI> tria. <HI>p.</HI> 335. <HI>l.</HI> 14. <HI>for</HI> de&s;ign <HI>r.</HI> deign. <HI>p.</HI> 338. <HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>for</HI> their incon&s;tancy <HI>r.</HI> his incon&s;tarcy. <HI>p.</HI> 356. <HI>l.</HI> 10. <HI>for</HI> Challengers <HI>r.</HI> Challenges.</P>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB N="1" REF="5">
<DIV2 N="1" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>SECTION I.</HEAD>
<P>OUR Ble&s;&s;ed Savior, having E&s;tabli&s;h'd the Society of his Church in the World, and ve&s;ted it with a Power of Juri&s;diction within it Self, and &s;ettled the Supream Authority over it, in the Order of Apo|&s;tles, and their Succe&s;&s;ors for ever; the next thing to be con&s;idered for the true &s;tating of the Primitive and Apo&s;tolical Form, is to find out how they reduc'd their Ma&s;ter's In&s;titution to Practice, in what manner, and upon what grounds they proceeded in their founding and erecting of Churches. For when our Sa|vior had pre&s;crib'd the original Platform, they were left (as the nature of the thing requir'd) to their own Prudence, Judg|ment and Di&s;cretion for the manner of framing the Work, and rai&s;ing the Build|ing. Thus for Example, tho He had ve&s;t|ed the Apo&s;tolical Order and Succe&s;&s;ion with Supremacy of Juri&s;diction in the Church, Yet he hath no where pre&s;crib'd
<PB N="2" REF="6"> the Bounds of every mans Juri&s;diction, but hath left that to be determin'd by Them|&s;elv's, when they came to reduce his In&s;ti|tution to Practice, as They &s;hould judge mo&s;t &s;erviceable to the true Intere&s;t and Advantage of Chri&s;tianity. But be&s;ide the Edification of the Church, they were to have a &s;pecial Regard to the Peace and Quiet of Civil Government, &s;o as not to interfere with, or any way di&s;turb it, by the Exerci&s;e of their Juri&s;diction. For as our Savior in Erecting of his Kingdom, was above all things tender of the Right of Soveraign Powers, So are all his truly Loyal Subjects &s;trictly oblig'd above all things to be mo&s;t punctual and con&s;cien|tious in the great Duty of Allegiance and Subjection to their Lawful Prince. And therefore to di&s;cover the true Settlement of Chri&s;tian Churches in the World, mo&s;t for the Intere&s;t both of Government and Religion, We mu&s;t compare the Apo&s;tles Practice with our Savior's In&s;titution. And by that means we &s;hall lay before our Ey's the perfect State and la&s;ting Polity of the Catholique Church.</P>
<P>Now there is nothing more evident in the Apo&s;tolical and Primitive Hi&s;tory, than that when the Apo&s;tles in pur&s;uance of their Commi&s;&s;ion di&s;pers'd them&s;elv's into all Parts of the World to preach the
<PB N="3" REF="6"> Go&s;pel and erect Churches, every man govern'd and pre&s;ided over the Churches of his own Foundation. Hence St. <HI>Paul</HI>'s Vi&s;iting his own Churches, <HI>Acts</HI> 15. 36. Hence his particular Care of Di&s;cipline in the Church of <HI>Corinth;</HI> &s;o that whereas the Author of the Commentaries a&s;crib'd to St. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> affirm's that Schi&s;m's were fomented in that Church by the Presby|ters, <HI>Quia adhuc Rectores Eccle&s;iis non omni|bus locis fuerant con&s;tituti, Becaus as yet Governors were not &s;etled in all Churches,</HI> it is Evident by tho&s;e Epi&s;tles, and particu|larly his Injunction to excommunicate the ince&s;tuous <HI>Corinthian,</HI> (1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 5. 4.) that the Apo&s;tle exercis'd this Authority him&s;elf, as he did over other Churches of his own planting, till by degrees &s;etled Governors were fix'd in all Churches, as is plainly pointed out by this Pa&s;&s;age. Hence this Apo&s;tle's &s;o frequent Epi&s;tles to his &s;everal Churches, which are &s;o many effects of his Epi&s;copal Care over them, and I will freely grant (becaus men con|tend for it, tho I know not why, unle&s;s it be that they under&s;tand not what is to their purpo&s;e) that in mo&s;t of the Churches, to whom He directs his Epi&s;tles, there was no fix'd Bi&s;hop; but tho there was not, Yet it is undenyable that the Apo&s;tle him&s;elf claimed and exercis'd Epi&s;copal
<PB N="4" REF="7"> Juri&s;diction over them. Hence the Title of St. <HI>Peter</HI>'s Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Jews</HI> of &s;everal Provinces, to whom he had preach'd the Go&s;pel according to the agreement be|tween him and St. <HI>Paul, Gal.</HI> 2. 9. and over whom he pre&s;ided as Supreme Governor. And as every Apo&s;tle was at fir&s;t Bi&s;hop of the Churches of his own Plantation, &s;o if any of them made their fix'd Re&s;idence in any particular City or Bi&s;hoprick, he became the proper Bi&s;hop of it, as it is evi|dent in the Ca&s;e of St. <HI>James</HI> of <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> by &s;everal Pa&s;&s;ages of the Scripture com|par'd with the undoubted Records of the Church: hence his con&s;tant Re&s;idence there, from St. <HI>Paul</HI>'s fir&s;t coming to <HI>Jeru|&s;alem,</HI> to his la&s;t, which was 14 Years. Hence his precedency in Title, Honor and Authority above other Apo&s;tles, even St. <HI>Peter</HI> and St. <HI>John, Gal.</HI> 2. 9. Hence his pre&s;iding in the Council of <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> for it is He that draws up the Decree, <HI>Acts</HI> 15. 7, 13. Hence St. <HI>Peter</HI>'s Command when he was deliverd out of Pri&s;on, that they &s;hould tell it to <HI>James, Acts</HI> 12. 17. Hence St. <HI>Paul's</HI> Addre&s;s to him and his Presbyters at his la&s;t coming to <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> when there was no other Apo&s;tle re&s;iding there be&s;ide him&s;elf; and agreeable to the&s;e Pa&s;&s;ages <HI>Ignatius</HI> informs us, that St. <HI>Ste|phen</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Ep. ad Tral.</NOTE> was Deacon to this Bi&s;hop <HI>James,</HI> and
<PB N="5" REF="7"> it is generally &s;uppos'd that he govern'd that Church till about the &s;ixth or &s;eventh Year of <HI>Nero,</HI> when he was murder'd by <HI>Ananus</HI> the Younger; but it is more pro|bable from <HI>Jo&s;ephus,</HI> that it was the fourth <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Antiq. l.</HI> 20. <HI>c.</HI> 8.</NOTE> Year, it being done in the &s;hort Interval between the Death of <HI>Fe&s;tus</HI> and the Ar|rival of his Succe&s;&s;or <HI>Albinus,</HI> who conti|nued there from the 4^t^h till the 10^t^h of that Emperor, which agrees exactly with <HI>Epiphanius,</HI> who affirms, that St. <HI>James</HI> pre&s;ided over the Church of <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Haere&s;.</HI> 78.</NOTE> about 24 years after our Savior's A&s;cen|tion.</P>
<P>His Government of that Church is at|te&s;ted by <HI>Hege&s;ippus</HI> him&s;elf, who lived next to the fir&s;t and Apo&s;tolical Age, <HI>i. e.</HI> to tho&s;e who either were Apo&s;tles them|&s;elv's, or convers'd with them, of whom St. <HI>Polycarp</HI> was the la&s;t, who &s;uffer'd Martyrdome in the time of <HI>M. Antoninus,</HI> at which time <HI>Hege&s;ippus</HI> was in the Flower of his Age, and therefore living &s;o near to the very time of the Apo&s;tles, and making it the De&s;ign and Employment of his Life to enquire into the mo&s;t antient Records and original Practice of Churches, he can|not but be admitted for an unque&s;tionable Witne&s;s of Apo&s;tolical Cu&s;toms and Con|&s;titutions. And of the &s;ame Authority is the Te&s;timony of St. <HI>Clement</HI> in the Sixt
<PB N="6" REF="8"> Book of his <HI>In&s;titutions,</HI> as he is quoted by <HI>Eu&s;ebius,</HI> where he expre&s;ly records, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Hist. Eccle&s;. lib.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 1.</NOTE> that <HI>tho Peter, James</HI> (the <HI>Great) and John were preferr'd by the Lord, Yet after his A&s;&s;umption they did not challenge the Pre|rogative to them&s;elv's, but cho&s;e James the</HI> Ju&s;t, <HI>Bi&s;hop of Jeru&s;alem.</HI> That is, &s;aith <HI>Baronius,</HI> after the u&s;ual mode&s;ty of the <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Anno Chri|sti</HI> 34. <HI>num.</HI> 286.</NOTE> Romani&s;ts, he was cho&s;en by St. <HI>Peter,</HI> Prince of the Apo&s;tles, and hath the con|fidence to prove it by this Pa&s;&s;age, tho in it other Apo&s;tles are expre&s;ly joyn'd in Equal Authority with him. And the truth is, after the &s;ame rate of boldne&s;s, do the&s;e men impo&s;e upon all the Wri|tings of the Antients. In&s;omuch that there is not one Citation produc'd by them out of the Writers of the fir&s;t 300 Years (to go no lower) for the Popes Su|premacy, that is not impudently &s;trein'd or perverted; but that by the Way.</P>
<P>Now though the&s;e Con&s;titutions were not written by <HI>Clemens</HI> the Famous Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> as plainly appears by the la&s;t Apo&s;tolieal Canon, (where <HI>Clemens</HI> his two Epi&s;tles are a&s;crib'd to that Eminent Bi&s;hop, but the Con&s;titutions to another <HI>Clemens</HI> who owns him&s;elf Author of that very Collection of Canons) Yet who ever this <HI>Clemens</HI> was, he was a very ancient and an early writer, as appears by his
<PB N="7" REF="8"> own account of him&s;elf, That he was <GAP DESC="foreign">, next to the <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Apud Eu|&s;eb. lib.</HI> 6. <HI>c.</HI> 13.</NOTE> Apo&s;tolical Succe&s;&s;ion: and as Dr. <HI>Beve|ridge</HI> hath very probably conjectur'd, in his Accurate and Learned Notes upon that Canon, it was <HI>Clemens Alexandrinus.</HI> For that he wrote a Book of Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Ca|nons (and &s;o the Canons Apo&s;tolical were commonly call'd) is atte&s;ted by the An|tients, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Hi&s;t. Eccle&s;. lib.</HI> 3. <HI>c.</HI> 13. <HI>in Coetael. Biblioth. c.</HI> 3.</NOTE> <HI>Eu&s;ebius,</HI> St. <HI>Jerom, Photius.</HI> And for his <HI>Book of Con&s;titutions,</HI> him&s;elf af|firms in the <HI>Book of the Pa&s;&s;eover,</HI> That at the Importunity of his Friends he wrote &s;uch a Book for the Information of Po&s;te|rity from the Tradition of the Antients. And this afterward gain'd the name of <HI>Apo&s;tolical Con&s;titutions,</HI> as the <HI>Canons</HI> did: not becaus they pretended to have bin fram'd by them, but becaus they were deriv'd by an uninterrupted Succe&s;&s;ion from them. And by tho&s;e Fragments of the work, that are &s;till remaining in the Antients, he &s;eems to have made very great u&s;e of <HI>Clement, Polycarp,</HI> but e&s;peci|ally <HI>Ignatius</HI> for his Collection. Tho the Book that now goes under that Name is &s;o wretchedly corrupt and debauch't, and not onely different from, but contrary to the Copy's cited by Antient Writers, that tho it is not altogether &s;uppo&s;ititious, yet becaus of its many, and uncertain Inter|polations
<PB N="8" REF="9"> it is altogether u&s;ele&s;s. And for that rea&s;on it is rejected by the Sixth General Council in <HI>Trullo,</HI> in its &s;econd Canon, becaus interpolated by Heretiques. But that he compo&s;ed &s;uch a Book from the Traditions and the Writings of the Primitive Chri&s;tians, is evident from the Te&s;timony of tho&s;e Learned Men that quote him; and particularly among the re&s;t the foremention'd Citation out of him by <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> is remarkable to our purpo&s;e, That St. <HI>James</HI> was not onely Bi&s;hop of <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> but was cho&s;en to that Office by the Apo&s;tles them&s;elv's. But after all, <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> his own Te&s;timony, though it had &s;tood alone, and tho he liv'd at a good di&s;tance of time from it, is of it &s;elf more than a Demon&s;tration, in that he hath given us an exact de&s;cription of all the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> from St. <HI>James</HI> down to <HI>Narci&s;&s;us</HI> the 30^t^h Bi&s;hop in that Succe&s;|&s;ion; <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Lib.</HI> 4. <HI>Lib.</HI> 5. <HI>c.</HI> 12.</NOTE> partly from the Memoirs of antient Writers, partly from the Records of that Church it &s;elf; To which I might add, That the very Epi&s;copal Chair in which he &s;at, according to the Cu&s;tom of tho&s;e fir&s;t Ages, was to be &s;een in <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> his <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Lib.</HI> 7. <HI>c.</HI> 19.</NOTE> time, as he &s;aith it was; for tho tho&s;e Shews are of no great weight in them|&s;elv's. Yet they are no &s;mall Argument of the con&s;tant Tradition of the Church,
<PB N="9" REF="9"> e&s;pecially when they are joyn'd with &s;o much other concurrent Evidence, and have no other de&s;ign in them but plain truth and &s;implicity: So that it is not his own private Te&s;timony, but both a con|&s;tant Tradition and a public Regi&s;ter, up|on which his Authority rely's; and how carefully the <HI>Dypticks</HI> or Succe&s;&s;ion of their Bi&s;hops from the Apo&s;tles were re|&s;erv'd in the <HI>Archiv's</HI> of the Apo&s;tolical Churches, is vulgarly known to all Per|&s;ons of ordinary Learning. Now when the Te&s;timonies of the mo&s;t antient Wri|ters &s;uit &s;o exactly with &s;o many Pa&s;&s;ages of the holy Scriptures, and are vouch'd by publique and &s;olemne Records, they are too wilful or too Sceptical that demand any further Satisfaction. And therefore to all this Evidence, it is a doughty An|&s;wer that is given us out of <HI>Salma&s;ius, That this were to de|grade</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Walo p.</HI> 201. <HI>Ab&s;urdum igitur illud Clementis A|lexandrini commentum, qui Jacobum Apo&s;tolum ac proinde univer&s;alem Epi&s;copum, in &s;pecialem et localem tran&s;mutare, et &s;ic in ordinem cogere cogitavit.</HI></NOTE> <HI>an Apo&s;tle to the Office of an ordinary Bi&s;hop.</HI> For this is not to appeal to the Te&s;timony of competent Witne&s;&s;es, which is the onely Evidence of the matter of Fact, but to baffle it with a Querke of Logick. The mo&s;t an|tient and undoubted Records of the Church unanimou&s;ly &s;et down St. <HI>James</HI> for the fir&s;t Bi&s;hop of <HI>Jeru&s;alem.</HI> No, &s;ay
<PB N="10" REF="10"> we, that's impo&s;sible, <HI>for that were to de|grade an Apo&s;tle to a Bi&s;hop.</HI> Of the Lo|gick of the Argument afterwards; but at pre&s;ent what do we &s;ay to all the&s;e plain and undenyable Te&s;timonies? If we ad|mit them, in &s;pite of all the Logick in the World it is certain that he was Bi&s;hop of <HI>Jeru&s;alem:</HI> if we reject them, we mu&s;t upon the &s;ame terms throw away all the Records in the World, not only private but publick, and that when they both agree, without any other hi&s;torical Coun|ter-Evidence or Exception. But then as for the Argument, it is &s;o far from being an Ab&s;urdity, that it is an undenyable Truth, That the Apo&s;tolical Office was Epi&s;copal, and the Epi&s;copal Apo&s;tolical, both of them con&s;i&s;ting in the Supreme Government of the Church; &s;o that an Apo&s;tle was a moving Bi&s;hop to found Churches, and a Bi&s;hop a &s;ettled Apo&s;tle to govern them. And therefore St. <HI>James</HI> not travelling abroad, but re&s;iding con|&s;tantly at <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> and exerci&s;ing his Apo&s;tolical Authority there, was truly and properly their fix'd Bi&s;hop. And thus even the great <HI>Walo</HI> him&s;elf after a great deal of <HI>Leviathan</HI> tumbling about the dif|ference between the name of Apo&s;tle and Bi&s;hop, and gue&s;sing that this <HI>James</HI> was onely a Presbyter, and none of the 12
<PB N="11" REF="10"> Apo&s;tles, concludes that he was accounted of, as Bi&s;hop of that City, Quia Presby|terio hoc e&s;t Coetui Epi&s;coporum &s;ive Pres|byterorum in ill&acirc; Civitate con&s;tituto cum auctoritate majore praefuit. <HI>Becaus he was placed in an higher Authority over the Pres|bytery or Clergy of that City.</HI> And what can any rea&s;onable Man de&s;ire more to prove his Epi&s;copal Supremacy in it? So that whether he were an Apo&s;tle that by Virtue of his fix'd Re&s;idence there, be|came Bi&s;hop of that Church; or whether being onely a Presbyter, he was advanc'd to a Superiority of Power above the other Presbyters, it is all that we need to prove, or he to grant.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="2" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. II.</HEAD>
<P>And now when the Apo&s;tolical Supremacy is &s;o evident in this fir&s;t Age of the Chri&s;tian Church, one would think after that, there would remain no Con|trover&s;y about the Equality of Eccle&s;ia&s;ti|cal Officers for their time, when this thing alone &s;o plainly prevents and anticipates the very Di&s;pute it &s;elf. And yet not|with&s;tanding that this is unanimou&s;ly granted, it is voluminou&s;ly di&s;puted by the pretended followers of St. <HI>Jerom,</HI> that there was then no inequality, only from the promi&s;cuous &s;ignification of the words <HI>Bi&s;hop</HI> and <HI>Presbyter.</HI> Which is to argue
<PB N="12" REF="11"> both again&s;t their own Conce&s;sion, and the undenyable Evidence of matter of Fact; <HI>viz.</HI> that though it is confe&s;&s;ed that in the Apo&s;tles time there was an Inequality of Church Power, yet it is denyed that there was any, becaus there are &s;ome words common to all Per&s;ons, in whom any &s;hare of this Power re&s;ides. And tho I have el&s;ewhere &s;hewn the folly of this trifling, very briefly, yet more than it de&s;erves, I &s;hall now con&s;ider it more largely, becau&s;e I find it &s;till &s;o eagerly in&s;i&s;ted upon as the mo&s;t artificial and plau&s;ible Argument to amu&s;e the common People. And I &s;hall treat it with all the favor and kindne&s;s I can, and then leave it to its own &s;elf to di&s;cover its own weak|ne&s;s and vanity, and that certainly is a lamentable Caus that no Civility will help out. And therefore tho &s;ome Learn|ed men to bridle our Adver&s;aries great Pre&s;umption, are pleas'd to put them upon the proof of the Community of the names <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Dr. Ham|mond di&s;s.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 10. <HI>Dr. Pear|&s;on Vind. Ignt.&mdash;part post c.</HI> 13.</NOTE> <HI>Bi&s;hop</HI> and <HI>Presbyter</HI> in the Apo&s;tles time, (and the truth is, if it &s;hould be deny'd them, they have no better proof for it than remote and uncertain gue&s;&s;es) yet becaus nothing of the Controver&s;y de|pends upon it, and becaus, if at all rely'd upon, it would rather be an Injury than an Advantage to my Caus, by mixing
<PB N="13" REF="11"> &s;ome uncertainty with it, (for if it be un|certain that the Names were promi&s;cu|ou&s;ly u&s;ed, &s;o it is that they were not) I &s;hall therefore quit them of this Difficul|ty, and freely grant them not onely this, but all the Advantage that them&s;elv's ever claim'd from the Apo&s;tolical Hi&s;tory.</P>
<P>And therefore I will not di&s;pute it with <NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 10.</NOTE> <HI>Walo</HI> and <HI>Blondel,</HI> whether the Presbyters at <HI>Miletus,</HI> whom St. <HI>Paul</HI> calls Bi&s;hops, belong'd to the Church of <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> onely, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Acts</HI> 20. 17.</NOTE> or were &s;ummon'd out of the &s;everal ad|joyning City's. Tho I mu&s;t confe&s;s that <HI>Irenaeus</HI> expre&s;ly affirms that both Bi&s;hops <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Lib.</HI> 3. <HI>c.</HI> 14.</NOTE> and Presbyters were conven'd from <HI>Ephe|&s;us</HI> and the Adjoyning City's: and St. <HI>Jerom</HI> him&s;elf affirms, that there were in <NOTE PLACE="marg">in Catal.</NOTE> <HI>A&s;ia</HI> divers Bi&s;hops in the Apo&s;tles time, at who&s;e reque&s;t St. <HI>John</HI> writ his Apoca|lyp&s;e. So that if <HI>Irenaeus</HI> that liv'd &s;o near the Apo&s;tles, Scholar to <HI>Polycarp,</HI> who was made Bi&s;hop of <HI>Smyrna</HI> by the Apo|&s;tles, be a competent Witne&s;s of a thing &s;o publique, and &s;o near his own time, then it is certain that not onely the Cler|gy of that City, but of that Province, of which <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> was the <HI>Metropolis,</HI> attend|ed the Apo&s;tle at <HI>Miletus;</HI> And if St. <HI>Jerom</HI> may be tru&s;ted, there were then &s;everal Bi&s;hops among them. And that it was not the Clergy of a &s;ingle City,
<PB N="14" REF="12"> but of a whole Country, looks very probable from the Addre&s;s of St. <HI>Paul</HI>'s Speech, in which he declares, that he had continued in <HI>A&s;ia</HI> three years together, and appeals not to the Clergy of <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> but of all <HI>A&s;ia</HI> concerning the Innocence of his Life and Conver&s;ation among them. Yet notwith&s;tanding all this, I will grant that they were only the Presbyters of <HI>E|phe&s;us,</HI> and all that can be inferred from it is, that there were Presbyters in that City, but doth it therefore follow that they were Ve&s;ted with a Supremacy over the Chur|ches in it? This were to contradict the Apo&s;tles own Proceedings among them, for that they were &s;ubject to his Authori|ty is evident from the Summons he &s;ends them, and the Charge he gives them. He cites them from <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> to atend him at <HI>Miletus,</HI> and &s;trictly enjoyns them to be faithful in the Performance of their re&s;pe|ctive Duties. So that if at that time there were no Bi&s;hop &s;et over them, the Apo&s;tle was their Bi&s;hop, who now taking his la&s;t &s;olemn farewel of them, leaves <HI>Timothy</HI> Supreme Governour of that Church in his &s;tead; for it was in this <HI>Macedonian</HI> journey that he fixed <HI>Timothy</HI> there, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 1. 3, <HI>I be&s;ought thee to abide &s;till at</HI> Ephe&s;us <HI>when I went into</HI> Macedonia. And there|fore though we find <HI>Timothy</HI> a Compani|on
<PB N="15" REF="12"> of St. <HI>Paul</HI> in this Voyage, yet after the Apo&s;tle's departure from <HI>Miletus,</HI> we find no more mention of him in all the Acts of the Apo&s;tles. But at whatever time he was appointed to pre&s;ide over that Church, and how long &s;oever he continued his Re|&s;idence in it, it is certain that as St. <HI>Paul</HI> exerci&s;ed Supremacy of Power over it him&s;elf, &s;o he &s;ettled him in the &s;ame Au|thority, particularly of Ordaining the Cler|gy; &s;o plainly do we find in this very Text, with which our Innovators make &s;o much noi&s;e, the true Primitive Form of Church Government, a Bi&s;hop pre&s;iding in it over the Presbyters.</P>
<P>As for <HI>Phil.</HI> 1. 1. where the Epi&s;tle is directed to the Bi&s;hops and Deacons, with|out the mention of any intermediate Pre&s;|byters, and therefore the Bi&s;hops of that Church were no more then Presbyters, be|caus many in a City. I will not be &s;o &s;evere as to put them to prove that the See might not be vacant at that time, or that <HI>Epaphro|ditus</HI> their Bi&s;hop was not at that time ab|&s;ent, or that there might not be different Churches of Jews and Gentiles in that, as well as in &s;ome other Cities, or that <HI>Philip|pi</HI> was not a Metropolis, &s;o that in it, all the Bi&s;hops of the Province might be included; all which may be rationally pre&s;um'd in a particular Ca&s;e, oppos'd to the univer&s;al Pra|ctice
<PB N="16" REF="13"> of the Church, and the Suppo&s;ition of any of them is enough to abate and turn the Edge of their Confidence. But I will grant that the Bi&s;hops or Over&s;eers here mentioned were proper Presbyters; but then I mu&s;t demand of our Adver&s;aries, that in Requital they will yield that the&s;e Presbyters were &s;ubject to the Apo&s;tles, and after that, let them make what Ad|vantage of the Text they plea&s;e. As for our parts we are certain, that St. <HI>Paul</HI> was the Founder of that Church, the Hi&s;tory whereof is Recorded, <HI>Acts</HI> 16. And there|fore whatever Presbyters were &s;et over it, they were placed there by his Authority, and &s;ubject to it at the very time of the writing this Epi&s;tle: And here (by the way) it is ob&s;ervable, that though he was then in Pri&s;on at <HI>Rome,</HI> it is written with an extraordinary vigour and alacrity of Expre&s;&s;ion, from that particular Delight and Satisfaction he took in the great Con|fidence and Sincerity of their Faith; which was &s;o much the firmer, as being founded upon two plain and publick Miracles, which being taken notice of by the Magi&s;trates, made their Certainty ab&s;olutely unque|&s;tionable; however that was, St. <HI>Paul</HI> was their Bi&s;hop, as the Apo&s;tles for &s;ome time kept to them&s;elves the Epi&s;copacy, or Su|preme Government of the Churches of
<PB N="17" REF="13"> their own Foundation. And therefore this Church is reckon'd by <HI>Tertullian</HI> a|mong the Apo&s;tolical Churches, that is, as him&s;elf defines them, tho&s;e Churches over which &s;ome Apo&s;tle was known to have pre&s;ided, <HI>Apud quas ip&s;ae adhuc Cathedrae Apo&s;tolorum &s;uis locis prae&s;ident.</HI> So that the Bi&s;hop of that Church in <HI>Tertullian</HI>'s time was known to have &s;ucceeded the Apo&s;tle in that See, as now one Bi&s;hop doth another; and what <HI>Tertullian</HI> means by that is evident, in that he reckons up three Orders of the Clergy, Bi&s;hop, Prie&s;t, and Deacon; and gives &s;uch a Supremacy to the Bi&s;hop, as to allow nothing to be done in the Church by Presbyters or Dea|cons without his Authority; * &s;o that <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>De Bapti&s;|mo,</HI> cap. 17. <HI>Dandi qui|dem habet jus &s;ummus &s;acerdos qui e&s;t Epi&s;co|pus; de hinc Presbyteri &amp; Diaconi, non tamen &s;ine Epi&s;co|pi Auctoritate, propter Eccle&s;iae honorem; quo &s;alvo &s;alva pax e&s;t.</HI></NOTE> when he &s;peaks of a certain Succe&s;&s;ion of Bi&s;hops to the Apo&s;tles, in the Govern|ment of any Church, it is certain that he means proper Bi&s;hops, as &s;uperior to the other Clergy, who by Succeeding in an Apo&s;tolical See, &s;ucceeded in their Apo&s;to|lical Authority.</P>
<P>But again, the &s;ame Per&s;ons are &s;tiled <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 12.</NOTE> Bi&s;hops and Presbyters, 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 3. 2. <HI>Titus</HI> 1. 5, 7. So they are, but then they are &s;ub|ject to <HI>Timothy,</HI> and <HI>Titus,</HI> as well as the Deacons with whom they are joined. For that is the very Argument of tho&s;e Epi|&s;tles
<PB N="18" REF="14"> to direct them how to govern the Churches over which they pre&s;ided, and particularly the Clergy. So that without a Superiority in <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus</HI> over the other two Orders, the Epi&s;tles are Non|&s;ence, and in&s;truct Men to govern with|out Authority: but with it we have appa|rently the three Orders of the Clergy &s;et|tled in tho&s;e Churches.</P>
<P>As for <HI>Heb.</HI> 13. 7. The <GAP DESC="foreign"> there mention'd, may be either Bi&s;hops or Pre&s;|byters or both, for any thing that can be collected from the words them&s;elves. And therefore it is mere Confidence in <HI>Blondel,</HI> from thence to infer that the Church of <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> was govern'd by a common Council of Presbyters. Why &s;o? Why not as well by a Bi&s;hop and Presbyters, as we certainly know it was. But what is this Epi&s;tle to the Church of <HI>Jeru&s;alem?</HI> It is not directed to them, but to all the <HI>Jews</HI> in the World. Now cannot the Apo|&s;tle exhort them to be obedient to their &s;piritual Guides and Governours wherever they re&s;ide, but there mu&s;t be pre&s;ently an <HI>A&s;&s;embly of Divines</HI> at <HI>Jeru&s;alem.</HI> Up|on &s;uch intollerable Pre&s;umptions as the&s;e doth the Presbyterian Cau&s;e &s;ub&s;i&s;t. But any thing will &s;erve the turn to abu&s;e men, that are re&s;olv'd to abu&s;e them|&s;elves.</P>
<PB N="19" REF="14">
<P> And la&s;tly, As for tho&s;e Pa&s;&s;ages in the Acts of the Apo&s;tles, concerning the Presbyters of <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> join'd with the Apo&s;tles, I cannot under&s;tand what fol|lows from them, but this, That in that Church there were Presbyters &s;ubject to the Apo&s;tles; And therefore I would not accept of that Plea, if it could be made good, which is in&s;i&s;ted upon by &s;ome lear|ned men. That in the&s;e &s;everal Texts are not meant the Presbyters of one City, but the Bi&s;hops of the Province of <HI>Judea</HI> met together in Council with the Apo&s;tles in the Metropolitan Church of <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> which tho it may be po&s;&s;ible, is yet very improbable, in that there is no foot-&s;tep of any Record that in tho&s;e early days of Chri&s;tianity, there were any fixed Epi&s;|copal Seats in all <HI>Judea</HI> be&s;ide <HI>Jeru&s;alem;</HI> And withal, the Presbyters here mention|ed were fixed and con&s;tant in that Church, as is evident from <HI>Act.</HI> 21. 19. at St. <HI>Paul</HI>'s &s;econd coming to <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> when there was no Apo&s;tle then re&s;iding there, but onely St. <HI>James</HI> the Bi&s;hop, the very next day after his Arrival it is &s;aid, That <HI>he went unto</HI> James, <HI>and all the Elders were pre&s;ent.</HI> And therefore they mu&s;t re&s;ide in the City, for there was not &s;ufficient time to Summon them from all Parts of the Country. And therefore the Enemies
<PB N="20" REF="15"> of Epi&s;copal Superiority are &s;o far from gaining any Advantage to their Cau&s;e by proving the&s;e Presbyters A&s;&s;embled at <HI>Je|ru&s;alem</HI> to be no Bi&s;hops, that it is a plain demon&s;tration of the true Primitive Go|vernment of the Church from clear and expre&s;s Apo&s;tolical Practice, <HI>viz.</HI> A Bi&s;hop, with his Subject Presbyters re&s;iding in the City or Church of <HI>Jeru&s;alem.</HI></P>
<P>But if after all this, men will &s;till per|&s;i&s;t in it, as <HI>Walo</HI> doth without end, that if the Offices were di&s;tinct to demand the rea&s;on of the Community of the names, I might reply with <HI>Theodoret,</HI> becau&s;e the di&s;tinction was &s;ignified by other names, the name of Apo&s;tle being appropriate to the Supreme Order: But becau&s;e I have already treated with <HI>Walo</HI> about that Pa&s;|&s;age out of <HI>Theodoret,</HI> which though he alledges in the fir&s;t place as the mo&s;t per|tinent Te&s;timony in all the Ancients for his cau&s;e, is yet the cleare&s;t baffle that could have been put upon it; for it de|clares fir&s;t an Inequality in Church-Offi|cers under the Apo&s;tles; Secondly, that the Bi&s;hops properly &s;o call'd, &s;ucceeded the Apo&s;tles in their Apo&s;tolical Autho|rity; Thirdly, that the rea&s;on why the names <HI>Bi&s;hop</HI> and <HI>Presbyter</HI> were not di|&s;tingui&s;hed in the Apo&s;tles own time, was becau&s;e the Office of a Bi&s;hop was then ex|pre&s;&s;ed
<PB N="21" REF="15"> by the name of an Apo&s;tle; and if that be &s;o, it for ever puts to &s;ilence all their noi&s;e and out-cry from the Equiva|lency of tho&s;e two names under the Apo|&s;tles, becau&s;e the Epi&s;copal Superiority was then expre&s;s'd by another name. But <HI>Salma&s;ius</HI> being ever mo&s;t confident when he is mo&s;t in the wrong, as he made this Pa&s;&s;age the foundation of his <HI>Walo Me&s;&s;a|linus,</HI> &s;o he has found out another ju&s;t as awkard to his de&s;ign, for the main flou|ri&s;h of his <HI>Apparatus</HI> to his Books <HI>de Pri|matu,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 40.</NOTE> which was written in defence of his <HI>Walo,</HI> and that is out of his darling Au|thor, the counterfeit <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> in his Com|mentaries upon the Epi&s;tles to <HI>Timothy,</HI> as he is quoted by <HI>Amalarius;</HI> where gi|ving the rea&s;on why the names <HI>Bi&s;hop</HI> and <HI>Presbyter</HI> that were promi&s;cuou&s;ly u&s;ed in the time of the Apo&s;tles, were afterward di&s;tingui&s;ht, he thus &s;tates it. Beatis ver&ograve; Apo&s;tolis decedentibus, illi qui po&s;t illos ordinati &s;unt ut praee&s;&s;ent Eccle&s;iis, illis primis exaequari non poterant, neque mi|raculorum te&s;timonium par illis habere, &s;ed in multis aliis inferiores illis e&s;&s;e vide|bantur, grave illis videbatur Apo&s;tolorum &s;ibi vendicare nuncupationem. Divi&s;erunt ergo nomina ip&s;a, et ii&s;dem Presbyteriorum nomen reliquerunt, alii ver&ograve; Epi&s;copi &s;unt nuncupati, hique Ordinationis praediti &s;unt
<PB N="22" REF="16"> Pote&s;tate, ita ut pleni&s;&s;im&egrave; iidem praepo&s;iots &s;e Eccle&s;iarum e&s;&s;e cogno&s;cerent. <HI>The Ble&s;&s;ed Apo&s;tles decea&s;ing, tho&s;e that were Ordain'd to pre&s;ide over Churches after them, could not be Equall'd to tho&s;e fir&s;t, nor attain the like Gift of Miracles, but appearing inferior to them in many other things, thought it not decent to challenge to them&s;elves the name of Apo&s;tles, and hereupon they divided the names, and left them the name of Presby|ters,</HI> (i. e. tho&s;e that had both in the time of the Apo&s;tles) <HI>and the others were &s;tiled Bi&s;hops,</HI> (i. e. tho&s;e that pre&s;ided over Churches after the Apo&s;tles) <HI>and the&s;e were endued with the Power of Ordaining, that they might know them&s;elves to be &s;et over the Churches in the fullest right.</HI> Up|on which ob&s;ervable Pa&s;&s;age, though it would afford a great number of Remarks, I &s;hall make no other than what I find the Judicious Mr. <HI>Thorndike</HI> has already made to my hand.
<Q>I marvel (&s;ays he) <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Review of the Right of the Church,</HI> pag. 77.</NOTE> what plea&s;ure <HI>Salma&s;ius</HI> had to alledge this Pa&s;&s;age, which if it be admitted, is enough alone to overthrow all that he hath &s;aid in this Point. For fir&s;t he &s;up|po&s;eth, as the received Doctrine of the Church, that Bi&s;hops in their &s;everal Churches &s;ucceeded the Apo&s;tles. Se|condly, he an&s;wers all St. <HI>Hierom</HI>'s Rea|&s;ons, to prove that Bi&s;hops and Presby|ters
<PB N="23" REF="16"> are all one, becau&s;e they are called by the &s;ame name in the Scriptures, by giving another rea&s;on, even that which you have here. La&s;tly he &s;aith, That Bi&s;hops are &s;et over their Churches <HI>ple|ni&s;&s;im&egrave;,</HI> in the fulle&s;t Right, and that therefore Ordination was re&s;erved to them, which is to &s;ay, that in all things they have a &s;pecial intere&s;t, but e&s;pecial|ly Ordination is their peculiar.</Q> This one would think more then enough to &s;atisfie the utmo&s;t demands that any in|genuous man could make for the cer|tain Apo&s;tolical Succe&s;&s;ion of Epi&s;co|pacy, and yet from this very pa&s;&s;age <HI>Salma&s;ius</HI> proceeds to make the contra|ry conclu&s;ion (as he always does) blindfold. Haec clari&s;&s;im&egrave; demon&s;trant po&s;t Apo&s;tolorum demum obitum hanc divi&s;ionem munerum &amp; nominum e&s;&s;e fa|ctam. <HI>This mo&s;t evidently demon&s;trates that it was after the death of the Apo&s;tles, that this divi&s;ion both of the Offices and Names was made.</HI> When it &s;o evidently demon&s;trates that the Officers were di|&s;tingui&s;ht before, though the Name's not till afterwards, for it expre&s;ly places the Office in the Apo&s;tles, to which tho&s;e that after them pre&s;ided over Churches &s;uc|ceeded, and though they took the new name of Bi&s;hop upon them, for the rea&s;on
<PB N="24" REF="17"> a&s;&s;ign'd, they bore the old Office of Apo|&s;tles: what &s;trange confidence then is it for <HI>Salma&s;ius</HI> to infer from hence, that be|cau&s;e the divi&s;ion of the Names was made after the Apo&s;tles, &s;o was that of the Of|fice too, when the pa&s;&s;age &s;o expre&s;ly a|vers that the Office was the &s;ame with that of the Apo&s;tles, and that tho&s;e that were afterward &s;tiled Bi&s;hops were their Succe&s;&s;ors. But this is <HI>Salma&s;ius</HI> his &s;tan|ding juggle, to make every pa&s;&s;age in which either of the&s;e two words Bi&s;hop or Presbyter occur a demon&s;tration of the Identity of Office, only by tacking <HI>munus &amp; nomen</HI> together: And thus, when this Authour &s;ays, That the Name was the &s;ame under the Apo&s;tles, but not the Of|fice, he infers therefore both Name and Office. And if we bar him and his fel|lows but this one childi&s;h Sophi&s;m, they mu&s;t in this controver&s;ie be dumb forever. It is the whole force of all that they have written upon it; all their Books are no|thing more then this one thing repeated &s;o many thou&s;and times over, though it is &s;o weak a Bul-ru&s;h for a &s;inking Cau&s;e to catch at, as plainly &s;hews that it has nothing to &s;upport it. But after all, &s;ee|ing <HI>Salma&s;ius</HI> will in&s;i&s;t upon the enquiry after the rea&s;on of the Identity of the Names in the time of the Apo&s;tles, I &s;hall
<PB N="25" REF="17"> vouch&s;afe no other An&s;wer to &s;o childi&s;h a Que&s;tion than this, That when I went to School I learn'd from my Lexicon, that the word <GAP DESC="foreign"> &s;ignifies any &s;ort of Power, Tru&s;t, or Government, a Captain in an Army, an Over&s;eer of Workmen, a Mayor of a Corporation, a Ma&s;ter of a Quire; and particularly I remember out of my <HI>Tully's Epi&s;tles,</HI> that he &s;aith of him|&s;elf, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ad Attie. lib.</HI> 7. <HI>Ep.</HI> 11.</NOTE> that he was made Bi&s;hop of the Sea Ports, <HI>Vult enim me Pompeius e&s;&s;e quem to|ta haec maritima ora habeat</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>id e&s;t, Speculatorem &amp; Cu&s;todem.</HI> And of the &s;ame nature and extent is the &s;ignification of the word <GAP DESC="foreign">, which at fir&s;t imported Age, and becau&s;e grave men were u&s;ually thought fitte&s;t for Govern|ment, it came at la&s;t to denote any man|ner of Power and Authority, <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Nam apud omnes utique gentes honorabilis est &s;e|nectus: unde &amp; Synagogae &amp; postea Eccle&s;ia Senio|res habuit, &s;ine quo con|&s;ilio nihil nihil agebat in Ec|cle&s;i&acirc;.</HI> The Commen|taries under St. <HI>Ambro|&s;es</HI> Name, upon 1 <HI>Tim.</HI> 5. 1.</NOTE> and then no wonder if words of &s;uch a general &s;ignification be applicable to all kind of Of|fices how di&s;tant or different &s;o ever. E&s;pecially in this Ca&s;e, when there were two &s;orts of Ec|cle&s;ia&s;tical Offices in the Chri|&s;tian Church, the one Mini&s;te|rial as that of Deacons, the other Autho|ritative as that of Bi&s;hops, and Presby|ters, and therefore when they are to be de&s;crib'd &s;o as to di&s;tingui&s;h them from the other Inferiour and Mini&s;terial Offi|cers,
<PB N="26" REF="18"> it cannot be done otherwi&s;e than by Titles that &s;ignifie &s;ome Rule and Power. So that when we find &s;ometimes Bi&s;hops and Deacons join'd in Scripture, &s;ometimes Presbyters and Deacons; the&s;e words plain|ly &s;ignifie the whole ruling part of the Clergy, how much &s;oever they may be di&s;tingui&s;h'd among them&s;elves. And therefore once for all, I will grant to <HI>Walo</HI> and his followers, that there might have been at that time a great variety of words comprehen&s;ive of both Orders, as di&s;tinct from Deacons, not onely that of <HI>Presbyter</HI> and <HI>Epi&s;copus,</HI> but if he plea&s;es to accept it, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Praepo&s;itus, Anti&s;tes, Pa&s;tor,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">, or any other that expre&s;s any &s;hare of Government in the Church, be|cau&s;e it is certain that the Presbyters &s;ha|red in it under the Bi&s;hops; and if from this community of Names they will infer an Equality of Power, I cannot help it. But then they mu&s;t be oblig'd to conclude too, that there was then no difference be|tween an Apo&s;tle and an ordinary Presby|ter, becau&s;e the very &s;ame Names were common to both. And yet what Vo|lumes hath this one lean and forc'd Con|clu&s;ion brought forth again&s;t the Apo&s;to|lical Succe&s;&s;ion of Bi&s;hops? Nay 'tis the onely thing be&s;ide St. <HI>Jerom</HI>'s ra&s;h expre&s;|&s;ions that &s;upports the Controver&s;ie. O|therwi&s;e
<PB N="27" REF="18"> if they would but hone&s;tly appeal to the Evidence of matter of Fact it &s;elf <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Blon|del, <HI>Apol. p.</HI> 135.</NOTE> (which is the onely proper Argument in this Cau&s;e) that alone would &s;hamefully rebuke their follv, in that there is no in|&s;tance of any Ancient Church, in which there were Presbyters without a Bi&s;hop, or an Apo&s;tle pre&s;iding over them. And that's an undeniable Evidence of the di&s;tin|ction of the Orders, notwith&s;tanding that they then were, and &s;till are comprehen|ded under the &s;ame general Titles, becau&s;e they both in their &s;everal Stations pre&s;ide over the Flock. And if men would be but &s;o ingenuous as to take notice of &s;uch an obvious Truth, that alone would put an end to this &s;hadow of a Controver&s;ie. But when they are &s;o often put in mind of it, and yet without any regard to it, per&s;i&s;t in their Clamour, as &s;ome Writers at &s;econd hand out of <HI>Walo</HI> and <HI>Blundel</HI> have done of late, all that they can gain by it, be&s;ide abu&s;ing their own &s;educed Rab|ble, is to &s;atisfie all under&s;tanding men, that them&s;elves have renounced not only common &s;en&s;e, but common hone&s;ty. This is the true State of the Fir&s;t and Apo|&s;tolical Age, in which the Apo&s;tles kept the Supremacy in their own hands over the Inferiour Clergy, &s;ometimes fixing their Re&s;idence, and exerci&s;ing their Au|thority
<PB N="28" REF="19"> in a particular Church or City as St. <HI>James</HI> at <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> &s;ometimes moving up and down to compleat Churches of their own Foundation; and &s;o the profound <HI>Walo</HI> him&s;elf, after all his Expence of Glo&s;|&s;ary-ware hath &s;tated the Ca&s;e, that tho&s;e Apo&s;tles who had no fixed Re&s;idence, but travell'd up and down to plant or confirm Churches, were &s;tiled Apo&s;tles, but if any of them re&s;ided in any one City, he was call'd the Bi&s;hop of that City, as <HI>James</HI> of <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> who was placed there in Supe|riour Authority over the other Clergy. <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Haec enim Apo&s;toli propria mi&s;|&s;io ac voca|tio, ex ip&s;o nomine munus ejus &amp; officium &s;ignificans, quo &s;edes uno in loco figere non debent, &s;ed orbem peragrare &amp; perlu&s;trare ad dei verbum &amp; Evangelium praedicandum Hinc factum ut qui fixam stabilemque &s;edem in aliqu&acirc; provinci&acirc; vel civitate haberent, populoque ejus provinciae vel ci|vitatis docendo vacarent, nec alio vagarentur, Apostolorum nomine vix e&s;&s;ent nuncupandi. Haec quippe appellatio mi&s;&s;ionem propri&egrave; &s;ignificat, &amp; profe|ctionem in alias atque alias regiones. Ideo Jacobus domini frater &amp; Apostolus, quia Hiero&s;olymis non ab&s;titit, nec quoquam extra eam urbem pedem movit, Epi&s;copus &agrave; veteribus appellatus est.</NOTE></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="3" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. III.</HEAD>
<P>But becau&s;e the &s;tre&s;s of all their pretences lies in this Dichotomy (as <HI>Blon|del</HI> calls it) or divi&s;ion of the Clergy into two Orders, I &s;hall give a fuller account of it out of the Writings of the Ancients, whereby it will appear that tho&s;e who fir&s;t divided it into two, the Mini&s;terial and Authoritative, afterward &s;ub-divided the Authoritative into a fir&s;t and &s;econd Or|der, and that will clear both the rea&s;on
<PB N="29" REF="19"> and the nature of the fir&s;t divi&s;ion: which was nothing el&s;e but the great di&s;tance of the Mini&s;terial Order from the other two, and their nearne&s;s to each other. And in the fir&s;t place it is very ob&s;ervable that this gave the fir&s;t occa&s;ion to this Contro|ver&s;ie in St. <HI>Jerom</HI>'s time, when the con|te&s;t between the Presbyters and Deacons at <HI>Rome</HI> run &s;o high, that the Deacons claim'd not only equal dignity to, but &s;u|periority over the Presbyters, as both St. <HI>Jerom</HI> and the Author of the Que&s;tions upon the Old and new Te&s;tament informs us, who both lived at the &s;ame time, and wrote upon the &s;ame occa&s;ion: This, I &s;ay, was the particular provocation that rai&s;ed St. <HI>Jerom</HI>'s choler &s;o high again&s;t them, and the more effectually to beat them down, he lets them know that the Presbyters &s;tand in the &s;ame Prie&s;thood with the Bi&s;hop, whereas them&s;elves were little more then Servants in the Church, and appointed to wait upon them in their &s;everal Offices. The State of the whole matter was this: That whereas the Dea|cons had under the Bi&s;hops the di&s;po&s;al of the Offerings, <HI>i. e.</HI> at that time the Re|venue of the Church, where the Church was wealthy, that gave them great digni|ty in the Opinion of the World, and fal&s;e honour naturally &s;wells it &s;elf into in&s;o|lence;
<PB N="30" REF="20"> &s;o that in the Records of the Church we find them at every turn ju&s;tling with the Presbyters for Place and Authority. In the Eighteenth Canon of the Council of <HI>Nice,</HI> it was complained of to the holy Synod, <Q>That in &s;ome Places and Cities the Deacons pre&s;umed to give the Eu|chari&s;t to the Presbyters, which neither the Law nor the Cu&s;tom of the Church will allow of, that tho&s;e who have not the Power of Con&s;ecration, &s;hould give our Saviour's Body to tho&s;e that have. And withal it is inform'd, That &s;ome Deacons are &s;o bold as to Officiate the Euchari&s;t even before Bi&s;hops them&s;elves. Therefore it is Enacted, That all the&s;e things be reformed, and that Deacons keep within their own bounds, remembring that they are the Bi&s;hops Servants, and the Presbyters In&s;eriours. Let them there|fore receive the Euchari&s;t after the Pres|byters in their Order from the hands of a Bi&s;hop or a Presbyter, neither let them pre&s;ume to &s;it among the Bench of Presbyters, it is both again&s;t Canon and Order. Whoever therefore obeys not this Con&s;titution, let him be depo&s;ed.</Q> Whereby we &s;ee both the Sen&s;e and the Cu&s;tom of the Ancient Church, concern|ing the di&s;tance between Deacons and the Orders of Bi&s;hop and Prie&s;t, re&s;embling
<PB N="31" REF="20"> that, as they repre&s;ent it between Servants and Ma&s;ters, and &s;o the Greek Scholia&s;ts glo&s;s upon it, <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>The&s;e wait, and the&s;e are waited upon.</HI> The Government of the Church was re&s;erved &s;o entirely to the Bi&s;hop and his Bench of Presbyters, that it was not &s;o much as lawful for any Deacon to &s;it among them, and that is the known Cu|&s;tom of the Primitive Church, that about the holy Altar the Bi&s;hop &s;at in his Throne, and his Presbyters on each hand upon lower Seats, into which it was not lawful for Lay-men, but only Con&s;ecrated Per|&s;ons to enter, and though the Deacons were admitted into the place at Divine Service, yet were they obliged to &s;tand in pre&s;ence of the Sacred Bench in token of Subjection. But notwith&s;tanding this we find them frequently forgetting their duty and good manners, and thru&s;ting them&s;elves into the Prie&s;tly Con&s;i&s;tory, and as frequently Check't and repul&s;ed for it, as by the Council of <HI>Nice</HI> in the fore|mentioned Canon, &s;o of <HI>Laodicea</HI> Canon the <HI>20th.</HI> of <HI>Carthage</HI> 6. C. 18. of <HI>Ar|les.</HI> 1 C. 18. 2 C. 15. And this pre|&s;umption of the Deacons, particularly at <HI>Rome</HI> la&s;ted &s;o long that Pope <HI>Gela&s;ius,</HI> who &s;ucceeded in the Year 492, was con&s;trained to Publi&s;h a Decree forbidding
<PB N="32" REF="21"> all Deacons to Sit in the pre&s;ence of the Presbytery. But the Bickerings between them were highe&s;t about <HI>St. Jeroms</HI> time, in&s;omuch that Pope <HI>Ana&s;ta&s;ius</HI> was forced to publi&s;h a Decree to Command the Pres|byters to &s;tand up at the holy Go&s;pels, for whereas it had ever been the cu&s;tom for all pre&s;ent to &s;tand at the reading of the Go&s;pel by the Deacons, yet becau&s;e the Deacons would pre&s;ume to Sit among the Presbyters, before whom they were bound to &s;tand, they combin'd not to ri&s;e up at the Go&s;pel, that they might keep their Prerogative of Sitting, when the Deacons were forced to be &s;tanding by the nature of the Office it &s;elf, upon which <HI>Ana&s;ta&s;ius</HI> was fain to I&s;&s;ue forth his <HI>Mandate</HI> to pre|vent the Enormity. The two things that heightned the Pride of the <HI>Roman</HI> Deacons were their Paucity and their Wealth, they were but Seven in number in that as well as all other Churches after the example of the Church of <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> whereas the Pres|byters were much more numerous, <HI>Corne|lius</HI> reckons up no le&s;s then 46 in his time, which number could not but be much in|crea&s;ed by the time of <HI>St. Jerom,</HI> who gives this rea&s;on for the advantage of the Deacons again&s;t the Presbyters. <HI>Quid paucitatem, de qu&acirc; ortum e&s;t &s;upercilium in leges Eccle&s;iae vindicas? Omne quod tarum</HI>
<PB N="33" REF="21"> <HI>e&s;t, plus appetitur. Pulegium apud Indos pipare pretio&s;ius e&s;t. Diaconos paucitas ho|norabiles, presbyteros turba contemptibiles facit.</HI> But the main thing that advanced their power and dignity was the di&s;po&s;al of the Revenue of the Church, e&s;pecially from the time of Pope <HI>Fabian,</HI> who if we may believe the pontifical Book divided the 14 Regions of the City of <HI>Rome</HI> a|mong the Seven Deacons, allotting to each Deacon two Regions, from whence they were &s;tyled <HI>Diaconi Regionarii,</HI> and afterward by the pretended Council at <HI>Rome</HI> under Pope <HI>Silve&s;ter, Cardinales. Con|cil. Rom.</HI> 2. c. 7. Though long before that time they were arrived to a great height, e&s;pecially the Arch-Deacon, that is the fir&s;t of the Deacons, who was Ma&s;ter and Keeper of the Trea&s;ury, and from hence it was that they &s;o frequently &s;ucceeded in the Papacy, and carried the Election from the Presbyters, <HI>Eleutherus</HI> the Arch Dea|con <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Eu&s;eb. l.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 22.</NOTE> &s;ucceeded <HI>Anicetus,</HI> and <HI>Soter,</HI> even in <HI>Hege&s;ippus</HI> his time, but before and at <HI>St. Jeroms</HI> time they &s;wept all away, the Popes and Anti-Popes were both of the Order of Deacons, as <HI>Liberius,</HI> and <HI>Felix, Dama&s;us</HI> and <HI>&V;r&s;icinus,</HI> no wonder then if when they carried the whole &s;way of the Church they lift their heads &s;o high, and it was under <HI>Dama&s;us</HI> that <HI>Falcidius</HI>
<PB N="43" REF="22"> their Chieftain made the publick demand of preheminence above the Presbyters, of which <HI>St. Jerom</HI> being inform'd by Let|ter from <HI>Rome,</HI> it drew from him in an|&s;wer to it that warm and famous Epi&s;tle to <HI>Evagrius. Audio quendam</HI> (&s;ays he) <HI>in tantam erupi&s;&s;e vecordiam, ut Diaconos Presbyteris, i. e. Epi&s;copis anteferret.</HI> I am informed of &s;ome body, that he is ar|rived to that degree of Confidence, as to prefer Deacons before Presbyters, <HI>i. e.</HI> be|fore Bi&s;hops. For when the Apo&s;tle tea|ches you to be the &s;ame, who can endure that the Servant of Tables and Widows &s;hould &s;well him&s;elf above tho&s;e, at who&s;e Prayers Chri&s;ts Body and Bloud are made, and then reckons up the &s;everal Texts of Scripture, in which the words <HI>Bi&s;hop</HI> and Presbyter are promi&s;cuou&s;ly u&s;ed. From whence it appears that all St. <HI>Jerom</HI>'s real de&s;ign (&s;etting a&s;ide his heat and pa&s;&s;ion) was to &s;hew, and in his way to prove, That Presbyters are reckoned together with Bi&s;hops, as partakers in the &s;ame Chri&s;tian Prie&s;thood, whereas Deacons are thru&s;t down into a lower degree and capacity, and therefore always ranged apart from them in the Apo&s;tolical Writings. And this nearne&s;s of the Presbyters to the Bi|&s;hops he &s;hews in this in&s;tance, <HI>Quid enim facit except&acirc; Ordinatione Epi&s;copus quod non</HI>
<PB N="35" REF="22"> <HI>faciat Presbyter. For what does a Bi&s;hop do that a Presbyter cannot do except Ordinati|on?</HI> So that a Presbyter approaching &s;o near a Bi&s;hop in the Authoritative exerci&s;e of all the Offices of the Church, excep|ting only that of Ordination, it is no wonder if they are joined and reckoned together, to di&s;tingui&s;h them from the Of|fice of Deacons, that was at fir&s;t meerly Mini&s;terial, and erected only to relieve the higher Orders from attending upon the lower Offices of the Church. So that St. <HI>Jerom</HI>'s real Opinion, as he intended it in Oppo&s;ition to the In&s;olence of the Dea|cons, was apparently the &s;ame with St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI>'s, and the <HI>Greek</HI> Fathers. For &s;o St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> in his &s;econd Homily upon the fir&s;t of <HI>Timothy</HI> and the third Chapter, &s;tates <NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> it. Asking the que&s;tion why the &s;ame Rules are pre&s;cribed by the Apo&s;tle to the Bi&s;hops and Presby|ters in common, and other di&s;tinct Rules to the Dea|cons apart, his an&s;wer is becau&s;e the difference between them is not great, for Presbyters al&s;o take upon them both the Authority of teaching and go|verning the Church, &s;o that whatever things the Apo&s;tle &s;aid concerning Bi&s;hops,
<PB N="36" REF="23"> the &s;ame agree to Presbyters. For the Bi&s;hops are only &s;uperiour to them in the power of Ordination, and in this one thing alone do they &s;eem to have a peculiar, or paramount Power above the Presbyters. The very &s;ame account this with St. <HI>Je|rom</HI>'s, and nothing more evident from the Records of the Primitive Church then this, that the Presbyters &s;hared with the Bi&s;hop in all other acts of Authority, &s;ave only of Ordination. And it is the mo&s;t common notion among all the Fathers, that though they con&s;tantly reckon up three Orders of the Clergy, yet di&s;tingui&s;h the other two as &s;omething more Sacred, and of a di&s;tinct nature, and higher quali|ty then that of Deacons. But in the next place St. <HI>Jerom</HI> proceeds to object to him|&s;elf the Cu&s;tom at <HI>Rome,</HI> where it &s;eems the Deacons were wont to give their Te|&s;timonials at the Ordination of Presby|ters; and rejects it with great &s;corn and indignation, not without &s;ome &s;evere re|flexion upon the pride of that City, as a thing ab&s;urd and &s;ingular. And at la&s;t fully and di&s;tinctly explains his meaning, when he concludes, that the Apo&s;tles in their In&s;titutions had a regard to the forms under the Old Te&s;tament; &s;o that what <HI>Aaron</HI> and his Sons, and the <HI>Levites</HI> were in the Temple, that let Bi&s;hops, Presby|ters,
<PB N="37" REF="23"> and Deacons know them&s;elves to be in the Church. Whereby he expre&s;ly de|rives the&s;e three Orders in the Chri&s;tian Church from the Apo&s;tles them&s;elves, and only places the two highe&s;t apart from the third, as <HI>Aaron</HI> and his Sons were always join'd together in the Prie&s;thood, as di|&s;tinct and &s;eparate from the <HI>Levites.</HI> This is &s;o apparently St. <HI>Jerom</HI>'s meer de&s;ign, that nothing but gro&s;s and wilful di&s;-in|genuity could pervert his meaning for one or two lavi&s;h and unwary expre&s;&s;ions, not only again&s;t his argument but him|&s;elf, who more then once di&s;tingui&s;ht be|tween the <HI>Sacerdotes primi &amp; &s;ecundi.</HI></P>
<P>And as for their other great Man, whom they value next to St. <HI>Jerom,</HI> the Author of the Que&s;tions upon the Old and New Te&s;tament in St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> (the &s;ame with the Counterfeit <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> upon St. <HI>Paul</HI>'s Epi&s;tles, as <HI>Blondel</HI> not improbably con|jectures from the likene&s;s of his Stile and Notion) his meaning is apparently the &s;ame with St. <HI>Jeroms,</HI> and from him we have a more exact account of the Contro|ver&s;y. For fir&s;t he propounds the &s;tate of the que&s;tion as it was managed at that time. <Q>What is to be an&s;wer'd to tho&s;e Roman Levites, that contend to equal Levites to Prie&s;ts, and Deacons to Pre&s;|byters.</Q> And in the next place after a
<PB N="22" REF="24"> Preface of the extravagance and novelty of the Opinion, he is the only man that informs us by whom it was &s;tarted and maintain'd, one <HI>Falcidius,</HI> that (he &s;ays) was in&s;tigated to it by his own folly and the Pride of the City of <HI>Rome;</HI> And then overwhelms him with variety of weighty and pregnant Arguments. Fir&s;t he asks <Q>by what Law, what Cu&s;tom, what Ex|ample, tho&s;e that had not &s;o much as leave to &s;it in the Church, &s;hould be equall'd to tho&s;e, that becau&s;e they were the Prie&s;ts of God, <HI>[Anti&s;tites Dei]</HI> &s;it with Dignity in the hou&s;e of God. What boldne&s;s is it to level Presbyters with their Mini&s;ters? What ra&s;h Pre&s;umption to compare the Porters of the Taberna|cle, the Scourers of Ve&s;&s;els and Di&s;hes, the Carriers of Water with the Prie&s;ts them&s;elves? For this was the Office of the <HI>Levites;</HI> and it is the &s;ame thing as if they &s;hould equal Officers to their Governors, and Servants to their Ma|&s;ters: For &s;o the <HI>Levites</HI> were appointed by Divine Command to be to their Prie&s;ts, <HI>Numb.</HI> 8. 13. which Cu&s;tom is &s;till ob|&s;erved in the Church. And although the Deacons of the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> are le&s;s mode&s;t then others, yet they do not pre&s;ume to take to them&s;elves the honour of &s;itting in the Church. But becau&s;e
<PB N="39" REF="24"> for&s;ooth they are Officers of the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> therefore would they be thought greater men than in other Churches, be|cau&s;e of the Grandeur of the City, that may indeed pa&s;s for the head of all Cities. But if it be &s;o, then ought they to chal|lenge the &s;ame Pre-eminence to their Presbyters. For if tho&s;e that are Inferi|ours are advanced by the greatne&s;s of the City, how much more ought their Bet|ters to ri&s;e? For what&s;oever honour is confer'd upon the Under-Officers is an acce&s;&s;ion to the Government, as the ho|nour of a Servant redounds to the glory of his Ma&s;ter. And then to rai&s;e the Argument higher, he adds, That a Prie&s;t is a Bi&s;hop St. <HI>Paul</HI> proves,</Q> when he in|&s;tructs <HI>Timothy,</HI> whom he Ordain'd a Pres|byter, how to Ordain Bi&s;hops, for what is a Bi&s;hop but the fir&s;t Presbyter, that is, the High-Prie&s;t? And la&s;tly, he urges that the Apo&s;tle calls them his Fellow-Presbyters, and do you think he would call the Deacons his Fellow-Deacons? By no means, becau&s;e they are of a much low|er rank, it is as ab&s;urd as to call a Regi&s;ter a Judge. And in <HI>Aegypt</HI> if there be no Bi&s;hop a Presbyter confirms. And &s;o pro|ceeds to &s;hew the dignity of the Sacerdo|tal Order above the Levitical, by divers pa&s;&s;ages out of the Old Te&s;tament. Now
<PB N="40" REF="25"> I pray what can be more evident from the Tenour of this whole di&s;cour&s;e, then the Parallel between the Orders in the Chri&s;tian Church, and the Prie&s;ts and Le|vites in the Jewi&s;h? and though he places the Presbyters in the &s;ame Prie&s;thood with the Bi&s;hop, it is after the &s;ame manner that the Prie&s;ts were ranked with the High-Prie&s;t in oppo&s;ition to the Levites; &s;o that he levels the Bi&s;hop with the Pres|byters, no more then he does the High-Prie&s;t with the Common Prie&s;ts, and that manife&s;tly overthrows all <HI>Blondel</HI>'s Pleas for Equality; and when that is done, we care not whether the di&s;tance between a Bi&s;hop and a Presbyter be gradual or &s;pe|cifick, whether in kind or in order; for whatever the difference may be in Logick (which we leave to Children and School|men, and Mr. <HI>B.</HI> to di&s;pute among them|&s;elves,) it is enough to our purpo&s;e, and all that the Ancients regarded, that a Bi|&s;hop differ'd &s;o much from an ordinary Presbyter that the <GAP DESC="foreign">, as the <HI>Greeks</HI> expre&s;s it, was &s;o much in him that nothing could be done by the other Presbyters, without him or his con&s;ent, and that difference being once granted, our learned Adver&s;aries may di&s;pute as long as they plea&s;e about Genus and Spe|cies. And as for the Argument whereby
<PB N="41" REF="25"> this ancient Author undertakes to prove a Presbyter &s;o much Superiour to a Deacon, becau&s;e the Apo&s;tles &s;ometimes give them|&s;elves the Title of Fellow-Presbyters, but never of Brother-Deacons, <HI>Blondel</HI> is &s;o well &s;atisfied with it, as from thence to in|fer the Superiority of a Presbyter to a Dea|con, as well he may, but when he proceeds to infer his Equality to a Bi&s;hop by being made equal to an Apo&s;tle, he cuts the throat of his own Argument, by over|throwing the Superiority of an Apo&s;tle to a Presbyter, &s;o ra&s;h and incon&s;iderate are the&s;e men in the pro&s;ecution of their Cau&s;e, that they are ever running them|&s;elves upon Precipices in its over eager pur&s;uit; how el&s;e could <HI>Blondel</HI> after he had infer'd a thou&s;and times over, that Bi|&s;hops are call'd Presbyters in Scripture, and therefore they are of equal Authority; in&s;i&s;t upon it that Apo&s;tles too are call'd Presbyters, and that by them&s;elves, from whence what follows by his inference but the equality of every ordinary Presbyter with an Apo&s;tle? But if it does not fol|low (as no man dares to deny a Superiori|ty in the Apo&s;tolical Office) then there is an end of the Argument for ever, and of Presbytery with it, that has nothing el&s;e to &s;ub&s;i&s;t upon then this poor, forced, and precarious inference. However it is ma|nife&s;t
<PB N="42" REF="26"> from this Ancient Writer, and the Confe&s;&s;ion of <HI>Blondel</HI> him&s;elf, that when the Ancients rankt Presbyters with Bi|&s;hops and Apo&s;tles, it was in Oppo&s;ition to the Deacons, whom they excluded out of the proper Chri&s;tian Prie&s;thood, as much as the Levites were &s;hut out of the Jewi&s;h, though when they had done &s;o, they made the &s;ame di&s;tinction in the Chri&s;tian Prie&s;thood between the Bi&s;hop and Presbyters, that was always ob&s;erved in the Jewi&s;h Hierarchy between the High-Prie&s;t and the other ordinary Prie&s;ts. And though the Deacons were afterward reckoned into the <HI>Munia Sacerdotalia,</HI> and placed in <HI>Superioribus Ordinibus Eccle&s;iae,</HI> as oppo&s;ed to the Under-Officers of the Church, Readers, Singers, Sub Deacons, &amp;c. Yet that was of later date, and the Prie&s;thood was taken in a loo&s;e &s;en&s;e, as compri&s;ing all holy Orders; and tho&s;e ve|ry Authors that admit them into it in this lax &s;en&s;e, &s;hut them out of it when they di&s;cour&s;e &s;trictly and accurately about it; for the thing they unanimou&s;ly made pro|per to the Prie&s;thood, was the power of Con&s;ecrating and Offering the Sacrifice of the Cro&s;s, from which Office the Dea|cons were excluded. But to proceed with <HI>Blondel,</HI> it is plea&s;ant to ob&s;erve how he &s;ays all things backward or forward as
<PB N="43" REF="26"> they &s;erve his own turn. When he has <NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 7.</NOTE> ob&s;erved at the beginning of his Book, that the Apo&s;tles call'd them&s;elves Presby|ters but never Deacons, and from thence concludes the Supremacy of Presbyters in the Church, yet now in his notes upon the <NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 62.</NOTE> &s;ame Argument, as it is managed by the Author of the Que&s;tions, he &s;ays, it will not hold, becau&s;e there are In&s;tances of Bi&s;hops, who writing to Deacons, &s;ome|time call them Fellow-Prie&s;ts, and Fellow-Deacons. But the In&s;tances he alledges are &s;o far from being in or near the Apo&s;tles time, that they are of no earlier date, then S. <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> St. <HI>Ba&s;il, Optatus</HI> and St. <HI>Jerom:</HI> Authors that &s;ometimes take them in, and &s;ometimes &s;hut them out, according to the &s;trict or lax acceptation of the Word. Sometime dividing the Clergy, into three Orders of Bi&s;hop, Presbyter and Deacon, &s;tiled by <HI>Optatus Primum, Secundum, Ter|tium Sacerdotium,</HI> and &s;ometimes into two, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 1. <HI>Con|tra Parmen.</HI></NOTE> the <HI>Sacerdotes</HI> and <HI>Mini&s;tri,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> and <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;o <HI>Sozomen</HI> &s;ays, that <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> carried <NOTE PLACE="marg">Hi&s;t. <HI>l.</HI> 1. c. 8.</NOTE> along with him to his Wars, a Taberna|cle in form of a Church, and <GAP DESC="foreign"> to perform all Chri&s;tian Offices. And as the Ancients frequently divide the Officers of the Church into <HI>Sacerdotes</HI> and <HI>Mini|&s;tri,</HI> &s;o do they as commonly &s;ubdivide the <HI>Sacerdotes</HI> into the higher and lower
<PB N="44" REF="27"> Stations, as St. <HI>Jerom</HI> calls the Presbyters, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Com. in Je|rom.</HI> c. 13.</NOTE> <HI>Sacerdotes &s;ecundi in honore Eccle&s;ia&s;tico gradus,</HI> and &s;o in his Book, <HI>Adver&s;us Lu|cifer. Eccle&s;iae &s;alus in &s;ummi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet, aliter tot Schi&s;mata e&s;&s;ent quot Sacerdotes:</HI> by the <HI>Summus Sacerdos,</HI> meaning the Bi&s;hop, and by the <HI>Sacerdo|tes</HI> the Prie&s;ts or Presbyters. And in his Epitaph upon <HI>Paula, aderant Hiero&s;olymorum et aliarum &V;rbium Epi&s;copi, et Sacerdotum inferioris gradus, ac Levitarum innumerabi|lis multitudo.</HI> So <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> writing to <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Eu&s;eb.</HI> hi&s;t. <HI>l.</HI> 10. c. 5.</NOTE> <HI>Chre&s;tus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Syracu&s;e,</HI> to repair to the Council of <HI>Arles,</HI> he bids him bring along with him two <GAP DESC="foreign"> of the &s;econd Order <HI>i. e.</HI> Presbyters. More In&s;tances of this thing may be &s;een in <HI>Vale&s;ius</HI> his Notes upon the place. But in &s;hort there is no one notion more trite a|mong the Ancients, that held an inequali|ty between Bi&s;hops and Presbyters, then to join them together in the Prie&s;thood in oppo&s;ition to the Deacons or Mini&s;try. As will appear from mo&s;t of the following citations alledged by <HI>Blondel,</HI> that have no other force in them then this, that the Clergy are &s;ometimes divided into two Orders, and that even by tho&s;e very men, who &s;ubdivide them into three, and therefore (as <HI>Blondel</HI> all along inferrs) there are no more then two. St. <HI>Cyprian</HI>
<PB N="45" REF="27"> may &s;erve as an In&s;tance for all, for though none of the Ancients have more frequently recited the three Orders of Bi|&s;hop, Prie&s;t and Deacon, yet notwith|&s;tanding that do we often find him (as <HI>Blondel</HI> &s;peaks) dichotomi&s;ing. <HI>Ep.</HI> 62. <HI>Cum omnes omnino di&s;ciplinam tenere opor|teat, multo magis Praepo&s;itos et Diaconos curare hoc fas e&s;t.</HI> Ep. 72. <HI>Oportet Sacer|dotes et Mini&s;tros integros e&s;&s;e.</HI> And in his Book, <HI>de Lap&s;is. Non in Sacerdotibus Re|ligio devota, non in Ministris fides integra,</HI> with divers other In&s;tances of the &s;ame Nature, collected by <HI>Blondel,</HI> pag. 43. Now from hence to infer, that S. <HI>Cyprian</HI> knew but two Orders, though in every Page of his Writings he mentions three, is, as I take it, an Inference &s;omewhat too bold, e&s;pecially when in the chief pa&s;&s;age here alledged by him, St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> expre&s;ly &s;ubdivides the Sacerdotal Order into Bi|&s;hop and Presbyter. <HI>Nec hoc in Epi&s;copo|rum tantum et Sacerdotum, &s;ed in Diacono|rum Ordinationibus ob&s;erva&s;&s;e Apo&s;tolos ani|madvertimus. Quod utique idcirco tam di|ligenter et caut&egrave; convocat&acirc; plebe tot&acirc; gereba|tur, ne quis ad Altaris Ministerium vel ad Sacerdotalem locum obreperet.</HI> Where he expre&s;ly di&s;tingui&s;hes the Mini&s;terial from the Sacerdotal Office, and divides the Sa|cerdotal, between the Bi&s;hop and Presby|ter
<PB N="46" REF="28"> or Prie&s;t &s;trictly &s;o called. Let us but barr <HI>Blondel</HI> this litle Piece of di&s;ingenui|ty, to infer not only again&s;t all the Laws of Logick but of Arithmetick, and there is a full An&s;wer to his Voluminous Apolo|gie.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="4" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. IV.</HEAD>
<P>This then being the State of the Church under the Apo&s;tles, the next thing to be inquir'd into is, in what condition they left it, whether they bequeath'd their Apo&s;tolical Authority to &s;ingle Per&s;ons, or let it fall (like Gavel-kind E&s;tates) to be equally divided among the whole Body of Presbyters, without any Superiority of one above another. For there we are wi&s;ely told, lies the Seat of the Contro|ver&s;y. <HI>Whether the Apo&s;tles upon their with-drawing from the Government of Chur|ches, did Sub&s;titute &s;ingle Per&s;ons to &s;ucceed them; and if that could be made appear, all other things would &s;peedily follow.</HI></P>
<P>But what if it cannot? It is, they &s;ay, then evident that they left it to the whole Body of the Presbyters without any Supe|rior over them. But what is that Evi|dence? Do we find any Record that the Church was &s;o govern'd after the Apo|&s;tles? No, but it was &s;o for &s;ome time: But who knows that time? It was that unknown interval of Time, next and im|mediately after the Apo&s;tles; Was it &s;o?
<PB N="47" REF="28"> then no man living knows any &s;uch time, and then there was none, for what is to us utterly unknown is to us utterly no|thing. But how long did this unknown time continue? Why about 35 years, not 40. Then that was not time enough to give them Title by Pre&s;cription. But how do we know that it la&s;ted &s;o long and no longer? <HI>Blondel</HI> and <HI>Salma&s;ius</HI> &s;ay &s;o. What proof have they of it? They have Arguments for it <HI>ex intimo Antiquitatis &s;inu.</HI> But what are they? That is as unknown as the unknown time it &s;elf. Why then do they &s;o po&s;itively affirm it? Becau&s;e they are Prebyterians of the right Stamp, and therefore &s;worn and implaca|ble Enemies to the true Primitive Chri&s;ti|anity. But who alter'd this Form of Go|vernment, and where? If you ask who, that is as much in the Dark as the un|known time: If where, the An&s;wer is rea|dy, All the World over. What did all the World meet in one place? Then that's the place: If they did not, how could they agree all at once, to make this Univer&s;al Change? So that we are as much at a lo&s;s, <HI>Where</HI> all this World lyes, as <HI>When</HI> this unknown time was. But why did they aboli&s;h Presbyterian Parity, and &s;et up Epi&s;copal Superiority? to prevent Schi&s;ms. What then, could they not do it them|&s;elves?
<PB N="48" REF="29"> No, &s;aith St. <HI>Jerom,</HI> by the work|ing of the Devil among the Presbyters, they found it impo&s;&s;ible. And &s;o it is plain to common &s;en&s;e, that it was with|out the interpo&s;ition of the Devil, if we only con&s;ider the Pa&s;&s;ions of Humane Na|ture, and if ever the Presbyters &s;hould fall out among them&s;elves (a thing not to be avoided among Equals) every man might perpetuate the Quarrel for ever, by Ordaining as many Presbyters as he plea|&s;ed to encrea&s;e his own Faction. From hence then it follows,</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, That it is impo&s;&s;ible to govern the Chri&s;tian Church without Bi&s;hops.</P>
<P>Secondly, That the Presbyterians them|&s;elves were the fir&s;t Authors of Epi&s;copa|cy becau&s;e they found them&s;elves unable to pre&s;erve peace in the Church without it.</P>
<P>Thirdly, That the Apo&s;tles made no &s;ufficient provi&s;ion for it, but left it ex|po&s;ed to numberle&s;s Schi&s;ms and Divi&s;ions, as many as there are Presbyters in the World.</P>
<P>Fourthly, That though the Govern|ment of the Church was left by our Savi|our and his Apo&s;tles, to the Presbyters in common, yet it was never &s;ettled upon them by any Grant or In&s;titution, and then be&s;ide that they have no Autho|rity becau&s;e no Commi&s;&s;ion, what need
<PB N="49" REF="29"> of all this fury and clamour for the re&s;ti|tution of a form of Government, as if it &s;tood upon Divine Right, when it is con|fe&s;&s;ed, that it was meerly ca&s;ual, and had no Authority either from our Saviour or his Apo&s;tles. And what if Epi&s;copacy it &s;elf were not e&s;tabli&s;ht by Divine Right, yet &s;eeing no other Form was, to what purpo&s;e do men rai&s;e &s;o many Tumults a|gain&s;t it, as Antichri&s;tian, upon <HI>Blondel</HI>'s own Principles? if there be no good in it, yet there is no harm; if we are not obli|ged to &s;et it up, &s;o neither are we to pull it down. And therefore why &s;hould he begin his Apology &s;o Tragically, by com|paring the Introduction of Epi&s;copacy with the Primitive Antichri&s;ts, and the Here|ticks that denyed our Saviour's very In|carnation, when if it was not a Divine In&s;titution it &s;elf, it is yet confe&s;&s;ed by the whole de&s;ign of the Apology, that it did not thru&s;t out any thing that was, and then at wor&s;t it is but an indifferent thing.</P>
<P>Fifthly, That the Presbyterian Govern|ment is &s;o far from being grounded upon any Divine In&s;titution, that it had its be|ginning meerly from Apo&s;tolical negli|gence and &s;tupidity.</P>
<P>Sixthly, That it was quickly found &s;o extremely ab&s;urd, that they that &s;et it up
<PB N="50" REF="30"> were them&s;elves forc'd by woful Experi|ence to lay it a&s;ide every where in le&s;s than Forty years Tryal. And now if they can &s;atisfie them&s;elves in this Apology <HI>Pro &s;ententi&acirc; Hieronymi</HI> (and it is all that ei|ther him&s;elf or <HI>Blondel</HI> makes) they are happy men, and long may they enjoy the plea&s;ure of their opinion.</P>
<P>And yet after all the&s;e Surmi&s;es of an unknown Time, unknown Place, unknown Per&s;ons, they are all known to be noto|riou&s;ly fal&s;e. In that it is mo&s;t certainly known that there was no &s;uch devolution as St. <HI>Jerom</HI> dreams of, but that they appointed &s;ingle Per&s;ons to &s;ucceed them in the Government of all the known Churches in the World. As for the Su|periority of <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus</HI> over the Presbyters in the Churches of <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> and <HI>Creet,</HI> upon St. <HI>Paul</HI>'s leaving of tho&s;e Ea&s;tern Parts of the World to plant new Churches in the We&s;t; it is &s;o evident from the Scriptures them&s;elves, that it is a &s;hame to go about to prove it, but into|lerable impudence to deny it. For as it is certain that the Apo&s;tle appointed the&s;e &s;ingle Per&s;ons to pre&s;ide over tho&s;e Chur|ches, &s;o is it, that there were Presbyters already &s;ettled there, or to be &s;ettled by them. Now if the Churches were go|vern'd by a Common Council of meer
<PB N="51" REF="30"> Presbyters, to what purpo&s;e was it to give a particular Commi&s;&s;ion to a &s;ingle Per&s;on for its Government, if he were no more than every ordinary Presbyter. And therefore &s;uch a Commi&s;&s;ion to one over a Church, in which were already a num|ber of Presbyters, is plainly to ve&s;t a pe|culiar Authority in him di&s;tinct from, and &s;uperiour to that of the Presbyters.</P>
<P>Thus for Example, when St. <HI>Paul</HI> left <HI>Timothy</HI> at <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> where was already a number of Presbyters, as our Adver&s;aries prove from the Apo&s;tle's Summoning them to <HI>Miletus,</HI> unle&s;s there were &s;ome Power in <HI>Timothy</HI> more than in a Presby|ter, to what purpo&s;e &s;hould St. <HI>Paul</HI> be|&s;eech him &s;o earne&s;tly to abide in a Church, that was already furni&s;hed with &s;uch a number of Presbyters? To what purpo&s;e &s;hould he give him, and him alone &s;o ma|ny in&s;tructions for the right exerci&s;e of his Government, when him&s;elf was but an Atom of the whole Body? To what purpo&s;e &s;hould he advi&s;e him in particular not to receive an Accu&s;ation again&s;t a Presbyter, unle&s;s atte&s;ted by two or three Witne&s;&s;es? For if him&s;elf were no more than a &s;ingle Presbyter, what had he to do to judge his fellow Presbyter? La&s;tly, if the Power of the Church was in the Body of the Presbyters, why is all the Advice
<PB N="52" REF="31"> for its due management given to a &s;ingle Per&s;on? and not to the Presbytery? So evident is it that there were Presbyteries &s;etled by the Apo&s;tles them&s;elves in tho&s;e very Churches over which they appoin|ted &s;ingle Governours. And &s;o much do our zealous Adver&s;aries gain in finding out &s;o many Presbyteries in Scripture without a Bi&s;hop, when it is &s;o clear that the Apo&s;tles not only pre&s;ided over them them&s;elves, but that they appointed others to do &s;o after them, which is apparently to ve&s;t the Supreme Government in a &s;in|gle Per&s;on above the Common-Council of Presbyters: But what can be more clearly atte&s;ted than the uninterrupted Succe&s;&s;ion of Bi&s;hops in the greate&s;t Churches from the Apo&s;tles them&s;elves? Do not all the Ancients by this undeniable Principle pre|&s;cribe again&s;t Hereticks, and demon&s;trate the certain conveyance of the Orthodox Faith? Hath not <HI>Irenaeus</HI> for that very <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>lib.</HI> 3. <HI>cap.</HI> 3.</NOTE> rea&s;on given us an exact Catalogue of the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome,</HI> down from the Apo&s;tles to his own time; and doth not he imme|diately after tell us that <HI>Polycarp,</HI> with whom he was acquainted, was made Bi|&s;hop of <HI>Smyrna</HI> by the Apo&s;tles? And what was the Office of a Bi&s;hop, as di&s;tinct from that of a Presbyter, him&s;elf very well knew, who was fir&s;t a Presbyter, and then
<PB N="53" REF="31"> a Bi&s;hop. Doth not <HI>Tertullian</HI> make the &s;ame Challenge for &s;everal Apo&s;tolical <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>De prae&s;crip. c.</HI> 32. <HI>&amp;</HI> 36.</NOTE> Churches, and he too very well knew the difference, being him&s;elf a Presbyter, but never a Bi&s;hop? Hath not <HI>Hege&s;ippus</HI> gi|ven <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Eu&s;eb. l.</HI> 4. <HI>cap.</HI> 22.</NOTE> us an account of &s;everal Succe&s;&s;ions; Who, as he was a very Ancient Writer, &s;o he liv'd after the time in which the di|&s;tinction of the Names of Bi&s;hop and Presbyter was made. The Succe&s;&s;ion at <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> I have already prov'd. As for that of <HI>Antioch</HI> from St. <HI>Peter,</HI> be&s;ide the unanimous Te&s;timony of the Ancients I hope I need not prove that <HI>Ignatius</HI> was no Presbyterian. The Succe&s;&s;ion of the Church of <HI>Alexandria</HI> from St. <HI>Mark</HI> is &s;o clear that I do not know that it was ever que&s;tion'd, and it is particularly a&s;&s;erted by St. <HI>Jerom</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Eu&s;eb. l.</HI> 4. <HI>cap.</HI> 23.</NOTE> him&s;elf. And la&s;tly, <HI>Diony&s;ius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Co|rinth,</HI> a learned and an early Writer of the &s;ame Age with <HI>Hege&s;ippus,</HI> hath de&s;cribed the Succe&s;&s;ion at <HI>Athens</HI> from <HI>Diony&s;ius</HI> the <HI>Aropagite.</HI> Now I would fain know what better Te&s;timony men would have for a matter of Fact. The Witne&s;&s;es are of un&s;potted Credit, they give their Evi|dence in the face of their Enemies. They appeal to the undoubted Records of the Churches them&s;elves, they lived near e|nough to the time of the Apo&s;tles, to be &s;ufficient Witne&s;&s;es of their own know|ledge,
<PB N="54" REF="32"> and that which is mo&s;t con&s;iderable of all is, that they liv'd after the di&s;tincti|on between the Names of Bi&s;hop and Pres|byter, and as often as they have Occa&s;ion to mention them, &s;peak of them as di&s;tinct Offices, and therefore by their Succe&s;&s;ion of Bi&s;hops from the Apo&s;tles, they could mean nothing but true and proper Bi|&s;hops.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="5" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. V.</HEAD>
<P>And it is very ob&s;ervable that the Community of the Names Bi&s;hop and Presbyter was proper to the Apo&s;tolical times, while the Apo&s;tles them&s;elves kept the greate&s;t part of the Epi&s;copal Autho|rity in their own hands: but as &s;oon as they were withdrawn, and &s;o the Name of an Apo&s;tle began to be laid a&s;ide, the Name of Bi&s;hop was appropriated to their Succe&s;&s;ors in their Supremacy. So that we find not one Writer after the Apo&s;tles time (unle&s;s po&s;&s;ibly St. <HI>Clement</HI> and St. <HI>Polycarp</HI> may be doubted, of which after|ward) that doth not very carefully di&s;tin|gui&s;h the Names of Bi&s;hop and Presbyter, the one as peculiarly appertaining to the Supreme Order, the other as to the In|feriour, &s;o as never to give the Name of Bi&s;hop to a Presbyter, or of a Presbyter to a Bi&s;hop. And that's a clear demon|&s;tration, that as there was an imparity in
<PB N="55" REF="32"> Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Officers during the Apo&s;tles time, &s;o there was ever after, and that when their next Succe&s;&s;ors could not be properly &s;tiled Apo&s;tles, the word Bi&s;hop was appropriated to them, to expre&s;s their Order as di&s;tinct from, and &s;uperiour to the Presbyters. I know indeed that <HI>Blondel, Salma&s;ius,</HI> and <HI>Daill&egrave;</HI> that <HI>Geneva</HI> Trium|virate or Confederacy for the Subver&s;ion of the Ancient State of the Chri&s;tian Church, have after their u&s;ual manner rak'd together va&s;t heaps of In&s;tances out of the Writers of the two fir&s;t Ages, in which the Name <HI>Presbyter</HI> is applied to Bi&s;hops, but they all depend upon one &s;mall Quibble, or Equivocal Sence of the word, as it &s;ometime &s;ignifies <HI>Age,</HI> and &s;ometime <HI>Office:</HI> For there is not one in|&s;tance in which they give the Title of a Presbyter to a Bi&s;hop of their own time, and whenever they &s;peak of them, appro|priate it to &s;ubordinate Presbyters, to ex|pre&s;s their di&s;tinction from Bi&s;hops; but when they &s;peak of Bi&s;hops of former times, they give them &s;ometime the Ap|pellation of <HI>Presbyters,</HI> as it is equivalent with that of <HI>Ancients,</HI> and &s;ignifies not their Office, but their Antiquity in the Church, and &s;o might be given not only to all Orders of the Clergy, but to the Laity, and the whole Body of Chri&s;tians,
<PB N="56" REF="33"> by whom the Apo&s;tolical Tradition was any way conveyed down to After-ages. And it was upon that Occa&s;ion that they u&s;ed this word, to &s;hew the certainty of the Conveyance of the true Chri&s;tian Do|ctrine from the Apo&s;tles, in that they re|ceived it from the <HI>Ancients</HI> that received it from them; in this Sence, and in this onely do they u&s;e the Word, as it denotes not their Office but their Age. This one &s;hort ob&s;ervation is a clear An&s;wer to all their voluminous heaps of Collections, that though they make a great &s;hew to the ignorant with the length of their Train, yet they all run upon this poor and dull mi&s;take, as will appear more fully when we come to the particulars. In the mean time it is enough to our pre|&s;ent purpo&s;e, that the Epi&s;copal Succe&s;&s;ion to the Apo&s;tles is &s;o unan&s;werably prov'd, and atte&s;ted by the mo&s;t Ancient Writers of the Church, and that without Ambi|guity or Equivocation in their words.</P>
<P>And indeed this is &s;o plain, not only as to the Name but the Thing, that our fier|ce&s;t Adver&s;aries cannot but often confe&s;s <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 7.</NOTE> it, even the mighty <HI>Walo</HI> him&s;elf &s;tates the Que&s;ti|on <NOTE PLACE="marg">Rem e&s;&s;e Antiqui&s;&s;imam ut duo hi ordines in Eccle&s;i&acirc; fuerint di|stincti, Epi&s;coporum &amp; Presbyte|rorum, &s;i excipiantur Apo&s;tolica tempora.</NOTE> thus, That there was a real di&s;tinction between Bi&s;hops and Presbyters in
<PB N="57" REF="33"> the mo&s;t ancient Ages of the Church, ex|cepting only the very time of the Apo&s;tles. And if &s;o, then was it in all Ages of the Church, when it is undeniable that the Apo&s;tles challeng'd a Superiority them|&s;elves during their own time, and <HI>Walo</HI> confe&s;&s;es that the Bi&s;hops exerci&s;ed the &s;ame in all Ages after them. And that certainly is enough (if any proof can be &s;o) again&s;t the Presbyterian Pari|ty.</P>
<P>And yet I would not make any Advan|tage of this Confe&s;&s;ion, for that were only to convince one man, who is long &s;ince pa&s;t it, and to &s;ay truth was never capable of it, but for the undeniable Proof of the matter of Fact it &s;elf; in that the mo&s;t in|qui&s;itive Searchers in this Argument are forc'd to confe&s;s, that there is no in&s;tance in all Antiquity of any &s;etled Church, without a Superiour and Subordinate Cler|gy, be&s;ide Deacons; and if that be evident, it is no matter what they plead be&s;ide, but e&s;pecially as to St. <HI>Jerom</HI>'s unknown time, for be&s;ide that there was no &s;uch time; that any man knows of, &s;o is it a flat Contradiction to what all men know, and our Adver&s;aries confe&s;s, that in all Ages of the Church there was a Superiority of &s;ome above others, <HI>i. e.</HI> of the Apo&s;tles, in their time, and of the Bi&s;hops in all
<PB N="58" REF="34"> times except the Apo&s;tles, and if &s;o, then always.</P>
<P>And in this St. <HI>Jerom</HI> him&s;elf is as un|happy as any of his pretended followers, for when he hath, in ha&s;te, refer'd the Original of Epi&s;copal Superiority to an unknown Interval, &s;ometime after the A|po&s;tles, yet he derives the Cu&s;tom at <HI>A|lexandria,</HI> where the Presbyters make their own Bi&s;hop, (but yet a proper Bi|&s;hop) from the death of St. <HI>Mark,</HI> who yet according to his own account, dyed <NOTE PLACE="marg">In Catal. Scriptorum.</NOTE> before almo&s;t all the Apo&s;tles, and near forty years before St. <HI>John,</HI> &s;uffering in the Eighth year of <HI>Nero.</HI> Now though the&s;e are the two greate&s;t pa&s;&s;ages alledged a|gain&s;t Epi&s;copacy, they are very recon|cileable with each other. And in his ve|ry Epi&s;tle to <HI>Evagrius,</HI> he expre&s;ly calls the three Orders of the Clergy Bi&s;hop, Prie&s;t, and Deacon an Apo&s;tolical Tradi|tion, as &s;etled by the Apo&s;tles them&s;elves, particularly at <HI>Rome, Jeru&s;alem,</HI> and <HI>An|tioch.</HI> And yet notwith&s;tanding that St. <HI>Jerom</HI> hath thus clearly demon&s;trated the fal&s;hood and vanity of his own &s;urmi&s;e of an unknown Interval, by &s;hewing that there could be no &s;uch time from the known Records of the Church, that atte&s;t the Succe&s;&s;ion of &s;ingle Bi&s;hops from the Apo&s;tles them&s;elves, yet for all that his
<PB N="59" REF="34"> pretended followers will keep to their dark and blind Age next after the Apo|&s;tles, and though them&s;elves agree that it la&s;ted not above 40 years at mo&s;t, about or before which time began the In&s;tituti|on of Epi&s;copal Superiority in all Chri&s;ti|an Churches, yet are they &s;o prepo&s;te|rous in their Zeal, as to go about to prove the Presbyterian Parity, for divers follow|ing Ages, from the Te&s;timony of the Wri|ters that lived in them; which, be&s;ide that it is notoriou&s;ly fal&s;e, it is a gro&s;s af|front both to St. <HI>Jerom</HI> and them&s;elves, when they have limited the Presbyterian Parity to the fir&s;t Age after the Apo&s;tles, after that to derive it down thorough all following Ages. And yet this they have labour'd with va&s;t pains, and with down|right violence haled in all the Fathers to the Patronage of their Cau&s;e, expre&s;ly a|gain&s;t their own Sence. The In&s;tances of this in <HI>Blondel, Walo,</HI> and <HI>Daill&egrave;</HI> are all a|long &s;o &s;candalous that I once thought it a &s;hame to encounter them, and for that rea|&s;on pa&s;&s;ed them over in treating of this Argument, but becau&s;e I find them urg'd with &s;o much Confidence by our re&s;tle&s;s <HI>Smectymnuans</HI> at home, only to abu&s;e their ignorant followers (who poor Creatures are no doubt very competent Judges of their Truth or Fal&s;hood) I &s;hall let them
<PB N="60" REF="35"> &s;ee the integrity of their Leaders, in &s;e|ducing them not onely into an open Schi&s;m, but an irreconcileable Apo&s;tacy from the State of the whole Chri&s;tian Church in all Ages, with the mo&s;t perver&s;e and palpable fal&s;hoods. And I find they will never &s;uffer us to enjoy Quiet and Peace at home, till we have rifled the <HI>Blon|dellian, Wallonian</HI> and <HI>Daille&aacute;n</HI> Magazins, out of whom they upon all Occa&s;ions of Di&s;turbance, furni&s;h them&s;elves with all their Pretence and Shew of Learning a|gain&s;t the Church; and that is all that they do in defence of their Cau&s;e, to tran|&s;cribe Citations out of them, but chiefly <HI>Blondel,</HI> who indeed is the Father of them all, for <HI>Walo</HI> is &s;uch a confu&s;ed, wandring and immethodical Writer, that few regard him, though, as to &s;ub&s;tance, his Writings are the &s;ame with <HI>Blondel</HI>'s; and <HI>Daill&egrave;</HI> does little more than follow them both, unle&s;s that now and then he forrage to fetch in a new Quotation; and therefore I &s;hall keep clo&s;e to <HI>Blondel,</HI> to whom if we refer the &s;everal concurrent Pa&s;&s;ages of the other two, it will appear that all the Books again&s;t Epi&s;copacy are but one, and that is <HI>Blondel</HI>'s, and how wi&s;e an one that is, let the World farther judge from the en&s;uing Animadver&s;ions.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="6" TYPE="section">
<PB N="61" REF="35">
<HEAD>&sect;. VI.</HEAD>
<P>And fir&s;t as for St. <HI>Clement</HI> of <HI>Rome,</HI> his Ca&s;e is the &s;ame with that of the Apo&s;tles, and the &s;ame Account that hath been given of the Sence of their Wri|tings in this Controver&s;ie, is to be given of his; for being an Apo&s;tolical man, and conver&s;ant with the Apo&s;tles, no wonder if he expre&s;s him&s;elf in their Language, and therefore he &s;ometimes de&s;cribes the whole Body of the Clergy by two Orders, one Mini&s;terial, the other Sacerdotal, as it was in the Jewi&s;h Hierarchy; but whe|ther there were an equality of all in the Sacerdotal Order, or whether a Superiori|ty of &s;ome above others, cannot be col|lected from the &s;ignification of the word it &s;elf, becau&s;e it &s;ignifies any kind or de|gree of Authority; and therefore how many degrees &s;oever there might be of Ruling Clergy, it equally comprehends them all within its &s;ignification, though him&s;elf reckons up two Orders as &s;uperi|our to Deacons, and that is enough. And yet out of this &s;mall Epi&s;tle what heaps of Inferences hath <HI>Blondel</HI> rak'd for his <NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 9. <HI>Daill&egrave;</HI> p. 394.</NOTE> Presbyterian Parity? And fir&s;t he argues very &s;hrewdly from its In&s;cription, <HI>The Church of</HI> Rome <HI>to the Church of</HI> Corinth. From whence it follows that &s;eeing there is no mention of the Clergy of either
<PB N="62" REF="36"> Church as di&s;tinct from the People, that they were govern'd by a Common Coun|cil of Rulers. But if any thing could fol|low from hence, it is that there were no Clergy at all, but that the Church was govern'd meerly by the People without any other Rulers, &s;o that it takes away his <HI>Common-Council,</HI> as well as our &s;ingle Bi&s;hop. But what would the&s;e men con|clude that St. <HI>Clement</HI> was not Author of this Epi&s;tle? Of that we have the &s;ame certainty as of the Epi&s;tle it &s;elf. Or that becau&s;e he drew it up in the name of his Church he was not their Bi&s;hop? If there were any Logick in the inference, as there is none, yet it will not do again&s;t Evi|dence of Fact, in that we have as much certainty that <HI>Clement</HI> was Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> as that there was then a Church of <HI>Rome.</HI> All the mo&s;t Ancient Writers of the Church, <HI>Ignatius, Hege&s;ippus, Irenaeus,</HI> &s;ti|ling him particular Bi&s;hop of that place; Writers that di&s;tingui&s;h'd a Bi&s;hop from a Presbyter, and never u&s;e the word, but of one as &s;uperior to Presbyters. Parti|cularly <HI>Irenaeus</HI> affirms in expre&s;s words, That <HI>Clement</HI> was Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> when <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>lib.</HI> 3. <HI>cap.</HI> 3.</NOTE> he wrote this Epi&s;tle, and that he &s;ucceed|ed to the Apo&s;tles in his Bi&s;hoprick; and therefore he was a proper Bi&s;hop, as &s;upe|riour to Prie&s;ts and Deacons, for that was
<PB N="63" REF="36"> the only u&s;e of the word in <HI>Irenaeus</HI>'s time, who him&s;elf was fir&s;t Presbyter, and then Bi&s;hop of the Church of <HI>Lyons;</HI> and there|fore when he avers that St. <HI>Clement</HI> was appointed Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> by the Apo&s;tles, he is to be under&s;tood in his own Sence, as &s;uperiour to Presbyters, &s;uch as him&s;elf was when advanc'd from the Presbytery into the Epi&s;copal Throne. So clear an in&s;tance is this Epi&s;tle of the Succe&s;sion of Bi&s;hops to the Apo&s;tolical Supremacy. <HI>But why did he write not in his own but his Churches Name?</HI> Though the Que&s;tion be very impertinent, to demand the rea&s;on of another man's actions at &s;o great a di|&s;tance of time, yet there is an ea&s;ie and an obvious Account to be given of it, <HI>viz:</HI> That addre&s;&s;ing this Exhortation to the factious Party of the People again&s;t the Clergy, he might not think it &s;o proper at fir&s;t to make u&s;e of his own Epi&s;copal Authority, but rather with all gentlene&s;s and Brotherly love to per&s;wade them in the name of the whole Church to recon|cile them&s;elves to their Pa&s;tors. For this coming from the People, it would more effectually move, and in a manner up|braid them to compliance and humility. And &s;o it prov'd, for &s;o <HI>Hege&s;ippus</HI> informs <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Eu&s;eb. l.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 22.</NOTE> us, That from that time forward the Church of <HI>Corinth</HI> continued in the right
<PB N="64" REF="37"> Faith, till the time of <HI>Primus</HI> their Bi&s;hop, with whom in his Voyage to <HI>Rome</HI> he conver&s;ed many days at <HI>Corinth,</HI> and &s;o from him under&s;tood the true &s;tate of that Church.</P>
<P>But the demon&s;trative Pa&s;&s;age in this Epi&s;tle is this, <HI>That the Apo&s;tles Preaching the Word thorow divers Country's and Ci|ties, Ordained every where the fir&s;t fruits of &s;uch as believ'd, having made Proof and Tryal of them by the Spirit, to be Over&s;eers and Deacons to minister to them that &s;hould afterwards believe. And this</HI> (&s;ays he) <HI>they did, becau&s;e they under&s;tood from our Lord, that Strife and Contention would ari&s;e about Epi&s;copacy, and therefore having ab&s;olute knowledg before hand thereof, they appointed the Per&s;ons before-mention'd into that Office, with this in&s;truction, That as &s;ome dyed, others well approv'd &s;hould be cho&s;en into their Mini&s;tery.</HI> Very well! for if the Apo&s;tles fore&s;eeing that there would ari&s;e Schi&s;ms and Di&s;&s;entions in the Church about the Government or Epi&s;copacy of it, took particular Care to &s;ettle Gover|nors over the Churches of their own Con|ver&s;ion for the prevention of that Mi&s;|chief, and withal ve&s;ted any of them with the &s;ame Power that them&s;elves had exer|ci&s;ed, to appoint their Succe&s;&s;ors, as the Apo&s;tles had appointed them, to all future
<PB N="65" REF="37"> Ages of the Church. In the fir&s;t place, what could be more peremptorily ex|pre&s;s'd to contradict St. <HI>Jerom</HI>'s Dream, That the Government of the Church naturally fell into the Presbyters hands, becau&s;e the Apo&s;tles had taken no Care for its Settlement after their own time? Whereas it is here po&s;itively averr'd by this Apo&s;tolical Man, that they were &s;o far from being guilty of &s;uch a &s;tupid negligence, that they took particular Care to &s;ettle its Government for all After-Ages, as fore&s;eeing how impo&s;&s;ible it would be to prevent everla&s;ting Schi&s;ms and Factions about it, if it had bin left unde|termin'd and expos'd to every one that would challenge it. And the truth is, if they &s;hould not have had &s;o much in&s;ight into the nature of things, as to fore&s;ee that there would have bin no End of Con|tention about Government, whil&s;t it was left in common, all the World would have condemn'd them of unpardonable Stupi|dity; So that the Wi&s;dom of the Church which St. <HI>Jerome</HI> imputes to the experi|ence of tho&s;e that follow'd, is by this Apo|&s;tolical Man plainly a&s;crib'd to the fore|&s;ight of the Apo&s;tles, and tho&s;e that went before; So clear a Barr is this Epi&s;tle to the Claim of <HI>Presbyterian</HI> Devolution, and &s;o is it to the Peoples Right of electing
<PB N="66" REF="38"> their Officers, as the <HI>Independents</HI> plead, when it is evident that the Apo&s;tles left it not to their choice, but &s;et &s;uch Officers over them as them&s;elv's liked and ap|prov'd of.</P>
<P>Secondly, if the Apo&s;tles receiv'd their Power from Chri&s;t, as Chri&s;t did his from God, (for &s;o St. <HI>Clement</HI> affirms) and in pur&s;uance of his Divine In&s;titution ap|pointed Officers in the Church with this In&s;truction, That they &s;hould appoint others to &s;ucceed them in their Office, and &s;o downward thro all Ages of the Church, What can be more evident, than that they left the &s;ame Supreme Autho|rity, wherewith they were endued, ap|pointing Rulers in the Church to &s;ucceed them&s;elv's, as they &s;ucceeded our Savior? For as <HI>Blondel</HI> ob&s;erves, the form of Ec|cle&s;ia&s;tical <NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 11.</NOTE> Government was never altered by the Apo&s;tles; So that if they them|&s;elv's were ve&s;ted with a Supremacy of Power in the Church, they conveyed the &s;ame Power to their Succe&s;&s;ors, becaus the Power of Government wherewith they were immediately endued by our Sa|vior, was to continue for ever.</P>
<P>But <HI>Blondel</HI> never thinks he hath Infe|rence enough, and therefore after he hath drawn Presbytery out of this Epi&s;tle, he proceeds in the next place to bring forth
<PB N="67" REF="38"> Independency. <HI>Viz.</HI> That the Officers of the Church when ever there was any Competition, were appointed by the Peo|ple. That is becaus they were appointed by the Apo&s;tles them&s;elv's, for &s;o St. <HI>Cle|ment</HI> tells us they were, to prevent the Contentions that might ari&s;e about their Election, if they had not &s;ettled it by their own Authority. So that the Inference is this, That <HI>Clement</HI> affirms that the Apo|&s;tles left not the Choice of Officers to the People, therefore &s;ayes <HI>Blondel</HI> they left it to the Choice of the People. And that is a very fair Inference; but the mo&s;t plea|&s;ant of all is, that the Presbyters took Place according to Seniority, and &s;o the Elde&s;t Presbyter pre&s;ided in all De|bates and Councils, becau&s;e the Apo&s;tles appointed the <HI>fir&s;t fruits</HI> of their Conver|&s;ion to be Officers in the Church; as if every one that was fir&s;t Converted had a Right to it, or as if all their fir&s;t fruits had bin made Church-Officers, when St. <HI>Cle|ment</HI> tells us that they cho&s;e &s;uch out of them, as they judged fitte&s;t for the Work. And therefore <HI>Blondel</HI> him&s;elf cautiou&s;ly <NOTE PLACE="marg">Pag. 10.</NOTE> adds in a Parenthe&s;is, <HI>Si modo probabiles e&s;&s;ent,</HI> and that eats up the A&s;&s;ertion; for by that they were cho&s;e not for their Se|niority, but their other Qualifications. But tho there is no foot&s;tep of any Pre&s;|byterian
<PB N="68" REF="39"> Seniority in all the Records of the Church, Yet <HI>Blondel</HI> is re&s;olv'd to have it &s;o, becaus without it he cannot avoid that Superiority that is given to Single Per&s;ons over Presbyteries in all Churches; And therefore there is not any one Pa&s;&s;age that he hath alledg'd out of the Fathers to which he hath not tack'd this Conclu&s;ion, tho it &s;ounds no more towards it, than that in the Beginning God Created the Heaven and Earth.</P>
<P>And yet this Story of Succe&s;&s;ion by meer Seniority, as ungrounded as it is, is the third Fundamental Article of the <HI>Pre&s;|byterian</HI> Cau&s;e; for next to St. <HI>Jerom</HI>'s un|known Interval, and the Equivalency of the words <HI>Bi&s;hop</HI> and <HI>Presbyter</HI> in the Apo&s;tolical Age, this Fable of &s;ucceeding in Pre&s;idency over the Colledg of Pre&s;|byters only by right of Seniority, is mo&s;t clamorou&s;ly in&s;i&s;ted upon by the <HI>French</HI> Brethren. <HI>Walo</HI> is very fierce and vehe|ment <NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 206, 273. <HI>Praefat.</HI> p. 7.</NOTE> in its Pur&s;uit; but <HI>Blondel</HI> lays it for the very Foundation of his whole di&s;|cour&s;e, and declares at the beginning of his Undertaking, That without its Suppo|&s;ition there is no under&s;tanding the State or Records of the Primitive Church; but that being once granted, it clears all diffi|culties that occur in Church Hi&s;tory. And therefore he does not only lay down this
<PB N="69" REF="39"> <HI>Hypothe&s;is fundamenti loco</HI> (as he expre&s;&s;es it) as a Foundation of his whole work, but he withal lays his Foundation <HI>incon|cu&s;&s;is firmamentis,</HI> upon everla&s;ting Pillars. And therefore partly becau&s;e of his great confidence, but chiefly becau&s;e 'tis his main &s;hift to elude the Argument of Suc|ce&s;&s;ion by &s;ingle Per&s;ons; it having here fallen in my way, I &s;hall once for all con|&s;ider it, that I may avoid the tedious im|pertinency that he has fallen into, of repeating it afre&s;h upon every Citati|on.</P>
<P>And in the fir&s;t place this being the great Foundation, and &s;tanding upon the Pillars of the Earth, one would expect that the Man has at lea&s;t &s;ome plau&s;ible grounds to &s;upport both that and the weight of his own confidence; yet when he comes to talk of nothing but Sun-&s;hine and demon&s;tration, his whole di&s;cour&s;e is all dream and fiction, without &s;o much as any &s;hadow of Authority. So that he does not &s;o much as attempt to bring one Precedent to warrant his A&s;&s;ertion, no|thing but wild and remote fetches that &s;tand upon no Pillars but meer gue&s;s and empty Air. Though that which farther aggravates his confidence, is, That the Learned Je&s;uite <HI>Petavius</HI> had, to rebuke <HI>Walo</HI>'s pertne&s;s, made a publick Challenge
<PB N="70" REF="40"> to all the World, to a&s;&s;ign but any one in&s;tance of it in all the Records of the Chri&s;tian Church, and yet <HI>Blondel</HI> &s;hould undertake to refute &s;ome pa&s;&s;ages in the very &s;ame Page, without concerning him|&s;elf in the lea&s;t to take notice of &s;o bold a Challenge, but much le&s;s to an&s;wer it. Though that which wor&s;t of all enhances his di&s;ingenuity is, that he is &s;o far from producing any tolerable Precedent for his Conceit, that he begins his whole di&s;|cour&s;e with two particular in&s;tances that overthrow it, <HI>viz. Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus,</HI> in whom he confe&s;&s;es the Rule was not ob|&s;erved, and that is a very good begin|ning to lay an immoveable Foundation to prove it was. But he &s;upplies his want <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>P.</HI> 58. <HI>N.</HI> 10, <HI>&amp;c.</HI></NOTE> of Hi&s;tory with &s;trength of Argument, and in his tedious Notes upon the coun|terfeit <HI>Ambro&s;e,</HI> has fortified it on all &s;ides with Arguments fetcht from the very Bowels of Antiquity <HI>[Ex intimo remoti&s;|&s;imae Antiquitatis &s;inu repetitis]</HI> But he has drawn them forth with that force and violence, that he has rather unbowell'd then deliver'd Antiquity of its burthen. He begins with the forementioned &s;tan|ding pa&s;&s;age out of St. <HI>Clement,</HI> that the Apo&s;tles Ordain'd out of their Fir&s;t-fruits Governours of the Church. And &s;o no doubt they did, becau&s;e they had none o|ther
<PB N="71" REF="40"> to Ordain; but who could ever have believed that any man could hence con|clude that they always pitch't upon the Elde&s;t Chri&s;tian in every Church, becau&s;e they cho&s;e out of their fir&s;t Converts tho&s;e that they judged fitte&s;t for the tru&s;t. But <HI>Blondel</HI> adds, That our Saviour cho&s;e his fir&s;t Di&s;ciples to be his Apo&s;tles, and that St. <HI>Peter</HI> made a Qualification of an Apo|&s;tle to be Elected into the place of <HI>Judas,</HI> that he had conver&s;ed with our Saviour from the beginning. And very good rea|&s;on too, when the fir&s;t point of his Office then was to be a witne&s;s of his Works and Miracles; And every Child has &s;en&s;e enough to under&s;tand that St. <HI>Peter</HI> had regard to that alone in his Qualification, and not meerly to any mans age that was uncapable in it &s;elf of being any rea&s;on at all. But in the next place, St. <HI>Paul,</HI> and after him &s;everal Councils forbid <HI>Neophytes</HI> or raw Converts to be made Bi&s;hops. From whence no doubt it fol|lows of its own Accord, that therefore the mo&s;t ancient Convert had right to it by vertue of his Seniority. The&s;e are the wonderful Arguments rak't from the very Bowels of Antiquity to demon&s;trate the fix't and perpetual Ob&s;ervation of this Rule. Though who could think it po&s;|&s;ible that any man of Learning or but
<PB N="72" REF="41"> natural Sen&s;e could be &s;o bewitch't with his own folly, as to think of impo&s;ing upon the World with &s;uch intolerable tra&s;h and trifling.</P>
<P>Secondly, the time that he a&s;&s;igns for the continuance of this Cu&s;tom, <HI>viz.</HI> to the 36 year of the Second Century, is al|together precarious, and without any other ground than that it &s;uits with his own time of St. <HI>Jerom</HI>'s Alteration of Government all the World over; for that he places in the very &s;ame Interval, and upon as good Authority, that is none at all but his own. Neither is he here con|tent with a&s;&s;erting this change in general, but fixes the &s;ame time in divers particu|lar Churches. As in the Church of <HI>Jeru|&s;alem</HI> he begins the Cu&s;tom of Elections at <HI>Mark</HI> the <HI>16th</HI> Bi&s;hop of that See, and the fir&s;t Gentile that &s;at in it, in the Year 135. after the rebuilding of the City by <HI>Adrian,</HI> and when it was Inhabited only by the <HI>Gentiles.</HI> This he in&s;i&s;ts upon with mighty zeal and importunity, but does not &s;o much as attempt to prove it by any one Record, only one &s;mall argument he is very much tran&s;ported with, <HI>viz.</HI> the &s;hort time of their &s;itting, which (as he fancy's) could come to pa&s;s from no other rea&s;on than their great Age, when they came to &s;ucceed. But as it happens very
<PB N="73" REF="41"> unluckily, the Succe&s;&s;ion of Bi&s;hops after <HI>Mark</HI> is altogether as quick upon one an|other as it was before. And yet the times were then much more &s;ecure and peace|able, whereas before <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> had been for many years a publique Slaughter-hou&s;e to the <HI>Romans;</HI> the <HI>Jews</HI> upon every little Opportunity breaking out into Rebellion, and by their perpetual di&s;orders &s;o highly provoked their <HI>Roman</HI> Ma&s;ters, that they made havock of all that came in their way, without making any di&s;tinction be|tween <HI>Jew</HI> and Chri&s;tian; all Chri&s;tians at that time pa&s;&s;ing under the name of <HI>Jews.</HI> No wonder then if in &s;uch a time of Warr and Blood&s;hed (the mo&s;t de&s;tru|ctive that ever was from the Creation) any that were members of the Jewi&s;h Commonwealth met with &s;uch &s;peedy and untimely Deaths. And whereas <HI>Blondel</HI> ob&s;erves, that during all that time there was no Per&s;ecution at <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> as there was at <HI>Rome,</HI> from whence it came to pa&s;s that &s;ome of the <HI>Roman</HI> Bi&s;hops &s;at not many Months; he might withal have con&s;ider'd, That Warr, but e&s;pecially Re|bellion, are as de&s;tructive as Per&s;ecution; but mo&s;t of all &s;uch a War as this was again&s;t the <HI>Jews,</HI> that was carried on with all the keene&s;s of Outrage and Inhuma|nity. Whil&s;t they &s;laughter'd them, not
<PB N="74" REF="42"> as they conquer'd other Nations, but out of implacable hatred to the Nation it &s;elf, partly from their frequent Rebellions, and partly from their Oppo&s;ition to the E&s;ta|bli&s;h't Religion of the Empire.</P>
<P>His next in&s;tance of this Cu&s;tom is in the Church of <HI>Alexandria,</HI> and this he proves out of <HI>Eutychius;</HI> but if his Te&s;ti|mony were of any Validity, as it is of none at all, it is expre&s;ly cro&s;s to his own de&s;ign; for he affirms in peremptory terms, That the Patriarchs of <HI>Alexandria</HI> always &s;ucceeded by Election, <HI>[ut cum va|caret Patriarchatus, eligerent unum &egrave; duo|decim Presbyteris.]</HI> And yet this is the only Pa&s;&s;age that <HI>Blondel</HI> produces for Succe&s;&s;ion by meer Seniority. His other proofs of this Cu&s;tom in the Churches of <HI>Antioch, Athens</HI> and <HI>Rome,</HI> are nothing but frivolous Surmi&s;es, in that mo&s;t of them are &s;aid to have been acquainted with the Apo&s;tles, from whence he con|cludes, that they therefore &s;ucceeded by right of Seniority. But &s;uch trifles are too contemptible to be an&s;wer'd, and it is in vain to argue with men that can &s;atisfie them&s;elves with &s;uch &s;hadows of proof; for there is no cau&s;e in the World &s;o ab&s;urd, but is capable of as wi&s;e Apolo|gies as the&s;e: So that in the re&s;ult of all, Presbytery is not more expo&s;ed by any
<PB N="75" REF="42"> one thing than the meanne&s;s of its own Pleas; for if it had any thing tolerable to &s;ay in its own behalf, it would certain|ly &s;corn to conde&s;cend to &s;uch hungry and begging ways of Argumentation.</P>
<P>Thirdly, when he makes this unknown change of Cu&s;tom to have been decreed &amp; in&s;tituted by &s;olemn Council, it will be as hard to find any &s;uch Council, as it is that oecumenical one of St. <HI>Jerom,</HI> in which <HI>toto Orbe decretum e&s;t,</HI> it was agreed all the World over to &s;ettle the Church in a wi|&s;er po&s;ture of Government than the Apo|&s;tles had done. A Council that was ne|ver heard of by any man but him&s;elf, nor by him&s;elf till he had heard him&s;elf &s;ay &s;o. And it was no doubt the very &s;ame Coun|cil (for they &s;at at the &s;ame time) that made <HI>Blondel</HI>'s univer&s;al change of Suc|ce&s;&s;ion; and we find ju&s;t as much evidence of it in the ancient Records. But <HI>Blon|del,</HI> becau&s;e he will &s;ay &s;omething, it mat|ters not how awkerdly it &s;erves his turn, lays this great alteration on the great <HI>Ni|cene</HI> Council, Canon the Fourth. But ala&s;s this time came much too late for the time of this univer&s;al Alteration, it met not till the Year 325, whereas the change, according to <HI>Blondel,</HI> was made in the Year 135, long before any of the <HI>Nicene</HI> Fathers or their great Grandfathers were
<PB N="76" REF="43"> born into the World. But then &s;econdly, there is no &s;uch thing expre&s;&s;ed or any way intimated in the Canon it &s;elf, where|by it is decreed, That every Bi&s;hop &s;hall be elected by the Vote of all the Bi&s;hops of the Province, or their con&s;ent by Let|ter, and the Election to be confirm'd and approv'd of by the Metropolitan, and the Ordination to be &s;olemni&s;ed by three Bi|&s;hops at lea&s;t. What appearance here of any change from Succe&s;&s;ion by Age to that of Election? Here is not a &s;yllable of abrogating the former, nothing but a ratification of the Old Cu&s;tom and Form both of Election and Con&s;ecration. For St. <HI>Clement</HI> tells us, That the fir&s;t Bi&s;hops were cho&s;en and appointed by the Apo|&s;tles them&s;elves; And St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> a&s;&s;ures <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ep.</HI> 68.</NOTE> us that the &s;ame Cu&s;tom was ob&s;erved in his time in his own and almo&s;t all other Provinces, and that too <HI>de Traditione di|vin&acirc; &amp; Apo&s;tolic&acirc; ob&s;ervatione.</HI> So that this Canon was no new In&s;titution, but only a Confirmation of the old Apo&s;toli|cal Tradition. For whereas the &s;ame me|thod of Election and Ordination had been always and in all Churches ob&s;erved, it was of late openly violated by <HI>Meletius,</HI> who&s;e Irregular proceedings gave occa|&s;ion to the Enacting not only this but the two following Canons. For he had taken
<PB N="77" REF="43"> upon him where ever he came to appoint and ordain Bi&s;hops, Prie&s;ts and Deacons, by his own &s;ingle Authority; of which Complaint being brought to the Council, they made this Canon, to &s;top &s;o wild an Enormity. And now what does all this &s;ignifie towards proving the change of Succe&s;&s;ion by Age to that of Election?</P>
<P>Fourthly, the rea&s;on that he a&s;&s;igns of this Alteration, is a very foul reflection upon the Wi&s;dom of the Apo&s;tles and Apo|&s;tolical Church, <HI>Iniquum &s;ecundi &s;eculi fi|deles</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 8.</NOTE> <HI>cen&s;ebant, &amp;c.</HI> <Q>The Believers of the Second Age thought it unju&s;t, that they who had le&s;s gifts &s;hould have greater honour and be preferr'd before the more worthy, but that men ought to be pre|ferr'd according to their merits and abi|lities, le&s;t God &s;hould be defrauded of the u&s;e of tho&s;e Talents that he had be|&s;towed upon them for the Service of his Church.</Q> This is &s;o very good a rea&s;on, that it could be nothing but dulne&s;s and &s;tupidity in the Apo&s;tles and Chri&s;tians of the Fir&s;t Century not to ob&s;erve it. But in&s;tead thereof to have no regard to u&s;e|ful qualifications for the di&s;po&s;al of the highe&s;t Authority in the Church, and annex it meerly to old age how&s;oever unfit and unable to manage it, is &s;uch a gro&s;s|ne&s;s of folly as cannot be equall'd. And
<PB N="78" REF="44"> <HI>Blondel</HI> him&s;elf has pretty well &s;et it off <NOTE PLACE="marg">P. 17.</NOTE> in his foremention'd Account of the quick Succe&s;&s;ions of Bi&s;hops at <HI>Jeru&s;alem, Quis tam cra&s;&s;o &s;ub A&euml;re natos, &amp;c.</HI> <Q>Who can believe that the Sons of <HI>Sion</HI> breathed &s;uch dull Air, and were &s;o &s;tupidly neg|ligent of the common Edification of the Church, that pa&s;&s;ing by the more able and vigorous, they &s;hould make choice of dotards half dead, <HI>[animam mox acturos, capulares &s;enes &amp; &s;ilicernia]</HI> men altoge|ther uncapable to di&s;charge the Office of the Epi&s;copal Chair. But we &s;hall admit no ab&s;urdity, and proceed upon ju&s;t and good grounds, if (the Cu&s;tom of preferring by Seniority being in force) the ancient Church of <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> gave every one their due, and therefore would not deny the right of Seniority to any of the ancient Presbyters for their very old age. For in what condition &s;oever the &s;econd was, when the fir&s;t departed this life, if he were but <HI>compos mentis,</HI> he was not to be de&s;rauded one moment of the Prerogative due to his Age, but was to be placed in his turn in the Chair of Pre&s;idency.</Q> Now has not <HI>Blondel</HI> here made a very fair Apology for the Wi&s;dom of the Apo&s;tles, to lay the In&s;titution or at lea&s;t the Pre&s;cription of &s;o ab&s;urd and &s;otti&s;h a Cu&s;tom at their Doors, and ex|cu&s;e
<PB N="79" REF="44"> the Chri&s;tians that followed after them from the wor&s;t of folly, only be|cau&s;e they were forced to comply with a Cu&s;tom, that the Apo&s;tles had by their practice made a right in the Chri&s;tian Church? So unhappy are the&s;e men in their Apologies, as &s;till to leave the Wi&s;|dom of the Apo&s;tles in the Lurch. The <HI>Sententia Hieronymi</HI> &s;uppo&s;es them &s;o weak in their Under&s;tandings as to have le&s;t the Church in &s;uch a po&s;ture, in which it mu&s;t have been fatally de&s;troyed by Schi&s;ms; which gro&s;s defect was after|ward made up by Men that were wi&s;er than them&s;elves, and were made &s;o by the Experience of their folly. And this defence here &s;uppo&s;es them &s;o void of common &s;en&s;e, as to appoint for the Su|preme Government of the Church &s;uch Per&s;ons as in the ordinary cour&s;e of Na|ture, were of all men unfitte&s;t to under|take it, and lea&s;t able to manage it.</P>
<P>But la&s;tly, granting all that <HI>Blondel</HI> contends for, I cannot under&s;tand what he gains by it; for it gives his Pre&s;ident by Seniority all that Power that we make proper to a Bi&s;hop by Election, <HI>viz.</HI> That nothing be done without him, or as <HI>Blon|del</HI> him&s;elf expre&s;&s;es it, <HI>&V;t omnem Eccle&s;iae</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pref. p.</HI> 6.</NOTE> <HI>actum prae non &s;ine aliis gubernaret.</HI> In &s;hort, that which the Greek Canons call
<PB N="82" REF="45"> the <GAP DESC="foreign">, that Authority that was nece&s;&s;ary to give validity to every action, and after that it is not at all material to this di&s;pute to enquire after the manner of Succe&s;&s;ion; for whether they received it by Seniority or by Ele|ction, yet &s;o long as it was a Superior Power, and derived to them from the Apo&s;tles, that is all that we do or can de|mand for Epi&s;copal Superiority. <HI>Blondel</HI> indeed would intimate as if they &s;ucceeded without any &s;hadow of Precedent or Re|cord then only of <HI>Eutychius,</HI> who &s;ays that it was &s;o done at <HI>Alexandria;</HI> but he writes at random, and if he did not, is not of age enough to &s;peak for him&s;elf in a matter of &s;o great Antiquity. St. <HI>Jerom</HI> and the Counterfeit <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> &s;ay that the Bi&s;hop was always taken out of the Colledge of Presbyters, but they no where affirm that he entred upon his Office without any farther Con&s;ecration. And yet becau&s;e they expre&s;s them&s;elves only in general terms, and do not make particular mention of his Ordination, our Adver&s;aries conclude that he had none. So hardly do they deal with the Ancients when they would draw them to them to their &s;ide, as to conclude, that what|ever they do not affirm, they deny. But once for all, if they had in expre&s;s terms averr'd
<PB N="81" REF="45"> That from the time of the Apo&s;tles the Senior Presbyter &s;ucceeded a Bi&s;hop without any new Ordination, their Te|&s;timony would have been of as little Authority as the Tale of <HI>Eutychius.</HI> For they lived at too great a di&s;tance from the Apo&s;tolical Age, to know any thing of it but from more ancient Records, and there|fore their own bare Te&s;timony is here of as little weight as <HI>Blondel</HI>'s or <HI>Walo</HI>'s own affirmation upon their own Authority. For a man that lives three or four hun|dred years after a matter of fact, is as in|competent a witne&s;s of it, as he that lives fourteen, unle&s;s he can vouch it by &s;ome more ancient Te&s;timony; and then it is believed not upon his own but his Au|thor's Authority. And therefore neither St. <HI>Jerom</HI> nor the Counterfeit <HI>Ambro&s;e,</HI> nor any other that lived in the Fourth Century, ought to be regarded or tru&s;ted for any thing they &s;ay concerning things done in the Fir&s;t, when they bring no|thing to prove it but their own A&s;&s;ertion. So that if <HI>Blondel</HI> had their Te&s;timony, it would do him no &s;ervice; but when he has it not, he talks altogether without book and without authority. All the&s;e Con&s;iderations I hope are enough to &s;hew the vanity of <HI>Blondel</HI>'s Dream of Succe&s;&s;ion by Seniority; and &s;o I return
<PB N="82" REF="46"> to St. <HI>Clement,</HI> from whom <HI>Blondel</HI> has drawn me into this Digre&s;&s;ion.</P>
<P>And here the only advantagious Cir|cum&s;tance that our Innovators can have from this Epi&s;tle, is, that there was no Bi&s;hop at that time at <HI>Corinth;</HI> as from the Nature of the Schi&s;me 'tis probable there was not; for that &s;eems to have bin the bottom of it, it being made by &s;ome of the People again&s;t the Presbyters, who not having the Supreme Authority in the Church, had not &s;ufficient Power to &s;up|pre&s;s their In&s;olence. And it &s;eems to be the very &s;ame Ca&s;e that hapned in St. <HI>Paul</HI>'s time, when as the Counterfeit <HI>Am|bro&s;e</HI> (the <HI>Presbyterians</HI> Darling Author) affirms that Schi&s;ms were &s;o ea&s;ily made in the Church, by the Presbyters or the People, <HI>Quia adhuc Rectores Eccle&s;iis non omnibus locis fuerant con&s;tituti; Becaus the Governors of Churches were not as yet &s;etled in all places.</HI> The Apo&s;tles and Evangeli&s;ts not thinking fit to appoint them, till they had brought the Work to &s;ome perfection. And therefore (as I have already ob&s;erv'd) we find but few &s;etled Bi&s;hops in their own time, that Office chiefly re&s;ting in them&s;elv's, unle&s;s in the Church of <HI>Jeru|&s;alem.</HI> Which being the Mother Church of all, mu&s;t needs be brought to its due Settlement before any of its Colonies and
<PB N="83" REF="46"> Plantations. And whether as yet there had been any particular Bi&s;hop &s;et over the Church of <HI>Corinth</HI> is not to be known from Hi&s;tory. And whether there had been any, and the See were now vacant, or as yet there had been none, the &s;tate of that Church was no other then it was under St. <HI>Paul;</HI> &s;ubject to &s;ome Evange|li&s;t or Apo&s;tolical man, who took the &s;ame Epi&s;copal overfight of it, as the Apo&s;tle him&s;elf did. As <HI>Diony&s;ius</HI> at <HI>Athens, Ti|tus</HI> in <HI>Creet, Timothy</HI> at <HI>Ephe&s;us;</HI> and as we find by this Epi&s;tle <HI>Clement</HI> at <HI>Rome,</HI> who tell the Schi&s;maticks that tho&s;e very Prie&s;ts, that they had pre&s;um'd to depo&s;e from their Mini&s;try, were placed over them either by the Apo&s;tles them&s;elves, or by &s;ome other eminent Per&s;ons, &s;uch as were the Evangeli&s;ts or Secondary Apo|&s;tles; &s;o that it is evident enough, that they were &s;till under the Care of &s;ome Apo&s;tolical men. Now becau&s;e perhaps there was not a &s;etled Bi&s;hop at that time at <HI>Corinth,</HI> from thence to infer that there was then no &s;uch Order of men in the World, and that though we know the very Names of &s;everal Bi&s;hops in &s;everal Churches, &s;hews how bold men are forc'd to be with their own under&s;tandings when they will be fe'd or brib'd into the defence of a bad Cau&s;e. In &s;hort, when it is evident that
<PB N="84" REF="47"> the Apo&s;tles exerci&s;ed a Supremacy over their own Churches; when they ve&s;ted divers &s;ingle Per&s;ons with the &s;ame Pow|er, as <HI>Titus</HI> not onely over all the Chur|ches, but all the Presbyters and Deacons in the &s;everal Towns and Cites in <HI>Creet;</HI> when in the mo&s;t eminent Churches a per&s;onal Succe&s;&s;ion of Bi&s;hops from the very Apo&s;tles is Recorded; when this E|pi&s;tle is written by one who is a proper Bi&s;hop, and &s;ucceeded to an Apo&s;tle in his Bi&s;hoprick; when in his De&s;cription of the Hierarchy in the Chri&s;tian Church, he &s;pecifies three, in allu&s;ion to the three Orders of High-Prie&s;t, Prie&s;t, and Levite in the Jewi&s;h, a thing very u&s;ual with the fir&s;t Writers of the Church, even St. <HI>Jerom</HI> him&s;elf, and that in his Epi&s;tle to <HI>Evagrius, Et ut Sciamus Traditiones Apo|&s;tolicas &s;umptas de veteri Te&s;tamento, quod Aaron &amp; filii ejus &amp; Levitae in Templo fu|erunt, hoc &s;ibi Epi&s;copi &amp; Presbyteri &amp; Diaconi vendicent in Eccle&s;i&acirc;.</HI> What the High-Prie&s;t, Prie&s;ts, and Levites were in the Temple, that the Bi&s;hops, Presbyters and Deacons ought by Apo&s;tolical Con|&s;titution, following the Jewi&s;h Polity, to be in the Church. Now when after all this we do not find that there was a &s;et|led Bi&s;hop at <HI>Corinth</HI> at the time of this Schi&s;m, if men will conclude that there
<PB N="85" REF="47"> were then no Bi&s;hops in the Chri&s;tian World, they may do &s;o for their own plea&s;ure, but then I would humbly move, that they would be plea&s;ed not to impo&s;e their Conclu&s;ion upon other mens under|&s;tandings.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="7" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. VII.</HEAD>
<P>The next in order is <HI>Ignatius,</HI> but our forreign Brethren pa&s;s him by as an irreclaimable Prelate, though at home of late one makes him a rigid Presbyte|rian, another a nice Independent, a third nothing; with &s;uch mode&s;ty and integri|ty do &s;ome men deal with their Authors: For who could think it, that when St. <HI>Ig|natius</HI> doth every where &s;o expre&s;ly di|&s;tingui&s;h the three Orders of the Clergy, any man could be &s;o confident as to force him to vouch his Opinion, that allows only two: For that's the fir&s;t point of the Epi&s;copal Controver&s;ie. But the mo&s;t plea&s;ant ob&s;ervation that they &s;cratch out of him is, that the extent of Churches then reach'd not beyond <HI>Per&s;onal Communion;</HI> &s;o that every Church was no more then a &s;ingle Pari&s;h or Congregation, in which all the members of the Church might A&s;|&s;emble together; that is to &s;ay, they would have every particular Pari&s;h or Congregation in <HI>England</HI> provided with a Bi&s;hop, one Company of Presbyters, and
<PB N="86" REF="48"> another of Deacons, for that's the Church &s;tate that <HI>Ignatius</HI> de&s;cribes in all the Churches that he writes to; and there|fore having &s;o many Officers in them, it is evident that their Communion exten|ded beyond a &s;ingle Congregation: For it would have been a very &s;uperfluous thing to provide &s;uch a multitude of Of|ficers for &s;o &s;mall a company of Men. So gro&s;ly do the&s;e carele&s;s Writers, that con|tend not for truth but faction, impo&s;e both upon their Authors, and their followers, and them&s;elves. But men that have a Rabble to abu&s;e may and will &s;ay any thing.</P>
<P>As for the Authority of the Epi&s;tles them&s;elves I have nothing more to &s;ay, having prov'd that they are &s;o clear from any &s;u&s;picion of being &s;uppo&s;iticious that it is no way po&s;&s;ible they &s;hould be &s;o. And that there is not any one Writing of all the Ancients that hath been pre&s;erv'd and deliver'd down to us, by a more cer|tain and uninterrupted Tradition than the&s;e Epi&s;tles. And if &s;o, they are an un|an&s;werable Demon&s;tration of the Divine Right and Apo&s;tolical Practice of Epi&s;co|pal Superiority. Onely there remains one weighty Argument of Mon&s;ieur <HI>Da|ill&egrave;</HI>'s, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>De lib. &s;up|po&s;. lib.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 26.</NOTE> that he calls his <HI>Argumentum Palma|rium,</HI> which I have not as yet con&s;ider'd,
<PB N="87" REF="48"> and that is the con&s;tant di&s;tinct u&s;e of the names Bi&s;hop and Presbyter in the&s;e Epi&s;tles, which, &s;ays he, was never ob&s;er|ved by the Apo&s;tles, nor any Writers for the fir&s;t two hundred years. As for the Writers after the Apo&s;tles, we &s;hall &s;hew that they did as Religiou&s;ly as <HI>Ignatius</HI> him&s;elf ob&s;erve the Di&s;tinction of the Names, and then if there be any Crime in that, they are all as guilty as <HI>Ignatius.</HI> As for the Apo&s;tolical Age, it is confe&s;&s;ed, that whil&s;t the Apo&s;tolical Order conti|nued, the di&s;tinct &s;ignification of the&s;e words was not &s;etled, but was afterward introduc'd to avoid the confu&s;ion of Of|fices. Now I pray what ab&s;urdity is there in this; O yes, &s;aith <HI>Daill&egrave;,</HI> it is intole|rable, and an affront to the Apo&s;tles them|&s;elves, &s;uch a rudene&s;s as is not to be &s;up|po&s;ed in any Apo&s;tolical man, and there|fore &s;ums up his tedious Argument in this Tragical Declamation. <HI>Nunc ergo &agrave; vobis Latini, &agrave; te</HI> Hammonde <HI>quaero cur hanc Apo&s;tolici Sermonis Lucae, Pauli, Petri, Johannis &amp; Jacobi, imo Sancti Spirit&uacute;s per eos &s;cribentis u&s;u con&s;ignatam ac Con&s;ecra|tam con&s;uetudinem cari&s;&s;imus atque excellen|ti&s;&s;imus eorum (ut vos vultis) Di&s;cipulus, Suc|ce&s;&s;or, ac Filius Ignatius ita plan&egrave; penitu&s;&abque; aver&s;atus &s;it, &amp;c.</HI> <Q>And therefore now I demand of you <HI>Latines, (and &s;o he &s;tiles</HI>
<PB N="88" REF="49"> <HI>all Churches that are not of the</HI> Geneva <HI>cut)</HI> and particularly of you <HI>Hammond,</HI> why this dear, this excellent (as you &s;up|po&s;e) Di&s;ciple, Succe&s;&s;or, Son of the Apo&s;tles &s;hould dare &s;o avowedly to re|ject a form of Apo&s;tolical Speech, a Speech &s;ign'd and con&s;ecrated by <HI>Luke, Paul, Peter, John</HI> and <HI>James;</HI></Q> yes and the Holy Gho&s;t him&s;elf writing by them. This &s;orrowful Exclamation breaks out in every Page, and is the very Spirit and Life of the Argument. And I mu&s;t con|fe&s;s it is a very Tragical thing to &s;light Apo&s;tolical In&s;titutions, becau&s;e they are really and indeed <HI>Con&s;ecrated,</HI> for the per|petual u&s;e of the Church, but as for Apo|&s;tolical words I never heard that they <HI>Con&s;ecrated</HI> any, and then 'tis no &s;uch enor|mous contempt of their Authority, if in the &s;ignification of Words we follow the Cu&s;tom of the time rather than theirs. For the Apo&s;tles never took upon them the Authority of Grammarians; their bu|&s;ine&s;s was to &s;etle Churches, not Schools; and if men would but follow them in the in&s;titution of things, they would freely al|low them their own liberty in the u&s;e of words. And therefore our learned man is too Tragical in loading <HI>Ignatius</HI> his de|parting from &s;uch a &s;ignification of a word that had been <HI>Con&s;ecrated</HI> by the Apo&s;tles,
<PB N="89" REF="49"> and he would do well to comfort him&s;elf with this Philo&s;ophick Con&s;ideration, as many great men have done in like Ca&s;es, that words have their Fate as well as King|doms, all things are &s;ubject to change in this World, and therefore as great Empires have their &s;udden falls, &s;o may the grea|te&s;t Words, they are expo&s;ed to time as well as Pyramids, and have one peculiar di&s;advantage that makes them more &s;hort liv'd than other Monuments, and that is that they are &s;ubject to Cu&s;tom, and the ca&s;ual u&s;age of the People, <HI>Quem penes Arbitrium e&s;t, &amp; vis &amp; norma loquendi</HI> (as <HI>Daill&egrave;</HI> very well ob&s;erves) that are the Sovereign Lords of Speech, and exerci&s;e an Arbitrary Power over all Parts of it: And therefore it is no &s;uch great wonder that any thing govern'd by &s;uch an in|con&s;tant thing as the People, &s;hould be as variable as them&s;elves. And this may &s;erve to appea&s;e <HI>Daill&egrave;</HI>'s fears of lo&s;ing a Word <HI>Con&s;ecrated</HI> by the Apo&s;tles. But as for his <HI>Argumentum Palmarium,</HI> that is yet more &s;urpizing, when to load <HI>Igna|tius</HI> with this appropriated &s;ignification of the&s;e words, he hath taken va&s;t pains to prove not only that the Apo&s;tles them|&s;elves, but all the Writers of the fir&s;t two hundred years u&s;ed them both promi&s;cu|ou&s;ly of both Orders, &s;ometime applying
<PB N="90" REF="50"> the word Presbyter to the higher Order, and &s;ometime the word Bi&s;hop to the lower. And thus through his over eager pur&s;uit of <HI>Ignatius</HI> hath he betray'd the whole Cau&s;e of Presbyterian Parity. For if there were an higher and a lower Or|der in the Church, then for ever farewell Presbytery; and yet that's the very thing that <HI>Daill&egrave;</HI> &s;o earne&s;tly contends for, be|cau&s;e he thinks it may do him great Ser|vice again&s;t <HI>Ignatius,</HI> and &s;o for the pre|&s;ent let it, for if that be granted, we will re&s;ign up <HI>Ignatius</HI> into his hands; for what need we &s;tand &s;o much upon a particular Author, to prove a thing that <HI>Daill&egrave;</HI> him|&s;elf hath demon&s;trated out of all the Wri|ters of the Chri&s;tian Church? So that the re&s;ult of this great <HI>Argumentum Palmari|um</HI> is no more than this, that indeed it is true that there ever were di&s;tinct Orders in the Church, but then they were not expre&s;t by di&s;tinct words, as they always are in the&s;e Epi&s;tles. But if there were di&s;tinct Orders, it is enough, and as for the di&s;tinct u&s;e of words, that was not pe|culiar to <HI>Ignatius,</HI> but common to all the Writers after the Apo&s;tles, and that they &s;hould be &s;o bold as to depart from their Language is not I hope &s;o dangerous as the Learned Man would &s;eem to make it. So unfortunate are Men that will be de|fending
<PB N="91" REF="50"> a Cau&s;e that will not be defen|ded.</P>
<P>But though <HI>Blondel</HI> and his A&s;&s;ociates <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 14. <HI>Apol.</HI> Daille de <HI>lib. &s;upp. lib.</HI> 21. 26. <HI>p.</HI> 394.</NOTE> dur&s;t not venture upon <HI>Ignatius,</HI> yet have they pre&s;&s;ed his friend <HI>Polycarp</HI> into the <HI>Geneva</HI> Service, though the truth is, his Ca&s;e is the &s;ame with that of <HI>Clemens,</HI> for it is plain that through the whole Epi&s;tle he followed the &s;ame &s;tile and forms of Expre&s;&s;ion, and &s;ometimes imitates him word for word, and therefore might af|ter him u&s;e the word Presbyter in the promi&s;cuous and Apo&s;tolical Sence; for though they were before di&s;tingui&s;h'd, as is plain from <HI>Ignatius</HI>'s Epi&s;tles; yet the newly appropriated &s;ignification of a word is not &s;etled in a moment, but hovers for &s;ome time before it is univer&s;ally enter|tain'd. And therefore though <HI>Ignatius</HI> u&s;ed the words in the Sence of the pre|&s;ent time, <HI>Policarp</HI> for all that might u&s;e them in the &s;ence that they had lately born. And yet of this there is no cer|tainty at all, for it is more than probable that there was no Bi&s;hop at <HI>Philippi</HI> at that time, and for that rea&s;on they had &s;ent to <HI>Polycarp</HI> for his advice in a cer|tain bu&s;ine&s;s, for &s;o him&s;elf informs us, that he wrote in An&s;wer to their Appeal. And that was an u&s;ual Cu&s;tom in the Pri|mitive Church, if any thing of moment
<PB N="92" REF="51"> happen'd in the time of vacancy, to re|fer it to the judgment of &s;ome neighbour Bi&s;hop. But granting that <HI>Polycarp</HI> u&s;ed the word in the Apo&s;tolical Sence (though if he did, he was the la&s;t that ever did &s;o) What follows? Nothing but what I have &s;hewn to follow from the &s;ame Ob|&s;ervation, both in Scriptures and St. <HI>Cle|ment,</HI> that when there was an Inequality of Power, there might be an Identity of Names. But <HI>Blondel</HI> would &s;eem to ar|gue from the In&s;cription of the Epi&s;tle: Polycarp <HI>and the Presbyters with him, to the Church of</HI> Philippi: And then imme|diately excu&s;eth the Argument, and in|&s;tead of urging it as a Proof, an&s;wers it as an Objection. This, &s;ays he, &s;eems &s;ome|what &s;ingular in this Epi&s;tle, that the ho|ly Martyr &s;hould write in his own Name apart, and then of all his Presbyters in Common, whereby he &s;eems to re&s;erve a Preheminence to him&s;elf over his Presby|ters, from whence it &s;eems to follow that he was plac'd in a higher Order, and ex|erci&s;ed a &s;uperiour Power over them. Truly this doth more than &s;eem to fol|low, how then does <HI>Blondel</HI> avoid it? Why he &s;aith there may be divers other Rea&s;ons a&s;&s;ign'd for it, and to this pur|po&s;e he hath Coin'd a great many Con|jectures out of his own Fancy: And if he
<PB N="93" REF="51"> plea&s;es I will allow him as many more, when it was certain that this was the on|ly Rea&s;on, in that it is certain from the Te&s;timony of <HI>Irenaeus,</HI> his Cotemporary, that <HI>Polycarp</HI> was Bi&s;hop of <HI>Smyrna</HI> in the proper Sence and acceptation of the word, as him&s;elf was Bi&s;hop of the Church of <HI>Lyons</HI> in which he had been Presbyter; &s;o that in this Epi&s;tle we plainly find a Bi&s;hop with his Presbyters in the Church of <HI>Smyrna.</HI> But to &s;ay no more in &s;o clear a Ca&s;e, this &s;ingle Epi&s;tle is as full a Te&s;ti|mony for Epi&s;copal Supremacy, as all tho&s;e of <HI>Ignatius,</HI> in that it particularly re|commends them to the Church of <HI>Phi|lippi,</HI> and therefore it both proves and ap|proves that Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Order that is every where there de&s;cribed. So that if <HI>Blondel</HI> will allow <HI>Polycarp</HI>'s Epi&s;tle to be genuine (and it was never que&s;tion'd) it proves all that is a&s;&s;erted by <HI>Ignatius,</HI> and we will ask no more. If he will not, to what purpo&s;e doth he produce a Te&s;ti|mony of no Authority? for if it be fal&s;e it can do him no good, if it be true (as he owns it to be) he mu&s;t admit <HI>Ignatius</HI> Epi&s;tles.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="8" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. VIII.</HEAD>
<P>His next Te&s;timony is out <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Daille <HI>p.</HI> 397.</NOTE> of <HI>Hermas.</HI> But to what purpo&s;e is it to appeal to the Te&s;timony, when he rejects
<PB N="94" REF="52"> the Witne&s;s? He condemns the Book as Counterfeit, Apocryphal, and of no Au|thority; and then appeals to it as if it were of that Antiquity that it pretends to. How &s;trangely can Learned Men trifle when they will &s;erve an ill Cau&s;e, to &s;tuff up large Books with &s;uch Tra&s;h as them&s;elv's cannot but confe&s;s to be u&s;ele&s;s: and therefore though the Allegations out of this Author be as much be&s;ide the pur|po&s;e as any of the re&s;t, I need not trouble my &s;elf to di&s;prove them, becau&s;e <HI>Blondel</HI> hath done that for me, by rejecting the Author him&s;elf; for the Te&s;timony of a Writing depends wholly upon the Credit of the Writer. But allowing the Author, and it is certain he was very ancient, let us hear his Te&s;timony. The onely Pa&s;|&s;age in him to any purpo&s;e is this: <HI>Ii &s;unt Apo&s;toli, et Epi&s;copi, et Doctores, et Mini|&s;tri, qui ingre&s;si &s;unt in Clementi&acirc; Dei, et Epi&s;copatum ge&s;&s;erunt, et docuerunt, et mi|ni&s;traverunt, &s;anct&egrave; et mode&s;t&egrave; Electis Dei.</HI> Where &s;aith <HI>Blondel</HI> he reckons onely two Orders after the Apo&s;tles, Bi&s;hops and Deacons; for the <HI>Doctors</HI> plac'd between them are to be reduc'd to the Bi&s;hops, be|cau&s;e he &s;ays of them, that they manag'd the Epi&s;copacy. That ever men &s;hould think to impo&s;e upon the World with &s;uch gro&s;sne&s;s as this! when here are &s;o
<PB N="95" REF="52"> expre&s;sly three di&s;tinct Orders reckon'd up, and three di&s;tinct Offices, Bi&s;hops that govern'd, Doctors that taught, and Dea|cons that mini&s;tred. So that he is &s;o far from a&s;cribing the Government to the Doctors, as <HI>Blondel</HI> affirms, that he limits their Office to the Work of Teaching, and appropriates that of Ruling to the Bi&s;hops; and it was an u&s;ual thing in the ancient <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Pear|&s;on <HI>vind. Ignat. p.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 13. <HI>p.</HI> 171.</NOTE> Writers of the Church, to &s;tile Presbyters by the Name of <HI>Doctors,</HI> becau&s;e Teaching was their Employment.</P>
<P>Our next man is Pope <HI>Pius,</HI> where we have another Ca&s;t of <HI>Blondel</HI>'s Ingenuity, to make u&s;e of <HI>Pius</HI> his Epi&s;tles when he thinks they may &s;erve his Cau&s;e; whereas he believ'd before-hand that they were counterfeit, for that he hath endeavour'd to prove in his <HI>P&s;eudo-I&s;odorus;</HI> but what &s;ays <HI>Pope Pius?</HI> Why he calls the ancient <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Daille <HI>p.</HI> 397.</NOTE> Bi&s;hops that were acquainted with the Apo&s;tles, Presbyters. He doth &s;o for their Age, not their Office. <HI>Tho&s;e old men that were Educated under the Apostles liv'd to our very time.</HI> This he alledges to prove the certainty of the Apo&s;tolical Tradition. But the Ca&s;e is very hard, that an ancient Bi&s;hop cannot be call'd an old man, but he mu&s;t be immediately degraded into an ordinary Presbyter. And that this is Pope <HI>Pius</HI> his meaning, is evident from the
<PB N="96" REF="53"> Other Pa&s;&s;age in&s;i&s;ted upon by <HI>Blondel,</HI> in that Writing to <HI>Ju&s;tus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Vienna,</HI> he &s;aith, <HI>Let the Presbyters and Deacons ob&s;erve Thee, Non ut Majorem &s;ed ut Mi|ni&s;trum Chri&s;ti.</HI> Where tho he carefully di&s;tingui&s;hes the three Orders, yet not|with&s;tanding that, <HI>Blondel</HI> will make his advantage of it: For though, &s;ays he, he Commands the re&s;pect of the Presbyters and Deacons to their Bi&s;hop, yet it is not as to their Superiour by Divine Right, but their Equal. What dealing is here with Antiquity, that one good Bi&s;hop cannot admoni&s;h another to exerci&s;e his Power with mode&s;ty and humility, but the&s;e men mu&s;t pre&s;ently &s;trip him of it? Our Saviour Commands his Di&s;ciples that he that would be the greate&s;t among them &s;hould be as he that mini&s;ters; does it therefore follow that there ought to be no Officers in the Chri&s;tian Church greater than Others; or rather that the lowe&s;t Officer in it is the highe&s;t? Poor Presbytery, that after all this tugging ha&s;t nothing better to plead for thy &s;elf!</P>
<P>Our next Argument is, That the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> was govern'd by the Presbyters, when <HI>Marcion</HI> came thither in the Vacan|cy of the See, between the Death of <HI>Pius,</HI> and the Con&s;ecration of <HI>Anicetus.</HI> I will
<PB N="97" REF="53"> not contend about the Chronology. But if the See were vacant when there were &s;o many Presbyters, then it was both &s;omething higher than the Presbytery, and po&s;&s;e&s;t by a &s;ingle Per&s;on. So that here is another ancient In&s;tance of a Church govern'd by a Bi&s;hop with his Presbyters; and after his Death by the Presbyters till the choice of another Bi|&s;hop. But though the Presbyters of old kept up the Di&s;cipline of the Church in the time of the Vacancy, and were ac|comptable for it to the &s;ucceeding Bi&s;hops, yet they never pretended to Ordination, becau&s;e that might be delayed for a time without any material Damage to the Church, whereas Di&s;cipline could not cea&s;e without &s;ubverting all Or|der. <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Cum incumbat nobis qui videmur Praepo&s;iti e&s;&s;e, &amp; vi|ce Pastoris cu&s;todire gregem,</HI> as the Clergy of <HI>Rome</HI> very well expre&s;s their Duty in this ca&s;e in their Epi&s;tle to the Clergy of <HI>Carthage,</HI> when their own Bi&s;hop was Mar|tyr'd, and the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Carthage</HI> ab&s;ent: <HI>Cyp. Ep.</HI> 3. <HI>Edit. Pam.</HI> So that they had, as it were, no more then the Seque&s;tration of the E|pi&s;copal Cure in the time of Vacancy.</NOTE> But from hence to infer that the Supreme Pow|er of the Church is con&s;tant|ly and entirely in the Pres|byters, is like all the re&s;t of the <HI>Blondellian</HI> Argumen|tations, in which the Con|clu&s;ion always contradicts the Premi&s;&s;es, for by the Premi&s;&s;es the Supreme Pow|er is in the Bi&s;hop, and in the time of Vacancy part of it in the Presbyters, and from hence
<PB N="98" REF="54"> the conclu&s;ion is, that therefore it is all and always in them: Or becau&s;e there is no Bi&s;hop when he is dead, that therefore there is none when he is alive. Happy is the Cau&s;e that is defended by &s;uch Champions, it can never be yielded up whil&s;t there is any &s;uch thing as Confi|dence in the World.</P>
<P>The next man is <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr,</HI> who reckons up but two &s;orts of Officers in the Chri&s;tian Church, the <GAP DESC="foreign">, and the Deacons. But the di&s;parity between Bi&s;hop and Presbyter was brought in be|fore the time of <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr</HI>'s writing, &s;o that if there were any ground for <HI>Ju|&s;tin Martyr</HI>'s inference of Parity, yet it is expre&s;ly again&s;t his own declaration, namely that for &s;ome years before, the di&s;parity had prevail'd in all Chri&s;tian Churches. But it is a very bold inference from the De&s;cription of Divine Wor&s;hip in a Chri&s;tian Congregation, to conclude any thing certain of the Form of Govern|ment over it. For whether there were a Parity or Imparity of Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Of|ficers, it is certain that in every particu|lar Church there mu&s;t be one to pre&s;ide and officiate, which might either be a Bi|&s;hop or a Presbyter, for any thing that <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr</HI> intimates, who &s;peaks only of their Form of Wor&s;hip, and not of Go|vernment.
<PB N="99" REF="54"> Unle&s;s from the word <GAP DESC="foreign"> may be infer'd Epi&s;copal Superiority, becau&s;e (as Dr. <HI>Hammond</HI> hath very well <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Di&s;&s;ert.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 17. &sect; 10, 11, 12.</NOTE> ob&s;erved) they are Synonymous in the Writers about that time, of which he hath alledged three remarkable In&s;tances from <HI>Diony&s;ius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Corinth, Marcellus</HI> Bi|&s;hop of <HI>Ancyra,</HI> and the Council of <HI>Ephe|&s;us.</HI> But this, though it is much more than our Adver&s;aries are able to make for them&s;elves out of this Father; yet I &s;hall not in&s;i&s;t upon it, but &s;tand to this, that he is to be under&s;tood according to the Practice of his own time, and therefore there having always been an uninterrup|ted Succe&s;&s;ion of Bi&s;hops in the Church, or at lea&s;t as <HI>Blondel</HI> confe&s;&s;es before his time, whatever he means by his <GAP DESC="foreign"> in a particular Congregation, he cannot be &s;uppo&s;ed ignorant of the Form of Go|vernment in the whole Church, though he had no Occa&s;ion to mention it in his Apology, which was addre&s;t to Heathen Emperours to vindicate the Innocence of their meetings again&s;t fal&s;e Informations, and that concerns onely their Forms of Wor&s;hip in particular Congregations, and whether it were a Bi&s;hop or a Presbyter that pre&s;ided, it was all one to the Empe|ror, if that were all.</P>
<PB N="100" REF="55">
<P> But in the next place <HI>Papias</HI> calls all Bi&s;hops, Presbyters. No, they are the Apo&s;tles he calls &s;o. <HI>If I met with any of the Followers of the Apo&s;tles I enquired of him after the &s;ayings of the Ancients, What</HI> Andrew, <HI>what</HI> Peter, <HI>what</HI> Philip, <HI>what</HI> Thomas, <HI>or</HI> James, <HI>or</HI> John, <HI>or</HI> Matthew, <HI>or any of the Lord's Di&s;ciples were wont to &s;ay.</HI> So that it is the Apo&s;tles them&s;elves that he calls Presbyters, and for that Rea|&s;on he calls them &s;o, <HI>viz.</HI> becau&s;e of their Antiquity, is &s;o evident from the words them&s;elves, that I cannot but &s;tand ama|zed to &s;ee it &s;o often repeated, and &s;o long in&s;i&s;ted on.</P>
<P>The next Te&s;timonies are the <HI>Gallican</HI> Church, and <HI>Irenaeus,</HI> in which <HI>Blondel</HI> &s;eems mo&s;t of all to in&s;ult, as his manner is, to be mo&s;t confident when his Argu|ment is weake&s;t. For all the Proof he hath from the <HI>Gallican</HI> Church, is, that they &s;tile <HI>Irenaeus</HI> Presbyter, after he had been their Bi&s;hop many years: Be it &s;o, yet however it is confe&s;&s;ed, that upon the death of <HI>Pothinus,</HI> he that was before a Presbyter &s;ucceeded in the Bi&s;hoprick, and then a Bi&s;hop is a higher &s;tate than a Presbyter. But that they &s;tile him Pres|byter after he was a Bi&s;hop is a gro&s;s mi|&s;take in Chronology, in that <HI>Blondel</HI> would have him to have &s;ucceeded in the
<PB N="101" REF="55"> &s;eventh year of <HI>M. Antoninus,</HI> when it is certain that it was not till about 10 years after; till which time he was no more than a Presbyter. But it is &s;trange that this Argument which is founded upon &s;uch an evident mi&s;take &s;hould be &s;o ve|hemently in&s;i&s;ted on, when they &s;o accu|rately di&s;tingui&s;h in their Epi&s;tle between a Bi&s;hop and his Presbyter, always &s;tiling <HI>Pothinus</HI> their Bi&s;hop, and <HI>Irenaeus</HI> his Presbyter, who was not Bi&s;hop till after|wards. But it is &s;tranger yet that <HI>Irenae|us</HI> him&s;elf &s;hould be drawn into the Con|federacy. What cannot a man prove the certainty of the Tradition of the Church, as <HI>Irenaeus</HI> often doth, by the undoubted <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vid.</HI> Daille <HI>p.</HI> 395, 6,</NOTE> Te&s;timony of the Ancients, but they mu&s;t all be immediately transform'd into Pres|byters? And that he &s;o frequently gives them that Title in re&s;pect of their Anti|quity, not their Office, is &s;o evident from the Pa&s;&s;ages them&s;elves, that it is a bur|ning &s;hame for learned men to per&s;i&s;t &s;o &s;tubbornly in &s;o thick a mi&s;take. Other|wi&s;e it is certain that he never confounds either the Name or the Office of Presby|ter and Bi&s;hop, and derives the Succe&s;&s;ion of proper Bi&s;hops from the Apo&s;tles, &s;uch as the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome,</HI> and <HI>Polycarp</HI> who had their Presbyters under them, as is e|vident from the In&s;cription of <HI>Polycarp</HI>'s
<PB N="102" REF="56"> own Epi&s;tle, and the proceedings of the Presbytery at <HI>Rome</HI> again&s;t <HI>Marcion;</HI> nei|ther indeed could he confound the Names, who &s;o well knew the Di&s;tinction of Of|fices, as having been fir&s;t a Presbyter him|&s;elf, and then a Bi&s;hop. What an endle&s;s out-cry do the&s;e men keep up with <HI>Irenae|us</HI> his Presbyters, as if they alone had been the immediate Succe&s;&s;ors to the Apo|&s;tles, and he had known no higher Order of men call'd Bi&s;hops, when him&s;elf was advanced from the lower Order of Pres|byter to that of a Bi&s;hop, when he has &s;o often expre&s;ly di&s;tingui&s;ht them, &s;o that if he had expre&s;&s;ed him&s;elf carele&s;ly, and &s;ometime called a Bi&s;hop a Presbyter, it were nothing but wilful perver&s;ne&s;s from thence to conclude that he knew no dif|ference between them, and plainly to give the lye to his own Declaration of his own Sence; but when there is not one pa&s;&s;age in all his Writings, in which he ever &s;tiles a meer Presbyter a Bi&s;hop; and when e|very pa&s;&s;age in which a Bi&s;hop is &s;til'd a Presbyter, &s;o apparently explains it &s;elf to be under&s;tood of their Age, not their Office; after this to interpret it of their Office, plainly &s;hews that Presbytery has no other way to pre&s;erve it &s;elf, then by putting tricks upon Antiquity. Thus when in his Epi&s;tle to <HI>Victor</HI> he calls his
<PB N="103" REF="56"> Predece&s;&s;ors, Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome,</HI> Presbyters that &s;ucceeded in the Government from the Apo&s;tles, what can be more evident then that he means thereby the Antiqui|ty of their Succe&s;&s;ion? for he is proving the Apo&s;tolical Tradition about <HI>Easter;</HI> and this is demon&s;trated by its being de|rived from the Apo&s;tles them&s;elves, by the mo&s;t Ancient Bi&s;hops that pre&s;ided in that Church after them. And the &s;ame is his meaning when he calls <HI>Polycarp</HI> an Apo&s;tolical Presbyter, (whom he el&s;e|where proves to be an Apo&s;tolical Bi&s;hop) and when he tells <HI>Florius</HI> that he never received his Opinions from any Presby|ters, that were Di&s;ciples to the Apo&s;tles; and &s;o when he &s;peaks of an Apo&s;tolical Presbyter that was his own particular in|&s;tructer in the Traditions of the Apo&s;tles, it is plain to common Sence that he re|fers him&s;elf meerly to their Antiquity, without any the lea&s;t regard to their Of|fice; thereby to prove the Truth of his Doctrine as derived down by the mo&s;t Ancient Doctors in the Church from the Apo&s;tles them&s;elves: And &s;o he defines his Presbyters, <HI>Qui cum Epi&s;copat&ucirc;s Succe&s;|&s;ione chari&s;ma veritatis certum accep&ecirc;re:</HI> So that the Ancients who &s;ucceeded the Apo&s;tles, and delivered down the Tra|dition of the Church from them to after|times
<PB N="104" REF="57"> were undeniably the Ancient Bi&s;hops. Now if after all this the good old Bi&s;hop <HI>Irenaeus,</HI> the great A&s;&s;ertor of the Epi&s;|copal Succe&s;&s;ion from the Apo&s;tles, mu&s;t be made an old Presbyterian, and the very Father of the <HI>Smectymnuans,</HI> the time may come, when for writing this very Di&s;cour&s;e, if it &s;hould happen to &s;ur|vive my &s;elf, I may (which God forbid) pa&s;s for a Presbyterian.</P>
<P>And why not? when by the &s;ame Quibble they draw in Pope <HI>Victor</HI> him|&s;elf, becau&s;e in his Epi&s;tle to <HI>Diony&s;ius</HI> Bi|&s;hop of <HI>Vienna,</HI> he tells him that the Cu|&s;tom of keeping <HI>Ea&s;ter</HI> was deriv'd from the Ancients, (Presbyters if you plea&s;e) that had &s;een the Apo&s;tles in the fle&s;h, and had govern'd the Church &s;ucce&s;&s;ively down to his time, and therefore de&s;ires him to enjoyn its ob&s;ervation to the Pres|byters of <HI>France;</HI> and then &s;alutes him and his Colledge at <HI>Vienna,</HI> in the name of the Colledge at <HI>Rome,</HI> from whence <HI>Blondel</HI> infers;</P>
<P>Fir&s;t, That the Church was govern'd by Presbyters from the time of the Apo|&s;tles to <HI>Victor,</HI> only becau&s;e the <HI>Ancients</HI> that govern'd it, &s;ucceeded the Apo&s;tles in their Bi&s;hopricks.</P>
<P>Secondly, That the <HI>French</HI> Church was govern'd by Presbyters, becau&s;e their
<PB N="105" REF="57"> Presbyters were govern'd by their Bi&s;hop, how el&s;e could he lay any injunction up|on them?</P>
<P>Thirdly, That there were Colledges of Presbyters at <HI>Rome</HI> and <HI>Vienna,</HI> with <HI>Victor</HI> and <HI>Diony&s;ius.</HI> Then there were Bi&s;hops with the Colledge of Presby|ters.</P>
<P>The la&s;t Witne&s;s of the &s;econd Century is <HI>Clemens Alexandrinus,</HI> partly becau&s;e he <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Vide</HI> Daill&eacute; <HI>p.</HI> 396.</NOTE> once call'd an Ancient Bi&s;hop that liv'd in St. <HI>John</HI>'s time an old man, partly be|cau&s;e he once &s;peaks of Presbyters and Deacons without naming of Bi&s;hops, not|with&s;tanding that in that very Pa&s;&s;age he &s;aith, that there was yet an higher Digni|ty: <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>Strom.</HI> l. 6. p. 667.</NOTE> and more than once reckons up three di&s;tinct Orders in the Church, foun|ded by the Apo&s;tles in imitation of the Cele&s;tial Hierarchy.</P>
<P>Thus far my Patience hath held out, for though &s;uch abu&s;ive trifling, is far from being worthy of any &s;erious Con|futation, yet becau&s;e it is thought much more con&s;iderable than it is from the Au|thority and Reputation of the men who impo&s;e it upon the World, I thought good to let the People &s;ee after what a
<PB N="106" REF="58"> weak rate the mo&s;t learned men have op|pos'd our Epi&s;copal Con&s;titution, that they may be no more abu&s;ed with confi|dence and bold a&s;&s;ertions. I have de|&s;cended to the end of the &s;econd Century, becau&s;e we are told of late, that there was no &s;uch thing as a Bi&s;hop in the Chri&s;ti|an World for the fir&s;t two hundred years. But with what Truth and Mode&s;ty &s;uf|ficiently appears from the Premi&s;&s;es. But &s;ome men make as little Con&s;cience of fal&s;hood, as they do of faction, and care not with what forgeries they abu&s;e the ignorant People, &s;o they can but keep up the Zeal and Confidence of their Par|ty.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="9" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. IX.</HEAD>
<P>Here I thought I had done e|nough, and &s;o once re&s;olved to have con|cluded this Argument, becau&s;e I &s;uppo&s;ed it correction more than enough to have taken down the pre&s;umption and confi|dence of our pre&s;ent Schi&s;maticks, and after that I was willing to &s;pare all further Severity; but I find them &s;o hardy in their own conceits that they &s;corn to ac|cept of any Civilties. But in&s;tead of be|ing thankful when their be&s;t friends are &s;pared after &s;ufficient correction, inter|pret it for cowardi&s;e and tergiver&s;ation. And Mr. <HI>B.</HI> is &s;o vain as to &s;et up this <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Treat. of E|pi&s;c.</HI> p. 112.</NOTE>
<PB N="107" REF="58"> <HI>Wonder of the World,</HI> Blondel, (as he calls him) for the &s;ingle and unconquerable Champion of the Cau&s;e, and to upbraid us with the poverty and defectivene&s;s of our An&s;wers to his <HI>large Collections.</HI> And both him&s;elf and their other Leading Wri|ters are at this time &s;o confident in tran|&s;cribing and tran&s;lating the <HI>Blondellian</HI> Quotations, as if they believed every thing in him of Canonical Credit and Authority. And in truth they follow him with &s;uch an implicit credulity, that they do not more impo&s;e upon the Peo|ples Ignorance, than he does upon theirs. Therefore though I have &s;ufficiently de|moli&s;ht the whole Work, yet &s;eeing they will not yield up the Cau&s;e, whil&s;t there is one &s;tone left upon another, I will bat|ter down all their pretences for two Cen|turies more; and when that is done, there will appear nothing at the bottom but Sand and Confidence. And this task is &s;o very ea&s;ie, that it requires no labour but patience, and but little of that too, &s;o fa&s;t &s;hall we turn off his Authours. <HI>Tertullian</HI> is his fir&s;t man of the third Cen|tury, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>De Pre&s;c. c.</HI> 41. <HI>De Bapt. c.</HI> 17. <HI>De Monag. c.</HI> 11. <HI>De Fug&acirc;. c.</HI> 11.</NOTE> who though (as <HI>Blondel</HI> him&s;elf ob|&s;erves) he has often and expre&s;ly own'd the three Orders of Bi&s;hop, Presbyter, and Deacon in the Church, and the Su|preme Authority of the Bi&s;hop over the
<PB N="108" REF="59"> whole Hierarchy, &s;o that they are all obliged to be perpetually accountable to him for the legal di&s;charge of their Office, and not to do any thing of moment in the Church, but by his leave and Com|mi&s;&s;ion: And though he has run up the <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>De Prae&s;c. c.</HI> 3<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">.</NOTE> Succe&s;&s;ion of &s;ingle Bi&s;hops in the mo&s;t eminent Churches to the Apo&s;tles them|&s;elves: And though he a&s;&s;erts the di&s;tin|ction of the &s;everal Orders in the Apo|&s;tles own time, as when he affirms that St. <HI>Paul</HI>'s precept for monogamy equally <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>De Monag. c.</HI> 2.</NOTE> concern'd all Orders in the Church, Bi|&s;hops, Presbyters and Deacons; yet after all this mu&s;t he be made a Patron of Presbyterian Parity for no other fault of his own, then becau&s;e he affirms in his Apology, that at their Religious A&s;&s;em|blies the Elders of mo&s;t reputation among them pre&s;ided, being prefer'd to that dig|nity, not by bribes but worth. Now be|cau&s;e there was a Bench of Elders admit|ted to the Government of the Church, from thence to infer after the above-men|tion'd premi&s;&s;es that there was no &s;ingle Per&s;on pre&s;iding over this Bench, is no le&s;s than to give the broad Lye to <HI>Ter|tullian</HI> him&s;elf. When he has &s;o often and &s;o expre&s;ly told us, that there was one in every Church, endued with &s;o much power over the Presbyterate, that they
<PB N="109" REF="59"> could act nothing in the Church, but in &s;ubordination to his Authority. The Ar|gument then from <HI>Tertullian</HI> runs thus, That as often as he has occa&s;ion to enume|rate the &s;everal Orders in the Church, he reckons up three, and tho&s;e too as di&s;tinct in the Apo&s;tolical Age; but yet becau&s;e he once &s;peaks of the Officers of the Church in general, and does not enume|rate the di&s;tinct Orders, and that for no other rea&s;on then becau&s;e it would have been impertinent to his pre&s;ent Argu|ment, therefore they were all equals, and there was no Order of Bi&s;hops di&s;tinct from and above that of Presbyters.</P>
<P>The next man is <HI>Origen,</HI> a man that has been u&s;ed hardly through all Ages of the Church, and therefore 'tis no great won|der if he meet with hard u&s;age from the&s;e men, who treat none of the Ancients with any great tenderne&s;s. So that though no man has more expre&s;ly own'd the di&s;tin|ction of Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Orders, and the Su|premacy of Bi&s;hops, and that too in the Apo&s;tolical times, expounding St. <HI>Paul</HI>'s precept of &s;ingle Marriage, as then given to the &s;everal Orders of Bi&s;hop, Prie&s;t, and Deacon, yet becau&s;e he once makes mention of only two Orders, <HI>viz. Sacerdo|tum &amp; Diaconum,</HI> therefore it is concluded, that he knew no more, notwith&s;tanding
<PB N="110" REF="60"> that in the very &s;ame Pa&s;&s;age, that is al|ledged by <HI>Blondel,</HI> he di&s;tingui&s;hes be|tween the Bi&s;hop and Presbyter in the Sacerdotal Order: For exhorting the Cler|gy both Sacerdotal and Mini&s;terial to be|have them&s;elves as became their place and dignity in the Church, he thus &s;peci|fies his general Exhortation, <HI>Give not men occa&s;ion to bla&s;pheme, &s;aying, Behold what a Bi&s;hop, or what a Presbyter, or what a Dea|con.</HI> And then immediately adds, Is not this objected when the <HI>Sacerdos</HI> or <HI>Mini|&s;ter Dei</HI> do not act as becomes their <HI>Sa|cerdotal</HI> or <HI>Levitical</HI> Order. Where it is evident, that in the Sacerdotal Order he di&s;tingui&s;hes the Bi&s;hop and Prie&s;t, and only di&s;tingui&s;hes the Order it &s;elf, that includes both from the Mini&s;terial Office of Deacons, according to the common Al|lu&s;ion among the Ancients to the Mo&s;a|ick Hierarchy, in which only the High-Prie&s;t and Prie&s;ts were reckoned into the Prie&s;thood, and not the Levites, with whom he here parallels the Deacons. But poor <HI>Origen,</HI> has had the harde&s;t fate of any hone&s;t and learned man upon Record, that when he has been charged with all the Here&s;ies in the World, that were in being in his time, he &s;hould at la&s;t be loa|ded with one, that was never &s;tarted till long after his death. For <HI>Aerius</HI> that was
<PB N="111" REF="60"> the only Presbyterian among the Ancients lived not till towards the latter end of the fourth Century. And 'tis pretty odd in <HI>Blondel,</HI> that when all the Ancients but only one were again&s;t Presbytery, he has alledged all except that one for it, though the truth of it is he had very good rea&s;on to take no notice of him in his Catalogue, becau&s;e he was branded for an Heretick by all the re&s;t for his Opinion. It is (I know) pleaded by <HI>Blondel</HI> and &s;ome wi&s;er <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Praef.</HI> p. 59.</NOTE> men, that though St. <HI>Jerom</HI> and <HI>Aerius</HI> held the &s;ame Opinion concerning the Identi|ty of Bi&s;hops and Presbyters, yet St. <HI>Je|rom</HI> did not &s;eparate from the Church, but profe&s;&s;ed Canonical obedience to the Bi|&s;hops, as lawfully e&s;tabli&s;ht by Eccle&s;ia&s;ti|cal Con&s;titution; whereas the other tur|ned Schi&s;matick, and &s;et up a Faction in the Church again&s;t his own Bi&s;hop, and that brought him into the Catalogue of Hereticks. But if this Apology were true, then all our &s;eparati&s;ts from the Epi&s;|copal Communion of the Church of <HI>Eng|land</HI> fall under the <HI>A&euml;rian</HI> Here&s;ie, whil&s;t they do not only &s;eparate from it, but think them&s;elves obliged to aboli&s;h it as utterly unlawful and de&s;tructive of Chri&s;ts own In&s;titution. For which enormity they have no countenance from <HI>Blondel</HI>'s Arguments, and therefore when they
<PB N="112" REF="61"> plunder them, they drive them farther then they will go. For all that can be drawn out of the <HI>Sententia Hieronymi,</HI> is only the Lawfulne&s;s of Presbyterian Pa|rity, becau&s;e it is not contrary to any Di|vine In&s;titution, but from thence to con|clude the unlawfulne&s;s of Epi&s;copal Supe|riority, &s;hews abundance of &s;pight, but neither wit, logick, nor hone&s;ty. But then as for the Apology it &s;elf, it is true that <HI>Aerius</HI> his Separation made him a Schi&s;matick, but it was his Opinion that branded him for an Heretick, and for that he is &s;o e&s;teemed by all the Ancients. And it is not a little ob&s;ervable that this was one of the late&s;t Here&s;ies in the Chri|&s;tian Church, when there was not an Ar|ticle of the Chri&s;tian Faith, that had not long before been the &s;ubject of variety of wild and odd Opinions. But it &s;eems this form of Government in the Church from the Beginning, was thought &s;o clear and unque&s;tionable, that it never entred into any mans head to make any di&s;turbance about it, till <HI>Aerius</HI> upon his repul&s;e from a Bi&s;hoprick, to be revenged of his ill for|tune, &s;tarted it at the end of the fourth Century; neither do we find that it &s;ur|vived its Author, &s;o little entertainment did it find in the Chri&s;tian Church. And that St. <HI>Jerom</HI> was not reckoned an Here|tick
<PB N="113" REF="61"> for this Opinion, the rea&s;on of it is becau&s;e he never held it, and if he had, he could never have e&s;caped the Charge. For though he once or twice expre&s;&s;es him&s;elf loo&s;ly in this Argument, yet is it evident to any common ingenuity that he never in the lea&s;t a&s;&s;erted an Equality between a Bi&s;hop and his Presbyters, but only a community of their Offices in the Prie&s;thood, as di&s;tinct from the Mini&s;te|rial or Levitical Office of the Deacons. Which as it is highly true in it &s;elf, &s;o does it clear St. <HI>Jerom</HI> from all manner of &s;u&s;picion of the <HI>A&euml;rian</HI> Here&s;ie.</P>
<P>As for the &s;everal Pa&s;&s;ages produced out of the Writings of St. <HI>Cyprian,</HI> and his corre&s;pondents, they are all no le&s;s then &s;o many expre&s;s proofs of the di&s;tinction of the three Orders, all which it was the cu&s;tom of that Age to A&s;&s;emble at all con|&s;ults about the Affairs of the Church. That Presbyters were and ought to be A&s;|&s;e&s;&s;ours to the Bi&s;hop in the Government of the Church from the beginning, is &s;o evident from all the mo&s;t Ancient Records of it, that it will be as hard to find a &s;etled Church govern'd by a Bi&s;hop without his Presbyters, as by Presbyters without a Bi&s;hop. And it &s;eems the Deacons were by St. <HI>Cyprian</HI>'s time taken into &s;ome kind of &s;hare in the Government (probably by
<PB N="114" REF="62"> the intere&s;t of the Arch-Deacons who car|ried the bagg.) But when this Cu&s;tom began I know not, neither do I remem|ber any in&s;tance of it before St. <HI>Cyprian</HI>'s own time, and it is likely that it was his own great mode&s;ty and civility that fir&s;t began it. Though otherwi&s;e there is no man among all the Ancients, that has more expre&s;ly or &s;trictly di&s;tingui&s;ht be|tween the Authoritative and Mini&s;terial Orders in the Church, and &s;ub di&s;tingui&s;ht the Authoritative into Epi&s;copal and Pres|byterial, as I have already &s;hewn from <HI>Blondel</HI>'s own Quotations out of his Wri|tings. And the di&s;tinction of the three Orders occurrs &s;o perpetually in every page of St. <HI>Cyprian,</HI> that to go about to prove from him that there were only two, this is not only to beg the conclu&s;i|on, but (what is much wor&s;e) to &s;teal it, and that with open force and violence again&s;t his own reiterated Prote&s;tations. This may &s;uffice here for a general An|&s;wer to all his Citations from St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> and his friends, though I if would de&s;cend to the heap of particulars, they are but &s;o many in&s;tances of the mo&s;t &s;hamele&s;s di&s;ingenuity and fal&s;ification, as indeed the management of the whole Cau&s;e is from fir&s;t to la&s;t. But I mu&s;t not be too tedious, take therefore one in&s;tance for
<PB N="115" REF="62"> all, and that is the fir&s;t of all out of the Epi&s;tle of the Clergy of <HI>Rome</HI> to the Cler|gy of <HI>Carthage:</HI> Who thus be&s;peak their Brethren, <HI>Et cum incumbat nobis qui vide|mur praepo&s;iti e&s;&s;e, &amp; vice Pa&s;toris cu&s;todire gregem: Seeing it lyes upon us, who &s;eem to be the Rulers, and in&s;tead of the Pa&s;tor to keep the flock.</HI> That is, &s;ays <HI>Blondel, in Chri&s;ts &s;tead;</HI> as if they had affirmed, that the Presbyters of each Church had acted next and immediately under Chri&s;t, with|out any &s;ubjection to their Bi&s;hop; where|as this Letter is written upon &s;uppo&s;ition of his Superiority, for both Sees were at that time vacant, the See of <HI>Rome</HI> by the death of <HI>Fabian,</HI> and of <HI>Carthage</HI> by the flight of St. <HI>Cyprian;</HI> upon which Occa|&s;ion the Clergy of <HI>Rome</HI> write to their Brethren of <HI>Carthage, We now &s;eem to pre|&s;ide, and in&s;tead of the Pa&s;tor to take care of the flock.</HI> That is in the ab&s;ence of our Bi&s;hops, the care of the Charge lyes upon us, and in great mode&s;ty they avoid to expre&s;s it po&s;itively, and only &s;ay that it &s;eems to be &s;o, and that too in the Pa&s;tor's &s;tead, <HI>i. e.</HI> the Bi&s;hop's, who was then ab&s;ent. And therefore for <HI>Blondel</HI> to drop in a Parenthe&s;is after the word Pa&s;tor with our Saviour's name in it, is not to find but to forge a quotation. And if we &s;trike it out, there is &s;carce a
<PB N="116" REF="63"> more remarkable in&s;tance in all the Re|cords of the Church of the Epi&s;copal Su|premacy, then in this Affair, as they ex|plain them&s;elves. For the &s;ame Clergy of <HI>Rome</HI> writing to St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> for his ad|vice about the <HI>Lap&s;i,</HI> they tell him, <HI>That they cannot proceed to a full and peremptory determination of the matter, for want of a Bi&s;hop to do it with Authority. Quan|quam</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ep.</HI> 31.</NOTE> <HI>nobis differendae hujus rei nece&s;&s;itas major incumbat, quibus, po&s;t exce&s;&s;um nobi|li&s;&s;imae memoriae viri</HI> Fabiani, <HI>nondum e&s;t Epi&s;copus propter rerum &amp; temporum dif|ficultates con&s;titutus, qui omnia i&s;ta modere|tur, &amp; eorum, qui lap&s;i &s;unt, po&s;&s;it cum aucto|ritate &amp; concilio habere rationem.</HI> And to conclude, St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> him&s;elf challenges his own Epi&s;copal Authority as founded upon nothing le&s;s then Divine In&s;titution. <HI>Dominus no&s;ter cujus praecepta metuere &amp;</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ep.</HI> 27.</NOTE> <HI>ob&s;ervare debemus, Epi&s;copi honorem &amp; Ec|cle&s;iae &s;uae rationem di&s;ponens, in Evangelio loquitur &amp; dicit</HI> Petro, <HI>Ego dico tibi quia tu es</HI> Petrus <HI>&amp; &s;upra i&s;tam</HI> Petram, <HI>&amp;c. in|de per temporum &amp; &s;ucce&s;&s;ionum vices Epi&s;|coporum Ordinatio &amp; Eccle&s;iae ratio decur|rit, ut Eccle&s;ia &s;uper Epi&s;copos con&s;tituatur, &amp; omnis actus Eccle&s;iae per eo&s;dem praepo|&s;itos gubernetur. Cum hoc itaque divin&acirc; lege fundatum &s;it, miror quo&s;dam audaci te|meritate &s;ic mihi &s;cribere volui&s;&s;e:</HI> <Q>Our
<PB N="117" REF="63"> Lord, who&s;e Commands we ought to reverence and obey, e&s;tabli&s;hing the ho|nour of a Bi&s;hop, and the model of his Church, &s;ays to <HI>Peter</HI> in the Go&s;pel, <HI>Thou art</HI> Peter, <HI>and upon this Rock will I build my Church, I give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, &amp;c.</HI> From that time forward the Succe&s;&s;ion of Bi&s;hops, and the frame of the Church was deri|ved down through all periods of times and &s;ea&s;ons, &s;o as that the Church &s;hould be founded upon the Bi&s;hops, and every Act of the Church &s;hould be govern'd by the &s;ame, &s;eeing this Authority is e&s;ta|bli&s;ht by Divine Law, I wonder with what ra&s;hne&s;s and pre&s;umption &s;ome men &s;hould write to me, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> An ad|mirable Patron this of <HI>Blondel</HI>'s Pari|ty.</Q></P>
<P>But when he has made St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> a Presbyterian, he can never after that de|&s;pair of bringing over any man to his party, and therefore next to him he Sum|mons in <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> him&s;elf, who of all the Ancients, next to St. <HI>Cyprian,</HI> not to &s;ay beyond him, is the &s;tronge&s;t witne&s;s a|gain&s;t the Presbyterian Cau&s;e. And yet even this man, that they have taken &s;o much pains to prove the founder, or at lea&s;t fir&s;t Patron of <HI>Ignatius</HI>'s Epi&s;tles, that has given us exact Catalogues of the
<PB N="118" REF="64"> Succe&s;&s;ions of Bi&s;hops in the mo&s;t emi|nent Churches down from the Apo&s;tles them&s;elves; That has placed by the A|po&s;tles own hands, St. <HI>James</HI> at <HI>Jeru&s;alem, Erodius</HI> at <HI>Antioch, Clement</HI> at <HI>Rome, Ani|anus</HI> at <HI>Alexandria, Timothy</HI> at <HI>Ephe&s;us, Titus</HI> at <HI>Creet, Polycarp</HI> at <HI>Smyrna, Diony|&s;ius</HI> at <HI>Athens, Epaphroditus</HI> at <HI>Philippi, Gaius</HI> at <HI>The&s;&s;alonica, Cre&s;cens</HI> in <HI>Galatia, &amp;c.</HI> And la&s;tly that has pre&s;erved the mo&s;t memorable pa&s;&s;ages in the fir&s;t and mo&s;t Ancient Writers, atte&s;ting the Go|vernment of the Church, by a Succe&s;&s;ion of &s;ingle Bi&s;hops; And yet this very man <HI>Blondel</HI> is not a&s;hamed to produce both as a Witne&s;s and an Advocate for his Cau&s;e. But certainly one would expect very full and expre&s;s a&s;&s;ertions to con|vince us of &s;o &s;trange a Paradox; for o|therwi&s;e it will be very hard to induce men to a belief that ever <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> was a Presbyterian. And yet the &s;tronge&s;t proof out of him is the old poor quibble of mi&s;taking <HI>Office</HI> for <HI>Age.</HI> For quoting a Tradition concerning the Order, in which the Go&s;pels were written, out of <HI>Clemens Alexandrinus,</HI> which (he &s;ays) he received <HI>from Old Men of former times, i. e.</HI> &s;ays <HI>Blondel,</HI> Presbyters: It may be &s;o, and very likely mo&s;t of them were &s;o, but <HI>Clemens</HI> &s;ays no &s;uch thing, all that
<PB N="119" REF="64"> he affirms of them is, that they were <HI>Old Men</HI> of what quality or condition &s;oever, whether Clergy or Laity. The next pre|tence out of <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> is from the Ordi|nation of <HI>Origen,</HI> whom the two eminent Bi&s;hops <HI>Theocti&s;tus</HI> of <HI>Cae&s;area,</HI> and <HI>Alex|ander</HI> of <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> judging worthy of the highe&s;t honour in the Church, they Or|dain'd him Presbyter, therefore &s;ays <HI>Blon|del,</HI> the Presbytery was the highe&s;t ho|nour in the Church. What when he was placed in it by tho&s;e that were in an higher, for they were Bi&s;hops that Or|dain'd him? But what mi&s;erable trifling is here with the Records of the Church, that when the Records report that though he were worthy of the Supreme, and Epi&s;copal dignity, yet they only Ordai|ned him Presbyter, from thence to infer, that by that alone he was prefer'd to the honour that he was thought worthy of, though it was not confer'd upon him, as it never was? And yet by this &s;lender piece of perver&s;ene&s;s is this great Herald of the Epi&s;copal Genealogies turn'd into a Presbyterian Leveller. The la&s;t pa&s;&s;age out of <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> is mi&s;quoted, &s;o that I know not where to find it, neither need I, when it is a peremptory Te&s;timony of the di&s;tinction of the three Orders in the Church: The words are the&s;e, <Q>There
<PB N="120" REF="65"> are three Orders in every Church, one of Governours, two that are inferiour and &s;ubject to them; and the People are divided into two Cla&s;&s;es, the Faithful and the Catechumens.</Q> Now with what de&s;ign <HI>Blondel</HI> &s;hould quote the&s;e words is beyond my imagination to conceive; he has not, as his u&s;ual cu&s;tom is, tack't any Inference to them, and therefore what he dream't of when he alledged them, is now forever pa&s;t di&s;covery; for I dare &s;ay no man be&s;ide him&s;elf will ever be able to find out which way they can be brought to &s;erve his purpo&s;e. And the truth is, the&s;e are &s;uch wild and rambling conceits, that I am very apt to &s;u&s;pect that the man was not in his right mind, and that he had out of his furious zeal to Presbytery overwatcht and overhea|ted his head into &s;ome kind of phren&s;ie, for I cannot believe that any man in his right Sen&s;es could have talk'd, much le&s;s written at &s;uch a roving and incon&s;i&s;tent rate.</P>
<P>The next evidence is St. <HI>Hilary</HI> of <HI>Po|ictiers,</HI> becau&s;e he di&s;tingui&s;hes in the <HI>Aaronical</HI> Hierarchy two Orders; the Sa|cerdotal, of which <HI>Aaron</HI> was head, and the Mini&s;terial, which were Levites, and then applies this to the Chri&s;tian Hierar|chy. I &s;hall not put my &s;elf to the trou|ble
<PB N="121" REF="65"> of proving St. <HI>Hilary</HI> to be of the &s;ame mind with all the foregoing Fathers concerning the Epi&s;copal &s;uperiority, I fear I have done too much of that already in a Ca&s;e &s;o clear; this pa&s;&s;age alone is e|nough to do it, in which St. <HI>Hilary</HI> di|&s;tingui&s;hes the Prie&s;ts from the Levites, and then divides the Prie&s;ts into the High-Prie&s;t <HI>Aaron [Sacerdos enim in lege primus fuit</HI> Aaron] and the Prie&s;ts that were comprehended under his name, and then adds, that &s;o it is in the Chri&s;tian Church; and then there is no parity in the Prie&s;t-hood, but an High-Prie&s;t over the re&s;t. His two next Witne&s;&s;es, the Counterfeit <HI>Ambro&s;e,</HI> and the Author of the Que&s;tions upon the Old and New Te|&s;tament in St. <HI>Au&s;tin,</HI> we have examin'd already, and find that they only rai&s;e a Presbyter much above a Deacon, and place him next the Bi&s;hop, but upon a lower Bench, and that we &s;ee was a notion that run among all the Fathers, even when they divided the Clergy into three Or|ders, they &s;till made &s;omething common to Bi&s;hop and Presbyter, that di&s;tingui&s;ht them from Deacons.</P>
<P>Thus far have I &s;pur'd on my patience after it was quite tired, for though it gave out, and for a while lay down at the end of the fir&s;t two hundred years, yet have
<PB N="122" REF="66"> I forced it through two hundred more, with a re&s;olution to have gone with him to his Journeys end; but the way and work that I have already pa&s;t is &s;o infi|nitely dull and tedious, that I cannot pre|vail with my &s;elf to go any farther; nei|ther can I &s;atisfie my &s;elf to what purpo&s;e I &s;hould, for when I have cleared the Re|cords of the Church thus far, it is very little material what was done afterwards; for if it were not done before, it is for that rea&s;on evident that it was no Apo|&s;tolical Practice or Con&s;titution. Be&s;ides, his Citations out of Authors of later date are of the &s;ame nature, and depend upon the &s;ame mi&s;takes, and fal&s;e rea&s;onings that I have ob&s;erved and di&s;covered, in tho&s;e that we have already con&s;ider'd. And I &s;uppo&s;e I have by this time done enough to Caution our <HI>Engli&s;h Smectym|nuans,</HI> for the time to come, not to &s;wal|low <HI>Blondel</HI>'s Citations, and Authorities too greedily, when they are inform'd how enormou&s;ly he impo&s;es upon their Igno|rance. And then I hope we may for the time to come enjoy peace and quiet from their di&s;turbances, for I cannot think &s;o ill of them, as that they will after full in|formation go on to abu&s;e them&s;elves with &s;uch rank forgery, as they have hitherto done by their implicite faith in the ho|ne&s;ty
<PB N="123" REF="66"> and ingenuity of <HI>Blondel</HI> and the forreign Brethren.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="10" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. X.</HEAD>
<P>And now having thus far and fully proved the Divine In&s;titution, and Apo&s;tolical pre&s;cription of Epi&s;copal &s;u|periority, our next enquiry is, after what manner this In&s;titution was reduced to practice. For &s;eeing that Government is a Practical thing, its in&s;titution is no other way to be &s;o clearly under&s;tood, as by comparing it with its Practice: So that it is certain that the &s;ame way of Govern|ment, that was always practis'd in the Chri&s;tian Church was mo&s;t agreeable to our Saviour's In&s;titution. And by it we may not only trace the method of their Proceedings, but di&s;cern the rea&s;ons upon which they proceeded. And then if the e&s;tabli&s;h'd Con&s;titution of the Church of <HI>England</HI> not only agree with the mo&s;t Ancient practice, but be founded upon the &s;ame Rea&s;ons, that, I hope, is enough to place it above all Oppo&s;ition. And as by this method I &s;hall make good mine own Cau&s;e, &s;o I &s;hall pre&s;cribe again&s;t all other claims, for 'tis certain that was ne|ver appointed that was never practi&s;ed. And therefore though it is no hard matter for fal&s;e pretenders to make &s;ome &s;eem|ing Pleas to a Divine In&s;titution, yet if
<PB N="124" REF="67"> they can &s;hew no example of their Claim in the Ancient Practice of the Chri&s;tian Church, that is an in&s;uperable Bar to all their pretences.</P>
<P>Thus for Example, when the <HI>Romani&s;ts</HI> pretend that the whole Government of the Chri&s;tian Church was founded in the Supremacy of the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> and plead Scripture for it, though I mu&s;t con|fe&s;s they do it &s;o wretchedly, that their own Arguments are the greate&s;t &s;hame to their own pretence. But &s;uppo&s;ing that they had any &s;eeming Foundation for it in the Scriptures, yet becau&s;e there is not the lea&s;t Foot-&s;tep of any &s;uch pra|ctice in the Ancient Church for &s;ome hundred years, that's an undeniable de|mon&s;tration that there never was any &s;uch Divine In&s;titution, for if any &s;uch there had been, the Apo&s;tles would not have fail'd of conforming to it, and there|fore when they do not, that &s;hews that they had no &s;uch Command. E&s;pecially when if there were any &s;uch In&s;titution, the whole Government of the Chri&s;tian Church was bottom'd upon it, and there|fore mu&s;t have been &s;etled in the fir&s;t place; &s;o that when we find nothing of it for &s;o many Ages, it is evident that there never was any &s;uch thing, and therefore never ought to be. And as this pre&s;cribes
<PB N="125" REF="67"> again&s;t <HI>Roman</HI> Tyranny, &s;o it does a|gain&s;t all &s;orts of Phanatick Anarchy, who all agree in this one Principle, that they will have no Order of Bi&s;hops &s;uperiour to that of Presbyters. But if they can give no certain in&s;tance of any Church &s;ince the Apo&s;tles, that was ordinarily govern'd by Presbyters without a Bi|&s;hop, it is in vain for them to load their Margins with Texts of Scripture, or ra|ther, as their Cu&s;tom is, with figures of Chapter and Ver&s;e, (and indeed the meer figures for the mo&s;t part &s;ignifie as much to the purpo&s;e as the words them&s;elves.) For if the Supreme Government of the Church had been &s;etled, as they &s;ay it was, by Chri&s;t and his Apo&s;tles, in a Com|mon-Council of Presbyters, it is impo&s;|&s;ible but that mo&s;t, if not all the Chur|ches had at fir&s;t conform'd to it. And therefore the Univer&s;al Practice of Epi&s;|copal Superiority in all known Churches, does as clearly demon&s;trate that there was no Divine In&s;titution of Presbyterian or Independent Parity, as of Papal Tyran|ny. But when we fir&s;t lay the In&s;tituti|ons of our Saviour and his Apo&s;tles for the Ground-work, and then draw upon them the practice of the Primitive Church, that will give us an exact Landskip of the true &s;tate of Chri&s;tianity. For there
<PB N="126" REF="68"> were few Churches brought to any kind of perfection in the Apo&s;tles time, per|haps none at all be&s;ide the Mother Church of <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> and therefore that &s;tate in which we find Churches when they were compleatly fini&s;hed, we have rea&s;on to conclude mo&s;t agreeable to the Apo&s;tles de&s;ign, e&s;pecially when we find all the known Churches in the World &s;etled in the &s;ame form of Government, in which they left the Church of <HI>Jeru&s;alem.</HI></P>
<P>And in the fir&s;t place there is nothing more evident in all the Records of the Primitive Church, than that the Apo&s;tles, and fir&s;t Doctors of the Chri&s;tian Faith endeavour'd as far as they were able, to model the fir&s;t &s;etlement of Churches ac|cording to the pre&s;ent State and Divi&s;ion of the <HI>Roman</HI> Empire. For though our Ble&s;&s;ed Saviour &s;etled the Supreme Go|vernment of his Church upon the Apo|&s;tles, and their Succe&s;&s;ors; yet he no where pre&s;crib'd the Bounds and Limits of every man's Juri&s;diction, but left it, as indeed the Nature of the thing required, to their own Prudence to divide their Provinces among them&s;elves. And ac|cordingly we find from the very begin|ning, that they form'd the Juri&s;diction of Churches according to the Civil Judica|tures of the Empire. And this they did
<PB N="127" REF="68"> with &s;pecial regard to the Intere&s;t of Civil Government, that they might not be any occa&s;ion of making Alterations or Di&s;tur|bances in the State, which could &s;carce have been avoided, had they not cut them out by the &s;ame Pattern and Model. For if the Juri&s;diction of Churches had been of a larger extent then the Civil State, it would be in their power to hamper the Civil Government as they plea&s;e, and if they plea&s;e de&s;troy it. For if their Juri&s;|diction extend beyond its bounds, then it could exerci&s;e it out of its Territories, and then if it have power to Summon its Members (as if it have any it hath that, and if it be a Church it mu&s;t have &s;ome) it might cite all, or any of his Sub|jects out of its Dominions, and then they are no longer Subjects than as them&s;elves plea&s;e. So that the very nature of Civil Government limits the extent of Chur|ches; and when our Saviour Comman|ded his Apo&s;tles &s;o to plant them in all Kingdoms and Common-wealths, as not to abate the Rights of the State wherever they came, that alone bound them to li|mit the bounds of Churches to the bounds of the Civil Government. And &s;o we find all Chri&s;tendom model'd before any Civil Power concern'd it &s;elf in its &s;etle|ment; and <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> found it &s;o well
<PB N="128" REF="69"> order'd, for compliance with the Civil State of the Empire, that he made no Al|teration in that, till he did in this; and then indeed it follow'd too fa&s;t of its own accord, as we &s;hall &s;ee hereafter. So as the Soul is conveigh'd into the Body, &s;o as to conform it &s;elf to the &s;ame &s;hape and bulk, without any other change, but giving it Life and Activity, Chri&s;tianity was brought into the Civil Government, &s;o as to give it new &s;trength and vigour by all tho&s;e precepts of Obedience and Loyalty, that it binds upon the Con&s;cien|ces of all Subjects; but as for the Body of the State, it was punctually to con|form it Self and its Di&s;cipline to the very &s;ame mold. And this we &s;hall find pra|cti&s;ed in the Primitive Church according to all the Divi&s;ions and Sub-divi&s;ions of Government in the Empire.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="11" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. IX.</HEAD>
<P>The fir&s;t and lowe&s;t Church-Society is a Bi&s;hop with his Presbyters pre&s;iding over a City and its adjacent Territories; for that was the fir&s;t Divi|&s;ion of Power in the <HI>Roman</HI> Empire, as it was in the Jewi&s;h State, and as in mo&s;t Nations a Judge with his Officers, and their A&s;&s;i&s;tants re&s;iding in every City, and extending their Juri&s;diction over the adjoining Country. And that is the de|finition
<PB N="129" REF="69"> of a Territory in the Civil Law. <HI>Territorium e&s;t &V;niver&s;itas agrorum infra</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pandect.</HI> &sect; 8. <HI>lib.</HI> 239. <HI>F. de verb. &s;ign.</HI></NOTE> <HI>fines cuju&s;&abque; Civitatis: quod ab eo dictum quidam aiunt, quod magi&s;tratus ejus loci intra eos fines terrendi, id e&s;t, &s;ummo|vendi jus habet.</HI> In Conformity to which the Apo&s;tles every where planted Chur|ches in Cities, which &s;ooner or later, as they &s;ucceeded in their works, took in all the Country about, appertaining to the Circuit of the City. This is both the narrowe&s;t and the large&s;t acceptation of the word Church, excepting the Catholick Church, that we meet with in Antiquity; * <NOTE PLACE="marg">And this is confe&s;t by <HI>Blondel</HI> him&s;elf. <HI>Apol. Praefat.</HI> p. 76. <HI>Ne cui in mentem veniat fideles cu|ju&s;cunque civitatis incolas pro titulo|rum in quibus eos convenire mos est, numero plures eccle&s;ias con&s;tituere, &s;ed unius membra cen&s;eri debere, alt&acirc; mente reponendum e&s;t Apostolos &s;ive Hiero&s;olymis, &s;ive Antiochiae, &s;ive Corinthi, ubi plura degebant Chri|&s;tianorum millia, &amp; numero&s;i e|rant ordinis con&s;e&s;&s;us plures nec ec|cle&s;ias nec con&s;e&s;&s;us con&s;titui&s;&s;e, &s;ed</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>unicum, nec alium po|&s;tea fui&s;&s;e aut e&s;&s;e debui&s;&s;e (Chri&s;to ip&s;o judice) piorum morem, cum Christianorum per &s;ingulas A&s;iae civitates frequentiores coetus nu&s;|quam in plures eccle&s;ias et presbyteria di&s;pertiti &s;int, &s;ed unicam uniu&s;cuju&s;|que loci eccle&s;iam unicum con&s;e&s;&s;um con&s;tituerint, Ephe&s;i Ephe&s;inum, Smyrnae Smyrnen&s;em.</HI> Which utterly over|throws the grand Plea of our pre&s;ent Non Conformi&s;ts that would confine the extent of Churches to per&s;onal Communion (as they call it) or &s;ingle Congregations.</NOTE> for we never find any other mention of a Church in Scripture, as the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> the Church of <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> the Church of <HI>Antioch,</HI> the Church of <HI>Jeru&s;alem;</HI> in which Churches though there were divers Offi|cers, and therefore &s;e|veral Congregations (for if there had been but one, as &s;ome have the Confi|dence
<PB N="130" REF="70"> to affirm, to what purpo&s;e &s;uch a number of Officers?) yet but one Church. So that the bare mention of &s;o many Of|ficers in one Church is an undeniable pre&s;cription again&s;t all the pretences of Independent Congregations. For if there were di&s;tinct Congregations, as it is evi|dent there was, both from the number of Chri&s;tians, and of Church Officers; yet the Title of Church is never given to any of them, but only to the whole Bo|dy appertaining to the City; and there|fore it is ob&s;ervable that they are Syno|nymous in Scripture, Ordaining Elders in <HI>every Church, Act.</HI> 14 23. is the &s;ame with Ordaining Elders in <HI>every City, Titus</HI> 1. 5. So little do the Enemies of Epi&s;copacy gain by finding out Presbyteries in Scrip|ture; for that plainly demon&s;trates the larger extent of Churches, unle&s;s we will be &s;o ab&s;urd as to affirm that every &s;ingle Congregation was taught and govern'd by an A&s;&s;embly of Divines. And as we do find no Church of one Denomination of le&s;s extent than a City, and its Terri|tories, &s;o neither do we find any of a grea|ter, excepting the Church Catholick; for when the Scripture &s;peaks of any larger Society of Chri&s;tians, as of a Province, or a Nation, it is always (as has often been ob&s;erved by Learned men) in the Plural
<PB N="131" REF="70"> Number, as the Churches of <HI>Judaea,</HI> the Churches of <HI>Syria,</HI> the Churches of <HI>Ci|licia,</HI> the Churches of <HI>Galatia,</HI> the Chur|ches of <HI>A&s;ia,</HI> in that tho&s;e Provincial Churches were made up, as I &s;hall &s;hew anon, of a Combination of Dioce&s;an Churches. And agreeable to the&s;e plain intimations of Scripture is the whole pra|ctice of Antiquity, for there is not one In&s;tance of any one Church upon Record, either of a narrower or a wider extent. 'Tis true, that the beginnings of Churches were for the mo&s;t part laid in Cities, as every thing mu&s;t begin &s;ome where; but we find not the mention of any Church as fix'd and fini&s;h'd in any Ancient Re|cord, but of the &s;ame extent with the Civil Government over a City and its Territories. Some learned men I know di&s;tingui&s;h between the two Periods of the Chri&s;tian Church, the fir&s;t when Churches and Cities were of the &s;ame extent; the &s;econd when Churches took in the adjoining Villages belonging to the Cities. But this is a meer Metaphy|&s;ical di&s;tinction of their own Creating, without any Foundation in the Hi&s;tory of the Church. For no man can a&s;&s;ign any time, when the Extent of a Church was confin'd to the inhabitants of a City, or when City Churches began to take in
<PB N="132" REF="71"> the Inhabitants of adjoining Villages. For though the Go&s;pel was for the mo&s;t part fir&s;t preached in Cities, becau&s;e of the greater number of people there, and the ea&s;ie way of propagating it thence into the Country, by rea&s;on of its Natural and Civil dependence upon them; yet that there was ever any de&s;ign of limi|ting Churches to the People of a City; nay, that there ever was any &s;uch time that they were actually &s;o limited, there is not any the lea&s;t intimation in all the Records of the Church. So that if it ever happen'd to be &s;o in any place, as it was meerly accidental, &s;o was it of very &s;hort duration. For it is po&s;&s;ible that at the fir&s;t preaching of the Go&s;pel in any City, none but the inhabitants of it might be pre&s;ent, and &s;o the Converts of that time might make up the Church of that City; and &s;o it is po&s;&s;ible that &s;ome of the A|po&s;tles, or fir&s;t Preachers of Chri&s;tianity might have fir&s;t preached in a Village, (and St. <HI>Clement</HI> &s;ays &s;o they did) and &s;o the Church might for that time have been confin'd to it. But if a Church were ever limited to a particular place, it could be but for a very &s;hort time, e&s;pecially in Cities, whither People continually re&s;or|ted out of the neighbour Villages, and therefore were as likely to be pre&s;ent at
<PB N="133" REF="71"> the Apo&s;tles fir&s;t Sermons as the Inhabi|tants them&s;elves, and then if any of them were Converted they belong'd to the Church of that City, and then the Church was never confin'd within the Walls. And that this was the Ancient State of the Church is evident from <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr,</HI> who expre&s;ly informs us, that in his time on <HI>Sundays</HI> all the Chri&s;tians that dwelt <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>in City and Country</HI> A&s;&s;embled together for Religious Wor|&s;hip. But how &s;mall &s;oever the begin|nings of Churches might chance to be ei|ther in City or Country, it is evident that no Church &s;top'd the bounds of its Juri&s;|diction till it had taken in the City, and all its Territories. For that was the ex|tent of all the Churches that we find &s;et|led in the Chri&s;tian World, when they were brought to their la&s;ting State and full Perfection. And that's a clear Argu|ment that this was the State of the Church that was de&s;ign'd from the Beginning, and that for this Rea&s;on, that when the Powers of the World &s;hould come in to own Chri&s;tianity, a regular and uninter|fering corre&s;pondence might be main|tain'd between both States, Civil and Ec|cle&s;ia&s;tical, for by this means when any man became Chri&s;tian he remain'd in the &s;ame Capacity toward the Civil Go|vernment,
<PB N="134" REF="72"> in which he &s;tood before, which otherwi&s;e he could not have done.</P>
<P>This being the fir&s;t Model of a Church, a Bi&s;hop with his Presbyters in a City and its Territories; the fundamental Rule of their Government was this, <HI>That no|thing was to be done without the Bi&s;hop:</HI> This we all know was the main injuncti|on in all <HI>Ignatius</HI> his Epi&s;tles, and this was the univer&s;al Practice of the Catho|lick Church. And hence in the 31 Apo|&s;tolical Canon it is decreed, That if any Presbyter &s;hall &s;eparate from the Com|munion of his Bi&s;hop, and erect another <HI>Altar,</HI> he &s;hall after three Admonitions be depo&s;ed for his Ambition and Affecta|tion of Tyranny, and that very properly, becau&s;e 'tis certain that all Rebels would be Tyrants too. And the &s;ame is decreed by the Council of <HI>Antioch,</HI> Canon 5; with this addition of Severity, That he &s;hall be for ever depo&s;ed without capacity of Re|&s;titution; and that the Secular Power &s;hall be called in to puni&s;h him as a mo|ver of Sedition. And in the 39 Apo&s;to|lical Canon, Presbyters and Deacons are commanded to do nothing in the Church without the Bi&s;hop's con&s;ent; and <HI>Igna|tius</HI> reckons up in his Epi&s;tle to the Church of <HI>Smyrna</HI> the &s;everal Particulars that they ought not to do without him,
<PB N="135" REF="72"> not Baptize, nor Offer, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> And this was the Cu&s;tom of the Primitive Church: E&s;pecially as to Bapti&s;me <HI>Tertullian</HI> is a po&s;itive Witne&s;s, <HI>Bap|ti&s;mum dandi habet jus &s;ummus Sacerdos, qui e&s;t Epi&s;copus, dehinc Presby|teri &amp; Diaconi, non ta|men &s;ine Epi&s;copi Autho|ritate,</HI> The Chief Prie&s;t, that is the Bi&s;hop, hath the Power of granting Bapti&s;m, and after him the Pres|byters and Deacons, but not without the Bi&s;hop's Authority. This fundamental rule of Epi&s;copal &s;uperiority being e&s;ta|bli&s;hed, it is not much material to enquire after what manner the Bi&s;hop and the Clergy exerci&s;ed their Authority among them&s;elves; whether they &s;etled di&s;tinct Congregations under their proper Pa&s;tors, or whether they govern'd the whole Church in Common. Becau&s;e the&s;e things depend principally upon Chance and ac|cidental Convenience, and they might do either as was mo&s;t &s;uitable to the Pre&s;ent State of the Church: In the Church of <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> there mu&s;t have been &s;everal Congregations from the beginning, be|cau&s;e the great Number of Converts ex|ceeded
<PB N="136" REF="73"> the bounds of a &s;ingle Congrega|tion. And therefore at fir&s;t they took a common care over the whole Body of the People, dividing the work among them|selves, but a&s;&s;embling principally in the City Church, whither the Inhabitants of the Country repair'd for Divine Wor|ship. For while the Number of Chri&s;ti|ans was but &s;mall in Country Villages, &s;ome few perhaps in every Village, it was proper for them to re&s;ort to the Commu|nion of the City Church: But when that Chri&s;tianity prevail'd over the World, and that there were Chri&s;tians enough in every Village to make up a &s;ufficient Con|gregation, then was it proper to &s;et up fixed Pa&s;tors in particular Pari&s;hes: But when ever that was done, for the time is very uncertain, it is certain that they were form'd and in&s;tituted in &s;ubordination to the Ancient &s;tate of the Church; and therefore were not independent in them|selves, but &s;ubject to the Bi&s;hop and his Presbytery as they had been from the be|ginning. So that the late beginning of Pari&s;hes and di&s;tinct Congregations, e&s;pe|cially in the Country (for as it hath been often ob&s;erved by learned men, we find no mention of Country Presbyters till about St. <HI>Cyprian</HI>'s time) is another evi|dent pre&s;cription again&s;t Independency.</P>
<PB N="137" REF="73">
<P> In that before that time all the Churches in the Dioce&s;s were immediately dependent on the Bi&s;hop and his Presbyters, and that they were &s;o then and ever after is a thing &s;o well known, that the Man that &s;hould begin the Proof of this as an inviolable Rule of the Church at St. <HI>Cyprian,</HI> without a|&s;cending higher, might as well &s;pare his Ink and Paper, and does but a needle&s;s and a thankle&s;s Office to the Cau&s;e of Epi&s;copacy: Thankle&s;s becau&s;e if he be not able or willing from thence to ri&s;e higher to the fir&s;t Age of the Church, he gives up its Title from Divine Right: Needle&s;s becau&s;e its po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion by humane Right before and at that time is &s;o no|toriou&s;ly evident, that if any man &s;hould de&s;ire to have it proved, he would more de&s;erve to be hi&s;&s;ed at, than confuted. But if any man de&s;ire to con&s;ult the &s;e|veral pa&s;&s;ages in the Ancients, e&s;pecially St. <HI>Cyprian,</HI> relating to this Rule of ha|ving but one Bi&s;hop in a City and his Ter|ritories, he may find them ama&s;s'd toge|ther by <HI>Blondel</HI> him&s;elf, <HI>p.</HI> 188. 189.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="12" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. X.</HEAD>
<P>And therefore I &s;hall rather choo&s;e to give an Account of the Conformity of the Church to this Rule, as far as it was able, in its ordinary Practice. For in Ca&s;es of Nece&s;&s;ity, it cannot be help'd if
<PB N="138" REF="74"> men cannot have what they would have done. And therefore no &s;uch Examples ought to be any prejudice to a &s;tanding Rule. So that whereas learned men di&s;|pute whether in the Apo&s;tles time there were two di&s;tinct Churches of Jews and Gentiles; and by con&s;equence two Bi|&s;hops, is very little if at all material to the Controver&s;ie. For if the Apo&s;tles ever &s;et up two Communions in any Place (though of that there is no competent evidence) they were forc'd to it by the furious prejudices of the Jews, who for &s;ome time would not be wrought off from their old deep rivited conceit, that it was not lawful to join in any Wor&s;hip with a Gentile. This I find the greate&s;t difficulty that the Apo&s;tles encountred in founding Churches; &s;o that it is not to be much wondred at if they &s;uffer'd them|&s;elves to yield to it for &s;ome time, till they could per&s;wade them out of it. And that I am &s;ure was not long, for we hear nothing of any &s;uch thing after the Apo|&s;tles them&s;elves. Though for my own Part I am apt to think, that there was never any &s;uch form'd and &s;ettled Com|munions. For though the Apo&s;tles were at fir&s;t forc'd &s;omewhat to conde&s;cend to the nicene&s;s of the Jews, yet it is very probable that they overcame the fondne&s;s
<PB N="139" REF="74"> of their conceit, before they proceeded to the final &s;etlement of Churches. But that they any where fixed any di&s;tinct Com|munions I know no &s;ufficient ground to induce any man's belief, but much again&s;t it; for this controver&s;ie between the Jew|i&s;h and Gentile Believers was chiefly agi|tated in the Church of <HI>Antioch;</HI> and when it was refer'd to the determination of the Apo&s;tles, <HI>Act.</HI> 15. they were &s;o far from any compliance with the Waywardne&s;s of the <HI>Jews,</HI> in forcing the <HI>Gentils</HI> to a Sub|mi&s;&s;ion to the whole Law, that they in|joyn'd but three or four particulars, <HI>viz. That they ab&s;tain from Meats offer'd to Idols, from Blood, from things Strangled, and from Fornication:</HI> And upon the&s;e terms require the Church of <HI>Antioch</HI> to receive them to Communion; &s;o far were they from in&s;tituting two di&s;tinct Com|munions, as <HI>Baronius,</HI> and after him others <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Martyrol. not. ad Feb.</HI> 1.</NOTE> conceive, that they required all to enter into one Communion upon the&s;e terms, which was joyfully received, and by con|&s;equence obeyed by the whole Church, <HI>v.</HI> 31. And when they here Condemn'd the <HI>Jews</HI> that would make the ob&s;ervation of the Law of <HI>Mo&s;es</HI> nece&s;&s;ary, as di&s;tur|bers of the Peace of the Church, and &s;ub|verters of Mens Souls, <HI>v.</HI> 27. It is by no means probable that they would in any
<PB N="140" REF="75"> other Churches &s;o much gratifie men of the &s;ame Principles, as out of compliance with them to neglect or indanger the Unity of the Church: When according to the Sentence they had pa&s;&s;ed upon them at <HI>Antioch,</HI> they could be no better then Schi&s;maticks all the World over. The only &s;eeming difficulty that I know of, and once thought a real one, is the duplicates of the fir&s;t Bi&s;hops after the Apo&s;tles, and in particular <HI>Linus</HI> and <HI>Cle|mens</HI> at <HI>Rome:</HI> But the Ca&s;e of tho&s;e Apo|&s;tolical men was the &s;ame with that of the Apo&s;tles them&s;elves, they were not &s;etled Bi&s;hops of any particular See, but of the Catholick Church, and &s;o where|ever they fix'd for any time, they were accounted of as the fir&s;t Bi&s;hops of that See. And thus might <HI>Linus</HI> and <HI>Clemens</HI> be both e&s;teem'd Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome,</HI> as St. <HI>Peter</HI> and <HI>Paul</HI> were, in that both of them &s;ome time or other pre&s;ided in that Church, and that perhaps either together, or at various times, as they happen'd to move in the di&s;charge of their Evangeli|cal Office. And thus any Church might happen to have many Bi&s;hops without di&s;tinct Communions, becau&s;e the Bi|&s;hops at that time were not fix'd, &s;o that when two Evangeli&s;ts chanced to meet together in one City, they were both
<PB N="141" REF="75"> reckon'd Bi&s;hops of it, becau&s;e they had both Apo&s;tolical Authority. But when Churches came to be &s;etled upon their la&s;ting foundation, then the &s;tanding Rule was one Bi&s;hop over a City and its Ter|ritories.</P>
<P>Thus in the <HI>12th.</HI> Apo&s;tolical Canon, when provi&s;ion is made that a Per&s;on Ex|communicated in his own Dioce&s;s may not be received in another, it is decreed that he &s;hall not be received in <HI>another City,</HI> as <HI>Synonymous</HI> with Dioce&s;s; and &s;o by his being kept out of Communion with the Church, appertaining to every City, he was effectually and entirely Excommunicate out of the whole <HI>Chri&s;tian Church.</HI> And &s;o in the <HI>8th.</HI> Canon of the fir&s;t general Council at <HI>Nice</HI> it is provided, That if any <HI>Novatian</HI> Bi&s;hop return to the Com|munion of the <HI>Catholick</HI> Church, he may be allow'd the Title and Honour of a Bi|&s;hop, but nothing of the Power and Ju|ri&s;diction <GAP DESC="foreign"> that there may not be two Bi&s;hops in the &s;amc City. And accordingly they proceeded in their <HI>Synodical</HI> Epi&s;tle again&s;t <HI>Meletius,</HI> who had pre&s;um'd to ordain after his Depo&s;ition by a Synod of Bi&s;hops, allowing him the bare Title of Bi&s;hop in <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Soc. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 19. <HI>Soc. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 24.</NOTE> his own City, but charging him to exer|ci&s;e no Authority, e&s;pecially of Ordinati|on
<PB N="142" REF="76"> <GAP DESC="foreign">, either in City or Country. And the &s;ame was done by the Council at <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> in a <HI>Synodical</HI> Epi&s;tle to a Synod of the Province of <HI>Pam|philia</HI> upon this occa&s;ion. <HI>Eu&s;tathius</HI> having been Elected into the Metropolitan Bi|&s;hoprick of the Province, and being tir'd out with many Vexatious Suits and Trou|bles in it, re&s;ign'd it; upon which the Provincial Synod cho&s;e <HI>Theodorus</HI> in his place. Now when the See was full <HI>Eu|&s;tathius,</HI> that had depos'd him&s;elf, makes his application to the Council, who ob|&s;erving the Meekne&s;s and the Mode&s;ty of the Man, pitied his Ca&s;e, as much as the Canons, and Con&s;titutions of the Church would permit, and therefore Wrote to the Bi&s;hops of the Province to give him all that Re&s;pect that was due to his Order, but re&s;erving the whole Juri&s;diction to <HI>Theodorus.</HI></P>
<P>Another remarkable In&s;tance of this was <HI>Liberius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> who had been bani&s;h'd his See by <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> for his Zeal again&s;t <HI>Ariani&s;m,</HI> and <HI>Felix</HI> cho&s;en in his Place; but addre&s;&s;es being made to the Emperour in his behalf, either by the Court Ladies, as <HI>Theodoret,</HI> or by the We|&s;tern <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Lib.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 17. <HI>Lib.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 15.</NOTE> Bi&s;hops, as <HI>Sozomen,</HI> he was prevail'd upon to command his Re&s;titution, enjoyn|ing him to govern it joyntly with <HI>Felix.</HI>
<PB N="143" REF="76"> But the People (&s;ay the Hi&s;torians) laugh|ed at the Emperours Letters; and tho' the &s;everal Parties divided in adhering to the &s;everal Bi&s;hops, yet they both agreed in this common Outcry, <GAP DESC="foreign">, one God, one Chri&s;t, one Bi&s;hop. And &s;o upon <HI>Liberius</HI> his Return <HI>Felix</HI> (&s;ays <HI>Theodoret)</HI> remov'd from <HI>Rome</HI> to &s;ome other City; but <HI>Sozomen</HI> &s;ays, He immediately departed this Life by the &s;pe|cial Providence of God, to pre&s;erve the Honour of St. <HI>Peters</HI> See, and the Con|&s;titution of the Antient Church, that two Bi&s;hops might not &s;it in the &s;ame Throne; So that it is probable from both, that at <HI>Li|berius</HI> his Return <HI>Felix</HI> withdrew and &s;oon after Died. And &s;o in the <HI>13th. Canon</HI> of the Council of <HI>Calcedon,</HI> it is Enacted, That no <HI>Clergy-man</HI> Officiate in another <HI>City</HI> without commendatory Letters from his own Bi&s;hop, where it is evident that Di|oce&s;&s;es were <HI>Synonymous</HI> with Cities, and that the prohibiting them to Officiate in any other City, was the &s;ame thing as pro|hibiting them to Officiate at all. And much the &s;ame provi&s;ion is made by the Council of <HI>Antioch,</HI> That if a Bi&s;hop could not repair to his own Epi&s;copal See, be|ing hindred either by the <HI>Factiou&s;ne&s;s</HI> of <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Can.</HI> 18.</NOTE> the People, or the Incur&s;ions of the <HI>Bar|barians,</HI> that in that Ca&s;e he might be al|low'd
<PB N="144" REF="77"> the Title of a Bi&s;hop, and have the liberty of Officiating in the Church in another Bi&s;hops Dioce&s;s till further order, but by no means to meddle with any thing of the Juri&s;diction. And &s;o in the Council <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Can.</HI> 94.</NOTE> of <HI>Carthage,</HI> the Bi&s;hops are enjoyn'd to endeavour the Conver&s;ion of their own <HI>City i. e.</HI> Dioce&s;s. And &s;o in all the Ca|nons of the ancient Councils, that forbid the Tran&s;lation of Bi&s;hops from a le&s;&s;er Dioce&s;s to a greater; it is expre&s;s'd by removing from one <HI>City</HI> to another. I might add numberle&s;s In&s;tances, more e&s;pecially tho&s;e &s;everal ancient Canons, that enjoyn the Bi&s;hop to re&s;ide in his <HI>City Church,</HI> and not in any other Part of his Dioce&s;s. But the&s;e are more than enough to demon&s;trate the Primitive ground and Apo&s;tolical Con&s;titution of <HI>Dioce&s;an</HI> Churches; that as they made Cities the Seats of Bi&s;hopricks, &s;o they de&s;ign'd to extend their Juri&s;diction over the adja|cent Country, when Cities and Churches were made <HI>Synonymous</HI> in the Apo&s;tles time, and when in the time of their earli|e&s;t Succe&s;&s;ors Churches were compleatly &s;ettled, the Territories adjacent to the Cities were always involv'd in the Chur|ches planted in them.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="13" TYPE="section">
<PB N="145" REF="77">
<HEAD>&sect; XI.</HEAD>
<P>The only difficulty that remains is, the Ca&s;e of the <HI>Chorepi&s;copi,</HI> of whom it is much di&s;puted among learned Men, whether they were true and proper Bi|&s;hops, or only Presbyters, authoriz'd not by <HI>Ordination</HI> but <HI>Deputation</HI> from the Bi&s;hop. Though the Controver&s;ie about them is very little material to the Cau&s;e of Apo&s;tolical Epi&s;copacy, becau&s;e of their late beginning in the Chri&s;tian Church, and therefore becau&s;e our Enquiry is after the fir&s;t Con&s;titution of this, I have con|fin'd my &s;earch to the three fir&s;t Centu|ries, and what Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Practi&s;e &s;oe|ver is not to be found in them; I conclude it to be no Apo&s;tolical Con&s;titution: So that &s;eeing we hear nothing of the&s;e <HI>Cho|repi&s;copi</HI> till the fourth Century: It is from thence evident, that they were not known to the Primitive Church, though <HI>Blondel</HI> and <HI>Walo</HI> are pleas'd to make them an Apo&s;tolical Con&s;titution, according to <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Page</HI> 33. <HI>Page</HI> 302.</NOTE> their con&s;tant cu&s;tom of perverting, and indeed flatly belying the plain &s;ence of all Antiquity. For it is not only without any Foundation in the Records of the an|cient Church, but it's Notoriou&s;ly con|trary to it's whole Practice: For the fir&s;t time we meet with any &s;uch Office, (as <HI>Blondel</HI> him&s;elf hath confe&s;s'd, becau&s;e he <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Page</HI> 35.</NOTE>
<PB N="146" REF="78"> could not deny it) is in the Council of <HI>Ancyra,</HI> in the year 314, or 315. And as they were brought in at fir&s;t by Hu|mane <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Can.</HI> 13.</NOTE> Authority, &s;o were they at la&s;t abo|li&s;h'd by the &s;ame. But be&s;ide their late &s;tanding in the Church, there is another thing that makes their Cau&s;e &s;carce worth the enquiring into, and that's the Imper|fection of the fir&s;t Record concerning them, that is the Canon of <HI>Ancyra,</HI> that hath &s;uffer'd &s;uch a mutilation, as de&s;troys it's Sen&s;e; however I will endeavour to State their Ca&s;e as well as I can, becau&s;e now I am in, I would give at lea&s;t a full Hi&s;torical Account of the Practice of that which we now call <HI>Dioce&s;an Epi&s;copacy.</HI></P>
<P>Now here the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> and <HI>Presbyterians</HI> agree, as they do in every thing el&s;e again&s;t the right Con&s;titution of the Primitive Church; that they were not proper Bi|&s;hops but Presbyters, deputed by the Bi&s;hop to exerci&s;e all Parts of his Epi&s;copal Authority; by which the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> gain this, that any Presbyter may take upon him the Office of a Bi&s;hop, by Delegation from our Sovereign Lord the Pope, and then it is in his Holine&s;&s;es Power, to turn all the Bi&s;hops in the World out of Office when ever he plea&s;es to &s;end out his Dele|gates into all their Dioce&s;&s;es; And that is the true Bottom of <HI>Popery</HI> to make the Bi&s;hop
<PB N="147" REF="78"> of <HI>Rome</HI> the only Bi&s;hop, or rather all the Bi&s;hops in the World. And therefore we do not find any one Tenet more unani|mou&s;ly a&s;&s;erted by the Divines of that Church. Here the very <HI>Schoolmen,</HI> that wrangle about all things el&s;e, are one and all, <HI>Thomi&s;ts</HI> and <HI>Scoti&s;ts, Nominals</HI> and <HI>Realls</HI> agree that Epi&s;copal Con&s;ecration does not give any new Order, but is only an exten&s;ion of the old. Though here they abu&s;e them&s;elves, as they do every where, by a meer empty word; for if it gives a new Power, as they acknowledge it does that of Ordination, then here is a di&s;tinct Order of Men entru&s;ted with that Power, and that's all, for it is the Power that makes the Order, and without that, the Order is nothing more than a <HI>Scho|la&s;tic Cobweb.</HI> The <HI>Presbyterians</HI> on the on the other &s;ide think they gain this, that a Bi&s;hop and a Presbyter are the &s;ame Or|der, as having both the &s;ame E&s;&s;ential Power, but that the exerci&s;e of it in Pres|byters hath been &s;ometimes re&s;train'd by Canonical and Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Con&s;titutions, and &s;ometimes allow'd as in the <HI>Chorepi&s;|copi,</HI> tho' granting that they were no more than Presbyters; be&s;ides that they are a Novelty in compari&s;on of the Apo|&s;tolical Church, I cannot &s;ee how it af|fects the Cau&s;e of Epi&s;copal Superiority.
<PB N="148" REF="79"> For tho' they were Presbyters, yet it is evident, that they did not pretend to the Epi&s;copal Function, by virtue of their own Order but their Bi&s;hops Authority; And therefore this very cu&s;tom were e|nough to prove the di&s;tinction of the Or|ders by it &s;elf: But whether a Bi&s;hop may lawfully depute a Presbyter by his Com|mi&s;&s;ion to execute his Office is another Que&s;tion; for whether he may or may not, it is evident either way, that he has a Superiority of Power over him, and that too is enough. But the truth is, this whole matter is very clearly determined by tho&s;e two great Men, Mr. <HI>Thorndike</HI> and the Arch Bi&s;hop of <HI>Spalato,</HI> if com|par'd together: For &s;ays Mr. <HI>Thorndike, Suppo&s;e Pre&s;byters were ordain'd by Pres|byters upon Commi&s;&s;ion from the Bi&s;hop, is</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>The right of the Church, C.</HI> 3 <HI>p.</HI> 146.</NOTE> <HI>this any Prejudice to the Rule that nothing be done without the Bi&s;hop? or is it any Advantage to them, that would have no Bi&s;hops, and &s;o do all again&s;t the Bi&s;hop? To my Rea&s;on it &s;eems nece&s;&s;ary to di&s;tin|gui&s;h between the Solemnity which an Act is executed with, and the Power and Autho|rity by which it is done. And that it can|not be prejudicial to any Power to do that by another, which it &s;eems fit</HI> (i. e. <HI>thinketh not convenient) to be Immediatly and Per|&s;onally Executed by it &s;elf. The dependence</HI>
<PB N="149" REF="79"> <HI>of the Church being Safe by the Commi&s;&s;ion acknowledg'd, and the &V;nity of the Church by that Dependence.</HI> And it is certain, that the Efficacy of the Solemnity, <HI>i. e.</HI> the promi&s;e and the Conveyance of the Divine Grace, is not annex'd to the Act, but the Authority; For it is not the Bi|&s;hops hand that conveighs any thing into the Per&s;on ordain'd, but the immediate Grace of God, which he hath promis'd to the performance of the outward Solem|nity. So that tho' it be not executed by him in Per&s;on, yet &s;o it be by his Autho|rity; Our Saviours de&s;ign for the Unity of his Church, in the In&s;titution of Epi&s;|copal Superiority is pre&s;erv'd. But be|cau&s;e when he Ve&s;ted his Apo&s;tles with this Power, he hath no where given any licence to tru&s;t it's Execution with others that have it not, and the Apo&s;tles accor|dingly attended it in their own Per&s;on; no Bi&s;hop hath any clear Warrant to en|tru&s;t his Epi&s;copal Authority in any other hands, notwith&s;tanding that perhaps it may be lawfully done.</P>
<P>And therefore the Arch Bi&s;hop of <HI>Spa|lato</HI> allowing its lawfulne&s;s Subjoyns, <HI>quamvis talis delegatio, mihi plurimum &s;it &s;u&s;pecta; non enim puto Epi&s;copum po&s;&s;e or|dinationes</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>De Rep. Ec. lib.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 9&punc; &sect; 18.</NOTE> <HI>per alium exercere, qui non &s;it Epi&s;copus. And yet I mu&s;t confe&s;s, that I</HI>
<PB N="150" REF="80"> <HI>cannot but very much &s;u&s;pect &s;uch delega|tions, for I cannot under&s;tand how a Bi&s;hop can Exerci&s;e his Power of Ordination by one that is no Bi&s;hop.</HI> And therefore tho' it may be lawful, yet becau&s;e it is not war|ranted either by Law or Pre&s;cription; it is much more &s;afe and advi&s;eable to for|bear it. For I never find it de&s;ignedly put in practice any where in the Chri&s;tian Church, till of late in the Church of <HI>Rome.</HI> But as for the <HI>Chorepi&s;copi</HI> in the earlier Ages of the Church, I cannot &s;ee that they were any thing le&s;s than true and proper Bi&s;hops, that were plac'd as Coad|jutors to the City Bi&s;hop, in the remote parts of the Territories of great Dioce&s;&s;es, where they were empowr'd to Execute the Epi&s;copal Office, as he &s;hould Order and Advi&s;e, &s;o that tho' they had an in|trin&s;ick power of giving Prie&s;tly Ordi|nation, yet this was re&s;train'd by Canoni|cal Con&s;titution. And that is the be&s;t proof of their Epi&s;copal Character, their Power of Ordination: For in tho&s;e days when we fir&s;t read of them, and when Canons were fir&s;t made concerning them, no man ever &s;o-much as dream't of Ordi|nations by Presbyters and Delegations, that was a late trick of the School-men to beat down all other Bi&s;hops, and ad|vance the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome;</HI> but in the
<PB N="151" REF="80"> earlier Ages of Chri&s;tianity, in which the <HI>Chorepi&s;copi</HI> were &s;ettled, there is no foot|&s;tep of any &s;uch thought as Ordaining by Delegations, and therefore tho&s;e ancient Canons that own this Power in them, but re&s;train it's exerci&s;e within Subordination to the City <HI>Dioce&s;an,</HI> &s;uppo&s;e them true and proper Bi&s;hops. That which makes confu&s;ion in this matter is the Corruption of the <HI>13th.</HI> Canon of <HI>Ancyra,</HI> in which we fir&s;t meet with the <HI>Chorepi&s;copi,</HI> and of which the mo&s;t correct <HI>Greek</HI> Copies run thus. <HI>That it &s;hall not be lawful for Countrey Bi&s;hops to Ordain Presbyters or Deacons, nor yet for City Presbyters with|out the permi&s;&s;ion of their Bi&s;hop.</HI> Which reading being apparently ab&s;urd and a|gain&s;t the whole Practice of the Church at that time, that even Presbyters might Ordain, with leave from the Bi&s;hop; it is unanimou&s;ly rejected by almo&s;t all Learned Men, and the true reading is fetch'd from &s;ome of the old <HI>Latin</HI> Tran&s;|lations, that run thus. <HI>It &s;hall not be law|ful for the Country Bi&s;hop, to Ordain Prie&s;ts or Deacons, nor for City Presbyters to do any thing in the Dioce&s;s, without Authority from the Bi&s;hop by Commi&s;&s;ion in Writing.</HI> And &s;o the whole Canon runs clear, the Countrey Bi&s;hops being thereby re&s;train'd from Ordaining Prie&s;ts and Deacons with|out
<PB N="152" REF="81"> the Bi&s;hops leave, and City Presbyters from doing any thing el&s;e without his con|&s;ent. And the &s;ame is provided for by the 65 Canon of <HI>Laodicea,</HI> which was made in pur&s;uance of this, That the Prie&s;ts &s;hould not &s;o much as begin Divine Service in the Church till the Bi&s;hop came, without his leave. And it is the &s;ame that is in|join'd by all <HI>Ignatius</HI> his Epi&s;tles, and the Canons of the Ancient Church, that no|thing be done without the Bi&s;hop; and therefore this Canon mu&s;t be reduc'd to that &s;ence, el&s;e we can never reconcile it to it &s;elf, and the univer&s;al Practice of the Church. And &s;o it was read in the time of <HI>Charles</HI> the Great, who in his Capitular at <HI>Aix la Chapelle</HI> thus expre&s;&s;es the &s;en&s;e of it. <HI>Ancyronen&s;e</HI> (as he calls the Coun|cil) <HI>Vicariis Epi&s;coporum, quos Graeci Cho|repi&s;copos vocant, non licere Presbyteros vel Diaconos ordinare. Sed nec Presbyteris Civitatis &s;ine Epi&s;copi praecepto amplius aliquid jubere: vel &s;ine Auctoritate litera|rum ejus in unaqu&acirc;que parochi&acirc; aliquid age|re.</HI> So that when <HI>Walo</HI> will from this maim'd Canon infer, that before that time it was lawful for City Presbyters to Or|dain; methinks a man of his endle&s;s rea|ding would have done well to have given one in&s;tance of it in all the Records of the Church. But when the whole pra|ctice
<PB N="153" REF="81"> of the Church was &s;o apparently contrary, he would have done much bet|ter, and more like an able Critick to have corrected his Copy by it, (e&s;pecially when its true meaning was &s;o clearly poin|ted out by the mo&s;t Ancient ver&s;ions) than to &s;tick to an evident mi&s;take be|cau&s;e he would not part with his Opini|on, though it is &s;till greater &s;tubornne&s;s to hold it fa&s;t in &s;pight of him&s;elf; for is it not plea&s;ant to &s;ee him &s;o eager to prove the power of Ordination in Presbyters till the Council of <HI>Ancyra?</HI> When his leading a&s;&s;ertion all along is, that indeed it was in them at the beginning, but was taken away before the middle of the &s;econd Century. What work is here, they lo&s;t it in the &s;econd Century, and yet retain'd in the fourth, till it was fir&s;t taken away by the Council of <HI>Ancyra.</HI> Both Propo|&s;itions are enormou&s;ly fal&s;e, and yet both contradictory, &s;o unhappy was this proud man, that he would always contradict him&s;elf to be in the wrong. Now this little mutilation of one word, as <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;uppos'd, as it reconciles the Canon to the Cu&s;tom of that Age, &s;o does it to all the other Ancient Canons that were about the&s;e Country Bi&s;hops, that they had an Epi&s;copal Authority, but &s;o as to be &s;ubordinate to the City Bi&s;hop, who
<PB N="154" REF="82"> might re&s;train or extend the exerci&s;e of it, as he judged mo&s;t convenient; and &s;o by this means they thought that they at once made provi&s;ion for the Government of tho&s;e parts that were more remote from the City Bi&s;hop's in&s;pection, and withal pre&s;erv'd the Ancient Con&s;titution of the Church, of one Sovereign Bi&s;hop in a Dio|ce&s;s. And that the&s;e <HI>Chorepi&s;copi</HI> had the Character of proper Bi&s;hops appears plain|ly from the Tenth Canon of the Synod of <HI>Antioch,</HI> that allows them to Ordain the inferiour Officers of the Church, Readers, Sub-Deacons, and Exorci&s;ts, but not Prie&s;ts and Deacons without the Bi&s;hop's con|&s;ent; and that, &s;aith the Council, <GAP DESC="foreign">, notwith|&s;tanding his having had Epi&s;copal Ordi|nation, or as <HI>Rabanus Maurus</HI> Tran&s;lates it in his little Tract <HI>De Chorepi&s;copis</HI> at the End of <HI>Petrus de Marcas</HI> Fourth Book, <HI>de Concordi&acirc;: Quamvis manus impo&s;itionem Epi&s;coporum perceperint, &amp; ut Epi&s;copi con|&s;ecrati &s;int.</HI> And that it is to be under|&s;tood not of his being Ordain'd by a Bi|&s;hop, but Ordain'd a Bi&s;hop, is evident from the words them&s;elves, for it had been ridiculous to &s;ay that a Presbyter &s;hall not Ordain though he be a Presby|ter; &s;o that its meaning can be no other than this, That notwith&s;tanding Country
<PB N="155" REF="82"> Bi&s;hops had Epi&s;copal Con&s;ecration, yet they were to be limited in the exerci&s;e of it by the City Bi&s;hop. And therefore in the 57 Canon of <HI>Laodicea</HI> it is Decreed, That no more Country Bi&s;hops for the time to come be Ordain'd, but that in their &s;tead <GAP DESC="foreign"> or Vi&s;itors be ap|pointed. And the&s;e were meer Presby|ters delegated by the Bi&s;hop to vi&s;it his Country Churches, and therefore are reckon'd as a di&s;tinct Order of men from the <HI>Chorepi&s;copi</HI> in the Civil Law; and <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ju&s;t. &s;.</HI> 9. <HI>l.</HI> 4. <HI>c. de Epi&s;. &amp; Cl.</HI></NOTE> this was probably at fir&s;t thought upon to prevent the danger of Schi&s;m, that might, and &s;ometimes did ari&s;e from the Country Bi&s;hops going beyond their Com|mi&s;&s;ion: which if they did, they might the better ju&s;tifie it by their Epi&s;copal Character, and that the&s;e Vi&s;iters could not &s;o much as pretend to, becau&s;e they were meer Presbyters, and &s;o not capable of conveying Holy Orders. But the&s;e were mo&s;t of them Topical Councils, and concern'd only particular Provinces; and therefore we find the Church afterwards variou&s;ly govern'd, in &s;ome places by Country Bi&s;hops, in others by vi&s;iting Presbyters. And yet this is made an Ar|gument by &s;ome Learned Men, that the <HI>Chorepi&s;copi</HI> were no more than Presby|ters, becau&s;e the <GAP DESC="foreign"> that were
<PB N="156" REF="83"> meer Presbyters, were qualified to &s;uc|ceed in, and &s;upply their Office. But be|&s;ides that they were di&s;tingui&s;hed in An|cient Writers; if they were the &s;ame, to what purpo&s;e was one abrogated, and the other in&s;tituted in its &s;tead? &s;o that the meer Succe&s;&s;ion of the one to the other, is an undeniable note of their di&s;tinction. E&s;pecially when this Canon of <HI>Laodicea</HI> was made in pur&s;uance of the <HI>Sardican</HI> Canon, that forbids the erecting Epi&s;co|pal Sees in Country Villages or &s;mall Ci|ties, and therefore to avoid that inconve|nience, this Canon of <HI>Laodicea</HI> &s;upplies their place by vi&s;iting Presbyters. But there are two Arguments that have en|clined the two great Arch-bi&s;hops of <HI>Spa|lato</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>De Rep. Ec|cle&s;. l.</HI> 2. <HI>c.</HI> 9. <HI>N.</HI> 17.</NOTE> and <HI>Paris</HI> to conclude them Presby|ters. Fir&s;t, That the Synod of <HI>Neocae&s;a|rea</HI> &s;ays, that they were appointed in imi|tation <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>De Concord. l. c.</HI> 2. 13, 14</NOTE> of the 70, who were a di&s;tinct Or|der from the Apo&s;tles to whom Bi&s;hops &s;ucceed. It doth &s;o, and perhaps may be mi&s;taken in its Argument, but though it u&s;eth a wrong Topick, yet that does not at all prove that they thought the <HI>Chorepi&s;copi</HI> no more than the 70, e&s;pecial|ly when the compari&s;on is &s;o loo&s;e, for they affirm not that they &s;ucceeded the 70, but only as the 70 were in&s;tituted to be a&s;&s;i&s;tants to the Apo&s;tles, &s;o were the&s;e
<PB N="157" REF="83"> <HI>Chorepi&s;copi</HI> to their Bi&s;hops. And that this very Council e&s;teem'd them proper Bi&s;hops is evident from their Eighth Ca|non, that allows them, but not Presby|ters to grant Letters dimi&s;&s;ory; and the truth is, that Power was never permitted to any but Bi&s;hops. But, &s;ay they, in the next place the Canon of <HI>Antioch</HI> com|mands that every <HI>Chorepi&s;copus</HI> be Ordai|ned by his own Bi&s;hop, whereas it is well known that the Canon of <HI>Nice,</HI> and all the Ancient Canons &s;trictly require that every Bi&s;hop be Con&s;ecrated by at lea&s;t three Bi&s;hops. But why may not tho&s;e Canons be fairly under&s;tood of City Bi|&s;hops, for whom the Ordainers were ac|countable to the whole Province, but a Country Bi&s;hop is only for the U&s;e and Service of his own Dioce&s;an, and there|fore may as &s;afely be Ordain'd by him alone, as his own Presbyters. Though the true meaning of the Canon is this, not that his own Bi&s;hop is &s;ufficient to his Con&s;ecration, but that he is nece&s;&s;ary, &s;o that he ought not to be Con&s;ecrated with|out him; as no Bi&s;hop of the Province may without the Metropolitan, not that the Metropolitan can do it alone, but that he mu&s;t be one of the Ordainers. But the Canon of <HI>Antioch</HI> is &s;o expre&s;s for the Epi&s;copal Con&s;ecration of the <HI>Chor|epi&s;copi,</HI>
<PB N="158" REF="84"> that the Learned Arch-bi&s;hop of <HI>Paris</HI> hath no other way to avoid it, but <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>De Cler. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 17.</NOTE> by di&s;tingui&s;hing, as <HI>Bellarmine</HI> had done before him, the Office from the Per&s;on, that might &s;ometime be a Bi&s;hop, and &s;ometime a Presbyter, and that he &s;aith is the meaning of tho&s;e words, although he have receiv'd Epi&s;copal Ordination; that is, though the <HI>Chorepi&s;copus</HI> be a Bi|&s;hop him&s;elf, and not as &s;ometime he may be, a meer Presbyter. But this is preca|riou&s;ly &s;aid without any &s;hadow of Pre|tence for it, but meerly to &s;alve his own Hypothe&s;is. But that they could be no|thing le&s;s than true and proper Bi&s;hops, cannot but be evident to a man of his learning from their intrin&s;ick power of Ordination, that is &s;uppos'd in them by this and all the other Canons, but onely limited and re&s;trained to a &s;ubordination to their chief Bi&s;hop. But whatever they were they continued &s;ome Ages in the Chri&s;tian Church, but not without great bickerings, being &s;ometime put down, and &s;ometime getting up again, according to the temper of the Dioce&s;an Bi&s;hops, till the time of <HI>Charles</HI> the Great, when though they were not utterly laid a&s;ide, yet they had their la&s;t and fatal Sentence.</P>
<P>For their Cau&s;e being then hotly agita|ted in <HI>France</HI> and <HI>Germany,</HI> as appears not
<PB N="159" REF="84"> only from the Capitulars, but from <HI>Hinc|marus</HI> and <HI>Rabanus Maurus,</HI> who tho' both hone&s;t men, were of different Factions in this Conte&s;t. <HI>Rabanus Maurus</HI> pleads the cau&s;e of the <HI>Chorepi&s;copi</HI> again&s;t the Pride of the City Bi&s;hops, who would endure no Parti&s;ans in their Authority; and there|fore he imputes their Zeal again&s;t the Countrey Bi&s;hops to their own de&s;igns of Ambition. <HI>Hincmarus</HI> on the contrary objects it to the Bi&s;hops that appeared for them, that it was for their own Ea&s;e and Lazine&s;s, that they de&s;ir'd their Continu|ance, that whil&s;t their Deputees under|took the Care of the Dioce&s;s, they might give them&s;elves up to their own Plea&s;ures. The Arguments on both &s;ides were but Popular, and indeed Per&s;onal, and might both be true or both fal&s;e: But the Em|peror it &s;eems approving the Rea&s;ons a|gain&s;t them, as appears by his Capitulars, referrs the matter to Pope <HI>Dama&s;us,</HI> who immediately Condemns the whole Order, and Abrogates them for ever, as a &s;ort of Amphibious Creatures between Bi&s;hops and Presbyters, that had no Foundation from any Divine Authority. <HI>Nam non amplius quam duos Ordines inter Di&s;cipulos</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Distinc</HI> 68. <HI>Cap.</HI> 5.</NOTE> <HI>Domini cognovimus,</HI> i. e. <HI>duodecim Apo&s;to|lorum &amp;</HI> 70. <HI>Di&s;cipulorum, &V;nde i&s;te terti|us proce&s;&s;erit funditus Ignoramus; Et quod</HI>
<PB N="160" REF="85"> <HI>ratione caret extirpari nece&s;&s;e e&s;t.</HI> And the &s;ame was decreed by &s;everal Councils, but yet for all that they &s;truggl'd for a long time after, and were not totally abroga|ted, as <HI>Petrus de Marca</HI> ob&s;erves out of <HI>Sigebert,</HI> till the end of the eleventh Cen|tury. Though this at la&s;t prov'd the over|throw of the Power of the Bi&s;hops them|&s;elves, for whil&s;t they, to be rid of their Competitors, degraded tho&s;e who had ex|erci&s;ed all the Parts of the Epi&s;copal Office to the Order of Presbyters, the Pope and his Para&s;ites, as Mr. <HI>Dodwell</HI> hath very <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Seperation of Churches Cap.</HI> 23.</NOTE> acutely ob&s;erv'd, take Advantage of it to depre&s;s the Epi&s;copal Office it &s;elf, mak|ing it of the &s;ame <HI>Order</HI> with the Prie&s;tly, and differing only in <HI>Degree,</HI> which might be given, as it had been before to the <HI>Chorepi&s;copi,</HI> to &s;imple Presbyters by Pa|pal Delegations, and by this Artifice he rais'd him&s;elf to his ab&s;olute Sovereignty over all Bi&s;hops and Councils, in that he effected what he plea&s;ed every where by his own immediate Delegates, the Bi&s;hops not being able to with&s;tand the greatne&s;s of his Power. But of the Steps of the Pa|pal Ambition I &s;hall di&s;cour&s;e afterwards, though from this &s;ligh Accident it may ap|pear how they ever &s;at at Watch to make their Advantage of every thing that hap|pen'd in the <HI>Chri&s;tian Church.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="14" TYPE="section">
<PB N="161" REF="85">
<HEAD>&sect;. XII.</HEAD>
<P>The next great divi&s;ion of Go|vernment above that of a City, and it's Territories in the <HI>Roman Empire</HI> was into Provinces, which comprehended &s;everal Cities within the circuit of their Juri&s;di|ction. The&s;e were at fir&s;t nothing el&s;e, but the Nations that were conquer'd by the <HI>Roman People. Provinciae appellantur</HI> (&s;ays <HI>Fe&s;tus) quod populus Romanus eas provicit,</HI> i. e. <HI>ante vicit.</HI> But when the <HI>Common|wealth</HI> came to it's greatne&s;s, it's Govern|ment was divided into &s;everal parcels or Provinces, which the great Men &s;har'd a|mong them&s;elves, either by Lot, or Vote, or Office. And when that was afterward turn'd into a <HI>Monarchy</HI> under <HI>Augu&s;tus,</HI> he took an Account of the whole Empire, and new &s;ettled it's Government, as he judg'd mo&s;t expedient to the Intere&s;t of the State; Of all which him&s;elf compos'd a little Book call'd the <HI>Breviary of the Em|pire,</HI> which he offer'd to deliver up to the Senate in his mock-Complement, when he pretended to re&s;ign up the Imperial Power into their hands, but left it as a Legacy to his Succe&s;&s;ors for their Guide in the Government of their Empire. And this was the &s;tanding Model of the State with &s;ome Alterations that were after|wards made by &s;everal Emperours, e&s;peci|ally
<PB N="162" REF="86"> <HI>Adrian,</HI> as to the Bounds of Juri&s;dicti|on, but without any change of the form of <HI>Provincial Government.</HI> Now in the&s;e Provinces the head City, in which the <HI>Roman</HI> Governors re&s;ided, and kept their Courts of Judicature was call'd the <HI>Metro|polis;</HI> whither Men re&s;orted out of the le&s;&s;er Cities for appeals of Ju&s;tice, as they did to them out of the adjacent Countrey for the Tryal of original Cau&s;es. And the Governor that kept his Re&s;idence there, had a Supreme Authority over the Ma|gi&s;trates of the inferior Cities, &s;o as that they were Accountable to him for the ex|ecution of their Office, and oblig'd to at|tend his Summons to Provincial A&s;&s;em|blies, in which he pre&s;ided to propo&s;e matters of Debate, to declare the re&s;ults of Council, and to determine the la&s;t Re|&s;olution of things; for without him no|thing could be concluded or Executed. Now in conformity to this civil mold of the Empire, the Con&s;titution of the Church was ca&s;t, that as Bi&s;hopricks were erected in Cities, &s;o were Metropolitans in Provinces, who pre&s;ided over the Bi|&s;hops of inferior Cities, as the Provinci|al Governors did over the City Magi|&s;trates. And thereby they not only &s;etled the mo&s;t expedit corre&s;pondence with the civil Government, but by making the
<PB N="163" REF="86"> head City of every Province the Metro|polis of the Church within that Province; upon which the Inferior Cities depended as the Centre of Communion, they ad|mirably &s;ecur'd the unity of the whole Body, whil&s;t every Epi&s;copal Church ex|erci&s;ed ordinary Juri&s;diction within it &s;elf, but was bound in ca&s;es of great difficulty, or &s;uch as concern'd the common Chri&s;tia|nity, or the peace of the particular Pro|vince, or upon any Summons from the Metropolitan to have recour&s;e to the Mo|ther Church, where the Bi&s;hop of it pre|&s;ided in a Synod of the Bi&s;hops of the Pro|vince, by whom all the Affairs of the Church within the Province were Go|vern'd. Into this frame of Government did Chri&s;tianity work and &s;etle it &s;elf as it prevail'd in the World; and we find the In&s;titution of Metropolitans &s;o antient, that we can di&s;cover no beginning of them, unle&s;s we derive them from the Apo&s;tles own times. But here learned Men run them&s;elves into a great Variety of Di&s;|putes: Whether Metropolitical Govern|ment were in&s;tituted by the Apo&s;tles, or whether it came in of its own accord? And if in&s;tituted by the Apo&s;tles, whe|ther they did it by Divine direction or upon humane prudence? And whether &s;everal Cities mention'd in the Scriptures,
<PB N="164" REF="87"> particularly the &s;even Churches of <HI>A&s;ia,</HI> were true and proper Metropoles? But as tho&s;e things have not &s;ufficient certainty in them&s;elves, &s;o are they of no great weight to the Cau&s;e of Metropolitans: for which &s;oever proves true, it proves both their prime Antiquity and great u&s;efulne&s;s. If they were in&s;tituted by the Apo&s;tles, then it is plain that they thought this form of Government mo&s;t proper and &s;uit|able to the State of the Chri&s;tian Church. And if in it they were directed immediate|ly by the Holy Gho&s;t, that gives them Divine Authority: If they were guided to it by their own Wi&s;dom, then it is a gro&s;s folly to for&s;ake an E&s;tabli&s;hment that was contriv'd, and &s;etled by the Wi&s;|dom of the Apo&s;tles. But to divide be|tween the Divine Guidance and humane Wi&s;dom in their Actions is a very Phan|ta&s;tick Curio&s;ity; for whatever the Spirit of God directed them to, it was agreeable to the Rules of humane Prudence, other|wi&s;e to be &s;ure it would never have di|rected them to it, and what ever they did according to the Rules of humane Pru|dence, it was no doubt agreeable to the mind of God, otherwi&s;e he would never have &s;uffer'd them to do it and &s;etle it for ever. So that their Practice in every thing, that is of moment enough to be
<PB N="165" REF="87"> ob&s;erv'd, is warrantable both ways, by Divine approbation, and the Wi&s;dom of the thing it &s;elf. And the &s;ame is the ca&s;e, if it came not in by any Apo&s;tolical de&s;ign, but by vertue of its own Expedi|ency, for then it warrants it &s;elf by the great rea&s;onablene&s;s and nece&s;&s;ity of the thing. So that upon whatever account it came in, it is &s;ufficiently recommended to our imitation, in that it was found &s;o ex|pedient for the right Admini&s;tration of the Church, that it was both practis'd from the beginning, and continued unalter'd in all the purer Ages of the Church. And tho' there is no certainty of its Apo&s;tolical Practice as to all places, yet there is as to &s;everal, and of their De&s;ign as to all. There are &s;o many intimations of it, in the Apo&s;tles writings, agreeable to the Practice of the Primitive Church, as cer|tainly prove that the practice of it came down from their pre&s;cription. Thus St. <HI>Peter</HI> directs his Epi&s;tle to the &s;everal Churches of the Chri&s;tian <HI>Jews,</HI> with re|&s;pect to &s;o many &s;everal Provinces, <HI>Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, A&s;ia,</HI> and <HI>Bithynia,</HI> which as they were di&s;tinct Provinces in the Civil divi&s;ion of the Empire, &s;o were they ever &s;o many di&s;tinct Provincial Sees in the Communion of the Church, and nothing js more obvious in the Epi&s;tles of
<PB N="166" REF="88"> St. <HI>Paul,</HI> than the direction of his Letters <NOTE PLACE="marg">2 <HI>Cor. C.</HI> 1. <HI>To the Church of God which is at Co|rinth, with all the Saints that are in all</HI> A'chaia. Corinth <HI>was the Metroplis of</HI> Achaia. Florus <HI>l.</HI> 2. <HI>Cap.</HI> 16. Acts 15. 23.</NOTE> to the Metropolitical Church, to be com|municated to the whole Province. The &s;ame thing that is &s;ufficiently intimated in their practice, as in that known ca&s;e of the Apo&s;tles making a Decree for <HI>Anti|och,</HI> by which all the Churches of <HI>Syria</HI> were concluded; <HI>Antioch</HI> being their Me|tropolitan See, and as it happen'd <HI>Cilicia</HI> too. That it was a civil Metropolis is out of que&s;tion, and that it was &s;o upon an <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;tical</HI> &s;core very early, is evi|dent from <HI>Ignatius,</HI> who becau&s;e he was Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch,</HI> &s;tiles him&s;elf Bi&s;hop of <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Epi&s;t. ad</HI> Roman.</NOTE> <HI>Syria,</HI> the Province, of which <HI>Antioch</HI> was the Metropolis. And therefore it is but rea&s;onable to think that the Apo&s;tles look|ed upon the Church of <HI>Antioch,</HI> as com|prehending the whole Province of <HI>Syria.</HI> But to this it is reply'd: <HI>In good earne&s;t, doth the Church of</HI> Syria <HI>and</HI> Cilicia, <HI>(be|ing bound by this decree) prove their Su|bordination to</HI> Antioch <HI>or the Apo&s;tles?</HI> Why in good earne&s;t (for je&s;ting in the&s;e matters is not to be endur'd) I think it proves both; the Churches of <HI>Syria</HI> were bound by the Apo&s;tles decree that was made for <HI>Antioch,</HI> becau&s;e they were un|der its <HI>Juri&s;diction,</HI> and the Church of the Province of <HI>Cilicia</HI> by rea&s;on of their Neighbourhood and equal concernment in
<PB N="167" REF="88"> the &s;ame Controver&s;ie. But it is &s;till ob|jected that they delivered the Decree to the Churches of <HI>Phrygia</HI> and <HI>Galatia.</HI> Yes &s;o they did, not as to Subject but Si&s;ter Churches, and upon the &s;ame Account that they did it to the Churches of <HI>Cilicia,</HI> becau&s;e tho&s;e four Provinces &s;eem to have been particularly infe&s;ted at that time with that Controver&s;ie. But &s;till we are ask'd: (with trifling enough) <HI>What do the Decrees of the Apo&s;tles concern, only tho&s;e, to whom they are in&s;crib'd?</HI> Whoever &s;aid they did or did not, how does it follow from hence that becau&s;e all the Churches of a Province are particularly concern'd in a Decree, directed to their Metropolis, therefore none other are? but becau&s;e the que&s;tion is ask'd, though how pertinently I cannot under&s;tand, yet becau&s;e it is de|manded in another ca&s;e not altogether be|&s;ide the purpo&s;e; I &s;hall once for all an|&s;wer it. That I cannot find but as this Decree was temporary, &s;o was it local, made for &s;ome particular Churches, who then &s;tood in need of it, and not Univer|&s;al, &s;o as to oblige all Churches to its ob|&s;ervation. Otherwi&s;e how could there have been that controver&s;ie in the Church of <HI>Corinth,</HI> about things offer'd to Idols, if this Decree had ever been in force there; or at lea&s;t how &s;hould St. <HI>Paul</HI> have advis'd
<PB N="168" REF="89"> the <HI>Corinthians</HI> to eat them as Gods Crea|tures, but not as things offer'd to Idols, as he doth the <HI>1&s;t.</HI> to the <HI>Corinth.</HI> 8. 7. when the whole Body of the Apo&s;tles had by this Decree &s;o ab&s;olutely forbidden the eating of them at all.</P>
<P>But to proceed, it is &s;ufficiently known that <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> was the Metropolis of the Procon&s;ular <HI>A&s;ia,</HI> and therefore it was that St. <HI>Paul</HI> &s;ummon'd the Governours of that Church to him at <HI>Miletus</HI> as the head Church, and by con&s;equence the Repre&s;entatives of all the Churches of that Province. And &s;o was <HI>Corinth</HI> the known Metropolis of <HI>Achaia,</HI> and for that rea&s;on St. <HI>Paul</HI> in&s;crib'd his Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Corinthians,</HI> &s;o as to take in all the Chri|&s;tians of <HI>Achaia.</HI> And &s;o was <HI>The&s;&s;aloni|ca</HI> of <HI>Macedonia,</HI> for which rea&s;on St. <HI>Paul</HI> in his Epi&s;tles to them be&s;peaks all the Chri&s;tians of the Province of <HI>Macedonia.</HI> But though many and indeed mo&s;t of the Churches, to whom the Apo&s;tles directed their Epi&s;tles, were Metropolitical, yet I cannot &s;ee what ground there is to con|clude that they were all &s;uch. I will not determine whether <HI>Philippi</HI> were a Me|tropolis, or all the &s;even Churches of <HI>A&s;ia; Philadelphia</HI> and <HI>Thiatyra</HI> for any thing I know might be but Bi&s;hopricks, under the Metropolis of <HI>Sardis</HI> and <HI>Perga|mus.</HI>
<PB N="169" REF="89"> And I pray why might not the Apo&s;tles write either to Bi&s;hops or Metro|politans, as they had occa&s;ion, or as cir|cum&s;tances determin'd them? So though the City of <HI>Colo&s;&s;ae</HI> were no Metropolis but an eminent City in the Province of <HI>Lydia,</HI> under the Metropolis of <HI>Laodicea;</HI> yet becau&s;e St. <HI>Paul</HI> had been very &s;uc|ce&s;sful there in his Mini&s;try, and that not only in the great Numbers of his Con|verts, but in their extraordinary Zeal for the Chri&s;tian Faith, which he &s;o highly commends in them in the beginning of his Epi&s;tle, for that rea&s;on he might direct his Letter to them, though with particu|lar order to have it Communicated to the <HI>Laodiceans.</HI> So that though <HI>Laodicea</HI> were the chief City in Dignity, yet <HI>Col|lo&s;&s;ae</HI> being then the mo&s;t eminent Church, what wonder is it if the Apo&s;tle &s;hewed it the more particular re&s;pect? But that there was a dependence of the&s;e Chur|ches upon one another, appears from St. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ch.</HI> 4. 13. 15. 16.</NOTE> <HI>Paul</HI>'s order to have his Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Colo&s;&s;ians</HI> communicated to the Church of <HI>Laodicea;</HI> and his Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Laodi|ceans</HI> (which the Learned &s;ay, from the Authority of <HI>Tertullian</HI> and <HI>Epiphanius,</HI> was the &s;ame with that he &s;ent to the <HI>E|phe&s;ians)</HI> communicated to the Church of <HI>Collo&s;&s;ae,</HI> being both of the &s;ame Province.
<PB N="170" REF="90"> Though otherwi&s;e the Apo&s;tle generally directed his Epi&s;tles either to the Church of the whole Province, as to the <HI>Romans</HI> and <HI>Galatians:</HI> or to the Metropolis of the Province, as <HI>Corinth, Ephe&s;us</HI> and <HI>The&s;&s;a|lonica:</HI> or to the Metropolitan him&s;elf, as <HI>Timothy</HI> and <HI>Titus.</HI> In &s;hort, though this were their ordinary Rule, by which they &s;etled Churches, yet it is probable that they might &s;ometimes vary from it in ex|traordinary Ca&s;es, and for particular rea|&s;ons, of which we can have no know|ledge or certainty. Though indeed the mo&s;t in&s;uperable difficulty is, that we have none of the more Ancient Accounts of the State of the Empire, and all that we know of it is by meer fragments and ca|&s;ual pa&s;&s;ages. <HI>Strabo</HI> and <HI>Pliny</HI> have left a pretty good account of its Geography, but have given very &s;light touches upon its Political Government. And whereas <HI>Strabo</HI> hath in the conclu&s;ion of his work drawn up a general De&s;cription of the Pre|&s;ent State of the Empire under <HI>Augu&s;tus,</HI> if he had de&s;cended to a particular Ac|count of all the Provinces and Limits of Government, we &s;hould have had a much better in&s;ight into the &s;tate of things at that time, then we are ever likely to re|trieve. However it is enough that there were Metropoles in the Apo&s;tles time,
<PB N="171" REF="90"> that them&s;elves had &s;pecial regard to their Preheminence, both in their Writings and Actions, and that the fir&s;t Churches that we meet with next after their times were &s;etled in the &s;ame form: So that as this de&s;ign of Conforming the Eccle&s;ia&s;tical &s;tate to the Civil, was fir&s;t &s;et on foot by the Apo&s;tles, &s;o was it carefully pro|&s;ecuted by their immediate Succe&s;&s;ors, and by them delivered from the Apo&s;tles down to After-ages. For this was appa|rently the Con&s;titution of the Chri&s;tian Church in all places of the Empire for the fir&s;t three hundred years, or the whole Interval of time from our Saviour to <HI>Con|&s;tantine,</HI> that as every City was govern'd by its own Bi&s;hop with his Con&s;i&s;tory of Presbyters, &s;o was every Province by its own Metropolitan with his Synod of Bi|&s;hops.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="15" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. XIII.</HEAD>
<P>Of this there are numberle&s;s in&s;tances in the Records of the Church, and the truth of it is, we have the &s;ame Proof of their Preheminence over Bi&s;hops from the time of the Apo&s;tles, as we have of the Superiority of Bi&s;hops over Presby|ters; nay the cleare&s;t proof of this de|pends not a little upon that, becau&s;e we have no perfect Li&s;t of the Succe&s;&s;ion of the Bi&s;hops of any See, but &s;uch as were
<PB N="172" REF="91"> Metropolitans, who were therefore mo&s;t taken notice of, becau&s;e of their Supreme Eminence in the Chri&s;tian Church. Thus the Catalogues of the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome, Alexandria, Antioch</HI> and <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> were pre&s;erved entire, whereas the memory of the Bi&s;hops of any other inferiour Sees is for the mo&s;t part per&s;onal, and depends upon the worth of the man, either for his Learning or his Zeal, or his Suffering. Though whil&s;t the Records of tho&s;e four Great and Ancient Sees were carefully pre&s;erved, they contain the main Hi&s;tory and chief Tran&s;actions of the Chri&s;tian Church. And as we find Metropolitans in po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion from the Apo&s;tles, and their immediate Succe&s;&s;ours; &s;o we find no al|teration till the time of <HI>Con&s;tantine,</HI> of which afterwards. At the pre&s;ent it is clear that Metropolitans were not in&s;ti|tuted by any Council for the fir&s;t 300 years, and that too is a proof of their A|po&s;tolical De&s;cent. For what we find al|ways practis'd, and find no later begin|ning of its practice, mu&s;t be refer'd to the fir&s;t beginning of all. The mo&s;t Ancient Canons that we have are the Apo&s;tolical, which though they were not compil'd by the Apo&s;tles them&s;elves, yet they were by Apo&s;tolical men, and &s;uch as immediatly &s;ucceeded them, and that too from the
<PB N="173" REF="91"> mo&s;t antient traditions of the Church, &s;o that they were not &s;o much new Laws as Ratifications of the old Cu&s;toms. Now in this Collection it is requir'd in the <HI>34th.</HI> Canon, <HI>That the Bi&s;hops of every Nation acknowledge their Primate or fir&s;t Bi&s;hop, and honour him as their head, and do no|thing of moment without his Con&s;ent, nor he without theirs.</HI> Which Canon doth not appoint the Primate, but &s;uppo&s;es him al|ready known in every place, and only commands the Bi&s;hops to behave them|&s;elves with that Duty and Reverence towards him, that they were bound to pay to their head Bi&s;hop. So that the very making of this Canon, &s;uppo&s;es him already known, for otherwi&s;e it had been very ab&s;ur'd to command all Bi&s;hops to reverence their Primate; if there had been no &s;uch thing known in the World as a Primate. But though there are numberle&s;s In&s;tances of this Practice in the Records of the Church; yet one of the earlie&s;t and mo&s;t eminent of all appears in tho&s;e &s;eve|ral Synods, that were call'd about the <HI>Pa&s;chal Controver&s;ie,</HI> in the very next Cen|tury to that of the Apo&s;tles; which as it was canva&s;&s;ed all the world over, &s;o was it debated in &s;o many &s;everal Provincial Synods, in each whereof the Head Bi&s;hop or Metropolitan pre&s;ided. In <HI>Pale&s;tine</HI>
<PB N="175" REF="92"> <HI>Theophilus</HI> of <HI>Cae&s;area,</HI> and <HI>Narci&s;&s;us</HI> of <HI>Je|ru&s;alem;</HI> for after the de&s;truction of <HI>Je|ru&s;alem, Cae&s;area</HI> was made the Civil Me|tropolis of <HI>Judea;</HI> but becau&s;e <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> had once been Metropolis (not only of <HI>Pale&s;tine,</HI> but of the whole <HI>Chri&s;tian Church)</HI> it was ever after allow'd the ho|nour and dignity of a Metropolitan, re|&s;erving the Power to <HI>Cae&s;area,</HI> which was confirm'd by the Synod of <HI>Nice,</HI> as an antient Cu&s;tom. And that's the Rea&s;on why <HI>Narci&s;&s;us</HI> of <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> is here joyn'd to <HI>Theophilus</HI> of <HI>Cae&s;area.</HI> But as for the other Councils, the Metropolitan alone is named, as <HI>Victor</HI> at <HI>Rome, Jrenaeus</HI> in <HI>France,</HI> and <HI>Palmas</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Ama&s;tris</HI> in <HI>Pontus;</HI> but becau&s;e <HI>Heraclea</HI> and not <HI>A|ma&s;tris,</HI> was the Metropolis of that Pro|vince; <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> adds the particular rea|&s;on of his pre&s;iding in that Council, <GAP DESC="foreign"> becau&s;e of his Age and Se|niority. <HI>Heraclea</HI> might at that time be de&s;titute of a Bi&s;hop, or the Bi&s;hop not be able to attend in Per&s;on, and there|fore old <HI>Palmas</HI> was, (according to the Cu&s;tom of tho&s;e times) cho&s;en out of re|verence to his Age. But as for all the other Metropolitans pre&s;iding, <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> gives no Rea&s;on, becau&s;e they did it by vertue of their Office. Be&s;ides the&s;e there was a|nother Council in the Province of <HI>O&s;dro|ena,</HI>
<PB N="174" REF="92"> of which <HI>Ede&s;&s;a</HI> was Metropolis, but who was Pre&s;ident in it is not recorded. Only this reflects &s;ome little Evidence up|on the Hi&s;tory of <HI>Agbarus,</HI> and the early Plantation of <HI>Chri&s;tianity</HI> in tho&s;e remote Parts, when we find a Church form'd, and &s;etled there with the fir&s;t of the mo&s;t antient Churches; &s;o that in all the Re|cords of the Church downward we &s;till find this one of the mo&s;t forward and flou|ri&s;hing Churches in the World. And thus in the time of the Council of <HI>Calcedon,</HI> there were above two hundred Clergy ap|pertaining to that City alone. In the Synod of the <HI>Procon&s;ular A&s;ia, Policrates,</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> pre&s;ided, who &s;ays he had under him <GAP DESC="foreign"> a great multi|tude of Bi&s;hops; the <HI>Notitiae</HI> reckon up no le&s;s then 37. The&s;e he &s;ummon'd to Council at <HI>Victors</HI> reque&s;t. He had Power then to Summon them, el&s;e <HI>Victor</HI> could never have ask'd it, nor he have done it. And the &s;ame was the Con&s;titution of the Churches in <HI>Africa.</HI> St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> &s;ays, he had in his Province <HI>Afric</HI> &s;trictly &s;o call'd, <HI>Numidia,</HI> and both the <HI>Mauritania's;</HI> And mentions in his Epi&s;tle to <HI>Jubianus,</HI> one of his Predece&s;&s;ors, <HI>Agrippinus</HI> that &s;um|mon'd a Council of a great many Bi&s;hops, and yet he him&s;elf was Bi&s;hop, before the middle of the &s;econd Century after the
<PB N="176" REF="93"> Apo&s;tles, and &s;ummon'd a Council at <HI>Carthage,</HI> in the fifty eighth year of that Century. And therefore tho&s;e <HI>multi anni</HI> and that <HI>longa aetas,</HI> that he &s;peaks of be|fore his time, when <HI>Agrippinus</HI> call'd his Council, in which were very many Bi|&s;hops, could not be many years after the Apo&s;tles. So evident is this Apo&s;tolical, either In&s;titution or practice of Metropo|litans, in the mo&s;t antient Records of the Church, that it mu&s;t be a &s;trange kind of willful ob&s;tinacy that will not perceive it. And it becomes only <HI>Salma&s;ius</HI> his confi|dence to deny it, who is very earne&s;t in <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>De prim. Pap. c.</HI> 3.</NOTE> it, that Metropolitans of old had only a Primacy of Honour, but nothing of pe|culiar Juri&s;diction; and this he thinks is &s;ufficiently prov'd from the Rea&s;on that the Council of <HI>Antioch</HI> a&s;&s;igns for their In&s;titution, <HI>viz.</HI> That becau&s;e of the great Concour&s;e of People to the Metropolis, it was but fit to give the <HI>Honour</HI> of pre|&s;iding over the whole Province to the Bi|&s;hop of that City. As if the very name of Honour excluded all Power, or as if Power were not the greate&s;t Honour. But doth not the Council give the &s;ame Power to Metropolitans within their Province. that is given to Bi&s;hops within their Di|oce&s;s, which is in expre&s;s terms, that no|thing be done without them or their con|&s;ent.
<PB N="177" REF="93"> Now if this Power be no Power be|cau&s;e it is an Honour, then I confe&s;s <HI>Sal|ma&s;ius</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Cap.</HI> 4. <HI>Primatus autem eo|rum privile|gium in his ferm&egrave; qua|tuor po&s;itum diximus fui&s;&s;e, in E|pi&s;coporum ordinando|rum confir|matione, conciliorum indictione, appellation|ibus, ac cen|&s;ur&acirc; mo|rum,</HI> &amp;c.</NOTE> is a <HI>Logician.</HI> But when he de|&s;cribes the &s;everal parts of this Honour that he would have to be without Autho|rity he very much exceeds him&s;elf, for he places it only in the&s;e four trifles: Fir&s;t a Power of allowing or refu&s;ing the Ordi|nation of Bi&s;hops: Secondly of Summon|ing Councils: Thirdly of receiving Ap|peals: Fourthly of cen&s;uring Bi&s;hops them|&s;elves as they do their inferior Clergy, all which &s;aith the <HI>Grammarian,</HI> being rather <HI>Onus</HI> than <HI>Honos,</HI> he conceives to have in it no Supremacy of Power. See what Pride and Prejudice will bring men to: But he is a man &s;o fatally injudicious, that if ever he happen to &s;tumble upon the Right, it always happens to be in the pur|&s;uit of a wrong Cau&s;e, and whenever he had a Right one, he was always &s;ure to loo&s;e or leave it by pur&s;uing it the wrong way. And thus his Zeal (through out this Voluminous Book) again&s;t <HI>Popery,</HI> is &s;pent meerly in the Cau&s;e of Presbytery, as he tells us in his Preface, that there can be no reconciliation between <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> and <HI>Prote&s;tants,</HI> becau&s;e <HI>Popery</HI> is founded upon the Suppo&s;ition of the Divine Right of Epi&s;copacy, and this he &s;aith was the de|&s;ign of writing his Book, in an&s;wer to a|nother
<PB N="178" REF="94"> that was written to per&s;wade a Re|conciliation, which upon this Account he &s;hews to be Impo&s;&s;ible. And &s;o here when he is to prove that there was no Power Superior to Metropolitans, he goes about to do it by endeavouring to &s;hew that there was no Metropolitan Power at all, which be&s;ide its apparent fal&s;hood, de&s;troys the very being of the Que&s;tion. But there is one thing peculiar in the Power of Metropolitans, that perhaps was too nice and &s;ubtile for his <HI>Grammatical</HI> head to comprehend, and that is, that it was not a &s;ingle or a per&s;onal Power re&s;iding in him&s;elf alone, but in conjunction with his Provincial Synod. For without them he had no Authority but in his own Dio|ce&s;s, &s;o that <HI>Salma&s;ius,</HI> (who &s;tumbles eve|ry &s;tep he takes) gives him two much, when he allows him as Metropolitan, the power of receiving Appeals, and cen&s;uring other Bi&s;hops, whereas it was never heard of in the <HI>Primitive</HI> Church, that any Me|tropolitan &s;hould take an Appeal from, or pa&s;s Sentence upon another Bi&s;hop by his own &s;ingle Authority: Such things were tran&s;acted no where but in the Pro|vincial Synod; and if the Metropolitan had pre&s;um'd to attempt any &s;uch thing without them, the Canons of the Church depos'd him for his Pre&s;umption upon the
<PB N="179" REF="94"> Rights of the Epi&s;copal Colledge. But though he had no &s;ingle Authority as Me|tropolitan; yet the Authority he had in conjunction with his Synod was Superior to that of any other &s;ingle Bi&s;hop; and therefore was not a meer Honorary Dig|nity, but an effectual Power, for the Power of Summoning Councils, and pre|&s;iding in them, is an high Degree of Au|thority, his ca&s;ting Voice in all Debates is &s;till an higher, but whether he had a ne|gative Voice I cannot po&s;&s;ibly determine; for though the Canons &s;ometimes &s;eem to give it him, yet they &s;eem more expre&s;ly to re&s;train him from it, and the allowed practice of the Church doth frequently contradict it. <GAP DESC="foreign"> is the word by which it is expre&s;&s;ed in the Antient Canons, but its certain &s;ignification is not agreed on among learned men, and it may &s;ignifie either con&s;ent, or only Advice or Con&s;ul|tation: Thus whereas in the <HI>34th.</HI> Apo|&s;tolical Canon it is commanded, that the Bi&s;hops of the Province do nothing <GAP DESC="foreign">, &s;o in the &s;ame Canon is it injoyn'd the Metropolitan, that he do nothing too, <GAP DESC="foreign">, now if <GAP DESC="foreign"> &s;ignify con&s;ent, then no bu&s;ine&s;s can be done unle&s;s all the Bi&s;hops of the Province agree in Opinion, and if one di&s;&s;ent, it &s;hall hinder all Pro|ceedings,
<PB N="180" REF="95"> which is too ab&s;ur'd to be here &s;uppo&s;ed; for in&s;tead of &s;ecuring the Go|vernment of the Church, it utterly con|founds it; for it ought not to be expect|ed that a Multitude of Men of equal Pow|er &s;hould agree in any one Act of Pru|dence, and &s;uch are mo&s;t Acts of Di&s;ci|pline, and therefore in &s;uch a con&s;titution the &s;tanding rule is that the Votes of the greater number conclude the Re&s;t. And &s;o it mu&s;t be in this Canon, for otherwi&s;e if it allow the Metropolitan, a negative Vote, it mu&s;t allow the &s;ame to every Bi&s;hop, becau&s;e the <GAP DESC="foreign"> of all is as much requir'd as his own, &s;o that the plain meaning of it can be nothing el&s;e than this, that all affairs of weight and mo|ment, ought to be debated and determi|ned in a free Council of the Metropolitan and his Bi&s;hops; &s;o that no Council ought to be conven'd without his knowledge and approbation; and that to every Council he ought to Summon every Bi&s;hop. This Canon we find frequently repeated in fol|lowing Synods in the &s;ame words, and therefore in the &s;ame &s;ence, only there is &s;omething peculiar &s;ugge&s;ted in the Fa|mous &s;ixth Canon of <HI>Nice,</HI> where after it hath made a peremptory Decree, That no Bi&s;hop be Ordain'd without the <GAP DESC="foreign"> of the Metropolitan; It immediately adds,
<PB N="181" REF="95"> but if any one be duly and canonically E|lected by a common Suffrage, tho' two or three di&s;&s;ent for love of Contradiction, yet the Major vote carries it. And this being &s;et down without Exception, if the Metropolitan him&s;elf (without who&s;e knowledge nothing is to be done) be one of the peevi&s;h Di&s;&s;enters; the &s;en&s;e of the body of the Council is by this Rule to prevail. And if it were not &s;o, there would have been then no Juri&s;diction in the Church to reach the mi&s;carriages of Metropolitans, becau&s;e at that time there was no higher &s;tanding Authority, than the Provincial Synod; and if he was not lyable to their Cen&s;ure, He mu&s;t be ex|empt from all Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Judgement; a thing contrary to the &s;ence and practice of the whole Church, and never challeng'd but by the <HI>Popes,</HI> when they had &s;wal|low'd up all the Juri&s;diction of the Church into St. <HI>Peter</HI> and them&s;elves. However no Bi&s;hop ever challeng'd Power of Ap|peals from or cen&s;ure again&s;t another Bi|&s;hop, by his own &s;ingle Authority, till the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome</HI> &s;et their Legates up|on &s;o daring a pre&s;umption; &s;o that how high &s;oever the dignity and Power of Me|tropolitans might be, yet whil&s;t it could only exert it &s;elf in Synod, as it was a nece&s;&s;ary pre&s;ervative of Order and good
<PB N="182" REF="96"> Government, &s;o was it as much as is po&s;|&s;ible, curb'd from &s;welling into Tyranny. And this is the ground of that excellent &s;aying of St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> in his <HI>Carthaginian</HI> Synod: <HI>Neque enim qui&s;quam no&s;trum E|pi&s;copum &s;e e&s;&s;e Epi&s;coporum con&s;tituit, aut Tyrannico terrore ad ob&s;equendi nece&s;&s;itatem Collegas &s;uos adigit, quando habeat omnis Epi&s;copus pro licenti&acirc; libertatis &amp; pote&s;tatis &s;uae arbitrium proprium, tanquam judicari ab alio non po&s;&s;it, cum nec ip&s;e po&s;&s;it alterum judicare.</HI> <Q><HI>Let not any of us make him&s;elf a Bi&s;hop of Bi&s;hops, or force his Colle|gues by Tyrannous threatnings to a nece&s;&s;i|ty of Obedience, when every Bi&s;hop hath a Freedom and Power of his own Actions, neither &s;ubject to the Judgement of ano|ther, nor to be the Judge of another.</HI></Q> From whence <HI>Salma&s;ius</HI> will infer, That in St. <HI>Cyprians</HI> time there were no Metropoli|tans, as if a Metropolitan were equivalent <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>De Prim. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">.</HI> 4. <HI>p.</HI> 56.</NOTE> with a Bi&s;hop of Bi&s;hops, which is a gro&s;s defyance to St. <HI>Cyprians</HI> own meaning; for in the&s;e words he exhorts the Bi&s;hops to freedom of Speech in Council, as Equals and Collegues in <HI>Synodical</HI> Authority; and though it is evident that he was their Metropolitan by his Summoning the Council, yet he declares to them, that neither him&s;elf nor any man el&s;e, hath any Power of over-ruling in it; and that
<PB N="183" REF="96"> it were Tyranny to pretend to it; and &s;o it were; and Folly too, to Summon Councils, when they were ab&s;olutely to be determined by the &s;en&s;e of one Man; So that as St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> always di&s;claim'd any &s;ingle Authority, even out of Synod, as in the Ca&s;e of receiving the <HI>Leep&s;i</HI> to Communion, he Writes to his Clergy: <HI>Quae res cum omnium no&s;trum &s;ententiam &amp;</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Lib.</HI> 3. <HI>Ep.</HI> 19. <HI>Ed. pam.</HI></NOTE> <HI>con&s;ilium &s;pectet, praejudicare Ego, &amp; &s;olus mihi rem Communem vindicare non audeo,</HI> &amp;c. <Q><HI>This thing concerns the Judgement of us all, and therefore I dare not pa&s;s my &s;ingle Judgement upon it, and arrogate to my &s;elf a Power that lyes in Common.</HI></Q> So now he declares again&s;t any &s;uch Autho|rity in Synod, for though he were pre&s;i|dent, he was but part of it, and had only a &s;hare of the common Power, according to his &s;tanding Maxim, <HI>Epi&s;copatus unus e&s;t Epi&s;coporum multorum concordi numero&s;i|tate diffu&s;us.</HI> But becau&s;e St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> di&s;|owns any &s;ingle Supremacy in him&s;elf as Metropolitan; from thence to infer in good earne&s;t that he was no Metropoli|tan, is but another Ca&s;t of the <HI>Grammari|ans</HI> Logique; but his fetch to avoid St. <HI>Cyprians provincia no&s;tra</HI> is &s;urprizingly &s;ubtile, <HI>(viz)</HI> That when St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> &s;ays of his Province or <HI>Provincia no&s;tra,</HI> that it was extended over <HI>Numidia,</HI> and both the
<PB N="184" REF="97"> <HI>Mauritania's,</HI> that is as men call their na|tive Country <HI>Patria no&s;tra,</HI> though they do not Govern it. But I pray who Sum|mon'd the Synod to <HI>Carthage?</HI> Did not <HI>Cyprian?</HI> Was he not then Metropolitan, that being the chief branch of Metropoli|tical juri&s;diction. And when he &s;peaks of his own Province; Was not that a di&s;tinct Province from others? and does not that alone require a Metropolitan pre&s;iding o|ver the Synod of the Bi&s;hops of that Pro|vince? For a di&s;tinct Province makes a di|&s;tinct Synod, and a Synod there cannot be unle&s;s there be &s;ome body, who hath power to call it, and pre&s;ide in it. So that when St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> calls <HI>Numidia</HI> and both the <HI>Mauritania's, our Province,</HI> it is the &s;ame thing as if a Prince &s;hould call his Kingdom our Country; for tho the words them&s;elves do not imply his Soveraignty over it, yet out of his mouth they ex|pre&s;ly declare it; So when St. <HI>Cyprian</HI> (who was Pre&s;ident of the Synod of his Province) owns his Province, he thereby calls him&s;elf its Metropolitan.</P>
<P>But though this man hath &s;carce one true &s;yllable in all his Writings of the anti|ent State of the Church, yet in the Cau&s;e of Metropolitans, he exceeds him&s;elf in boldne&s;s and &s;elf-contradiction. Thus when he hath &s;o peremptorily di&s;claim'd
<PB N="185" REF="97"> all Metropolitical Authority in the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Carthage</HI> or any other; he as frankly re&s;tores it all back again: <HI>Facil&egrave; quidem omnibus earum provinciarum Epi&s;copis Auctoritate antecellebat Epi&s;copus Cartha|ginien&s;is propter &V;rbis magnitudinem ac</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>De Prim. c.</HI> 15. <HI>p.</HI> 239.</NOTE> <HI>dignitatem, non ita tamen ut caeteris Epi&s;|copis pro libito imperaret, aut ullam in eos pote&s;tatem &s;ibi arrogaret, aut juri&s;dictionem exerceret,</HI></P>
<P><Q><HI>The Bi&s;hop of</HI> Carthage <HI>exceeded all the other Bi&s;hops of tho&s;e Provinces in Au|thority, by rea&s;on of the greatne&s;s of his City, but &s;o as not to have any Arbitrary Power; or to a&s;&s;ume to him&s;elf Sovereign Juri&s;diction over them.</HI></Q> Here the Ca&s;e is fairly &s;tated, he had more Authority than other Bi&s;hops, and yet him&s;elf alone had not, and the rea&s;on of it that he A&s;&s;igns is very clear. <HI>Nihil enim illis facere, aut decernere licitum erat, ab&s;que Epi&s;coporum provincialium Auctoritate ac &s;ententia.</HI> <Q><HI>Be|cau&s;e it is not lawful for Metropolitans to do or to determine any thing without the Judgement and Authority of the Provinci|al Bi&s;hops.</HI></Q> Then a Metropolitan it &s;eems was no Bi&s;hop of Bi&s;hops, and then what becomes of all his Puther again&s;t them, from St. <HI>Cyprians</HI> di&s;owning any &s;uch Authority in him&s;elf, becau&s;e it was of no force, but in conjunction with his
<PB N="186" REF="98"> provincial Synod; and yet this very man hath the Confidence a few Pages after to tell us that the Metropolitical Power as &s;uch, was nothing el&s;e but the U&s;urpation of one &s;ingle Bi&s;hop over his Brethren. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Page</HI> 257.</NOTE> <HI>Quod mutatum e&s;t invect&acirc; Metropolitanorum pote&s;tate, qu&acirc; unus pluribus impo&s;itus e&s;t Epi&s;copis, ad eos Judicandos &amp; ad ob&s;equen|di etiam nece&s;&s;itatem adigendos, qui Metro|politanus revera Epi&s;copus Epi&s;coporum to|tius alicujus Provinciae cui prae&s;idet dici pote&s;t.</HI> Di&s;cour&s;ing of the Equality of Bi|&s;hops he &s;ays, <HI>That was de&s;troyed when the Power of Metropolitans was brought in: by which one Bi&s;hop was &s;et over others to Go|vern them, and compel them to obedience; &s;uch a Metropolitan is indeed a Bi&s;hop of Bi&s;hops over his whole Province.</HI> What &s;taring is here again&s;t undenyable Truth? He will allow no Metropolitans becau&s;e the Cau&s;e of Presbytery requires it, and yet becau&s;e it cannot be deny'd that there were Metropolitans, he gives us his own Arbitrary Definition of them, that as &s;uch they were Tyrants and U&s;urpers. What when we are ju&s;t now told that they had a regular Authority, that was confin'd to the Synod of the Province? This I call &s;taring, when a man is forc'd by the Evi|dence of a Thing to confe&s;s it,; yet be|cau&s;e his Cau&s;e requires it, will confi|dently
<PB N="187" REF="98"> deny it. But the noble&s;t Ca&s;e of his Confidence is his Introduction to his Di&s;cour&s;e again&s;t Metropolitans, for be|ing re&s;olv'd to prove that there never was, nor ever ought to be any &s;uch thing, he begins this great Undertaking with a Proof of their ab&s;olute Nece&s;&s;ity to the Peace and Government of the Church. This is hardly credible, and yet it is one of the cleare&s;t and mo&s;t pregnant pa&s;&s;ages in the whole Book: Having &s;tated the Equality of Bi&s;hops, he thus proceeds, <HI>Hitherto all things are clear, no man is to excced his bounds, or invade</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>C.</HI> 4. <HI>p.</HI> 34.</NOTE> <HI>anothers Juri&s;diction; but what is to be done if any thing of common Concernment happen, any thing that relates to the benefit of the whole Province; what if a Bi&s;hop accu&s;es his Presbyter, or him&s;elf be accu&s;ed by his Cler|gy? Who &s;hall be Judge, or before whom &s;hall the Guilty party be pre&s;ented? You will &s;ay by all the Bi&s;hops of the Province. Very good and true! But I pray who &s;hall Sum|mon them? to whom will you give this Pow|er? If all challenge it, that can breed no|thing but di&s;cord and contention. The only remedy found again&s;t &s;uch Inconveniences is that by the con&s;ent of all, the Primacy &s;hould be Depo&s;ited with the Bi&s;hop of the Metro|polis or Head City of the Province, to pro|vide for &s;uch ca&s;es as concern all in Common.</HI> Excellently well argued, for a man that
<PB N="188" REF="99"> is Summoning all his Forces, to prove that there were no Metropolitans, <HI>(viz.)</HI> be|cau&s;e Metropolitans there mu&s;t be. But this I hope is enough, I doubt too much to &s;hew the vanity of this learned mans attempt upon this argument, at lea&s;t it may &s;uffice to &s;tate the ju&s;t Authority of Metropolitans between the two extreams of making it a meer titular dignity on one hand, or an uncontrollable Monarchy on the other, by a&s;&s;igning it a proper &s;uperi|ority, but &s;o as to be exerted only in Council. This that I have hitherto de|&s;cribed was the true <HI>Primitive</HI> and <HI>Apo|&s;tolical Con&s;titution</HI> of the <HI>Chri&s;tian Church,</HI> which la&s;ted the &s;ame without any materi|al Alteration, till the time of <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> the Great.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="16" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. XIV.</HEAD>
<P>But now behold new <HI>Heavens</HI> and a new <HI>Earth,</HI> the whole World is mol|ded as it were into another Creation, and not only the Religion, but the Civil Go|vernment of that va&s;t Empire is wrought into a new frame, and &s;etled upon new Foundations by this mighty Prince. It had (it &s;eems) been the Cu&s;tome of the greate&s;t Emperors, and &s;uch as were mo&s;t ambitious of leaving Monuments of their Wi&s;dom and Ability, to contrive new Models and Platforms for the Government of the Empire; whereby they &s;hew'd how
<PB N="189" REF="99"> well they under&s;tood the Intere&s;ts of State and the Advantages of Government. This was done by <HI>Augu&s;tus,</HI> by <HI>Adrian,</HI> by <HI>Ve&s;pa&s;ian;</HI> But <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> endeavour|ing to out-do them all, was not content as his Predece&s;&s;ors were to make con&s;ide|rable Alterations in &s;everal parts of the Empire; and therefore ca&s;ts the whole into a new Model of Government. All Offices Civil, Military, Courtly were of a new In&s;titution, in-&s;o-much that he al|mo&s;t made a new Language in the <HI>Roman</HI> Empire. And perhaps this new form of Government that he erected, was not &s;o much the effect of his Ambition as his Wi&s;dom. For as for the <HI>Praefecti Praetorio the Generalls of the</HI> Praetorian <HI>Bands</HI> which were in&s;tituted by <HI>Augu&s;tus;</HI> it was evi|dent from long Experience that their Power was too great for the Safety of the Empire; &s;o that they might (as they had often done) make them&s;elves Emperours when they pleas'd. And though <HI>Augu&s;tus</HI> appointed two, that they might give Check to each others Ambition; yet for all that he made him&s;elf but one of the <HI>Triumvirate,</HI> and if they fell out, he &s;tood not upon much better terms with the Conqueror than he did with <HI>Mark Anto|ny,</HI> when they had ca&s;hier'd <HI>Lepidus.</HI> It was a great Authority that &s;uch a Com|mander
<PB N="190" REF="100"> mu&s;t have to be the Darling of ten thou&s;and of the choice&s;t Souldiers of the Empire, who indeed Commanded all the Re&s;t; So that to &s;educe them from their Allegiance, was to carry off the whole Army; and therefore though <HI>Au|gu&s;tus</HI> found no di&s;turbance from them, by rea&s;on of his exactne&s;s in Government, yet his Succe&s;&s;ors &s;oon felt their Power. <HI>Tibe|rius</HI> was forc'd to Murder <HI>Sejanus,</HI> whom he had made &s;ole <HI>Prefect,</HI> to &s;ecure him&s;elf. But though this Military Power were of it &s;elf dangerous enough, yet in proce&s;s of time through the &s;loath and Luxury of &s;ome of the Emperours, they got the Su|preme Government of all Civil Affairs in|to their own hands, and &s;o had the whole Power of the Empire entirely at their own di&s;po&s;al. And therefore <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> was wi&s;er than to tru&s;t &s;uch an exorbitant Power in a Subjects hand; and fir&s;t di|vides the Military Power from the Civil; &s;etled the former upon his new Officers call'd <HI>Magi&s;tri Militum,</HI> divides the latter among four, and to humor them allows them large Juri&s;diction, dividing the whole Empire between them: Saving, <HI>That</HI> Rome <HI>and the Country lying about it for an Hundred miles was Govern'd by a</HI> Praefect <HI>of its own.</HI> Now the Empire be|ing thus divided into four di&s;tricts, under
<PB N="171" REF="100"> the&s;e four <HI>Praefects, (viz.)</HI> The <HI>Praefect</HI> of the <HI>Ea&s;t,</HI> of <HI>Illyricum,</HI> of <HI>Italy</HI> and of <HI>Gaul;</HI> each of them were again &s;ubdivided into Subordinate Juri&s;dictions, call'd Di|oce&s;&s;es: In all thirteen, each Dioce&s;s con|taining many Provinces, in all an hundred and twenty, and being govern'd by an Officer of its own call'd <HI>Vicarius;</HI> and as by thus dividing the <HI>Power</HI> of the <HI>Praefects</HI> among &s;o many <HI>Vicarii,</HI> he broke its great|ne&s;s, &s;o by placing them above the Pro|vinces of their Dioce&s;s, he &s;etled a more exact Corre&s;pondence through the Em|pire. Under the <HI>Praefect</HI> of the <HI>Ea&s;t</HI> were five Dioce&s;&s;es; <HI>Aegypt,</HI> the <HI>Ea&s;t</HI> &s;trictly &s;o call'd, <HI>Pontus, Afia,</HI> and <HI>Thrace.</HI> The Dioce&s;s of <HI>Aegypt</HI> containing &s;ix Provinces, the <HI>Ea&s;t</HI> fifteen, <HI>A&s;ia</HI> ten, <HI>Pontus</HI> ten, and <HI>Thrace</HI> &s;ix. Under the <HI>Praefect</HI> of <HI>Illyricum</HI> were two Dioce&s;&s;es, <HI>Macedonia</HI> and <HI>Dacia, Macedonia</HI> containing &s;ix Provinces, and <HI>Dacia</HI> five. Under the <HI>Praefect</HI> of <HI>Italy</HI> were three Dioce&s;&s;es, <HI>Italy, Africk,</HI> and <HI>Illyricum; Italy</HI> containing &s;eventeen Provinces, <HI>Africk</HI> &s;ix, and <HI>Illyricum</HI> &s;ix. Under the <HI>Praefect</HI> of <HI>Gaul</HI> were three Di|oce&s;&s;es, <HI>France, Spain</HI> and <HI>Brittain; France</HI> containing &s;eventeen Provinces, <HI>Spain</HI> &s;even, <HI>Brittain</HI> five. This is a true and &s;hort de&s;cription of the new State of the Empire, and it is generally &s;uppo&s;ed by
<PB N="192" REF="101"> Learned Men to have given Occa&s;ion to the Church, to add to the old Eccle&s;ia&s;ti|cal <HI>Hierarchy</HI> of Bi&s;hops and Metropoli|tans, a Superior Order call'd the <HI>Exarch's</HI> of the Dioce&s;s, and afterwards <HI>Patriar|ches.</HI> This I do not que&s;tion but that they had Power to have done, if they had judg'd it fit: But as to the matter of Fact, if we enquire how and when this new Order came into the Church; we have no foot&s;teps left of their In&s;titution by any Council, no true Record of their fir&s;t beginning by any Hi&s;torian; and if we throughly examine the Bui&s;ine&s;s, we &s;hall find that they thru&s;t them&s;elves upon the Church, and gain'd Authority in it purely by vertue of their own U&s;urpation. In that when the chief Metropolitan Cities were advanc'd above the other Metropo|les, by being made the Seats of the <HI>Vi|carii,</HI> or <HI>Lieutenants</HI> of the Dioce&s;s, the Metropolitan Bi&s;hops of tho&s;e great Sees, took upon them&s;elves greater State than the ordinary Metropolitans; and though at fir&s;t they challeng'd and gain'd only the Honour of Precedency, yet that no doubt quickly became a Srirrup to Ambition, to mount into a Superiority of Power and Juri&s;diction, as at length they did. But then the Church was all along &s;o far from owning, encouraging or in&s;tituting any
<PB N="193" REF="101"> Power above Metropolitans, that it did con&s;tantly from time to time beat down all the Attempts of any &s;uch Ambition. So that all Pretences to any higher Au|thority have not &s;o much foundation as meer Eccle&s;ia&s;tical In&s;titution, but were brought into the Church by irregular U|&s;urpation, and afterwards receiv'd and confirm'd by &s;ordid flattery. This I know cannot but look like a &s;trange Paradox, for though it hath been much di&s;puted, whether the Patriarchal dignity were founded upon Divine or Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Right, yet no man ever que&s;tion'd but that they had at lea&s;t the Rights of Eccle&s;i|a&s;tical In&s;titution. But when we come thoroughly to examin the true State of things, we &s;hall find that they were &s;o far from that, that they forc'd their way into the Church, in &s;pite of that great and long oppo&s;ition that it made again&s;t them. And for a clear Demon&s;tration of this, I &s;hall con&s;ider all the Laws of the Church that relate to this matter; And fir&s;t I &s;hall begin with that famous Canon of the great Council of <HI>Nice,</HI> that is thought the very <HI>Magna Charta</HI> of all Patriarchal Juri&s;di|ction: The words of it run thus; <HI>Let antient Cu&s;toms prevail, let the Churches in</HI> Aegypt, Lybia, <HI>and</HI> Pentapolis <HI>be &s;ubject to the Bi&s;hop of</HI> Alexandria, <HI>as is the Cu&s;tom</HI>
<PB N="194" REF="102"> <HI>at</HI> Rome, <HI>in like manner at</HI> Antioch, <HI>and the re&s;t of the Provinces; let every Church enjoy its own Priviledges. But this is de|clared as ab&s;olutely certain by the great Sy|nod, That if any man be made a Bi&s;hop without the con&s;ent of his Metropolitan, he is no Bi&s;hop. And if to the legal Election of a Bi&s;hop by the Major Vote of the Bi&s;hops of the Province, two or three &s;hall oppo&s;e them&s;elves, the Vote of the greater Num|ber &s;hall prevail.</HI> Here are a great many things confirm'd, all Immemorial cu&s;toms, but e&s;pecially the antient bounds of Metro|political Juri&s;diction, &s;o that the Canon is not to be under&s;tood of meer Metropoli|tical Power, but all other particular Pri|viledges, that any Metropolitans enjoy'd by ancient u&s;e and Cu&s;tom; and what they enjoy'd by Cu&s;tom was meerly acci|dental to that Power that was properly Me|tropolitical and de&s;cended from Apo&s;toli|cal Pre&s;cription. For though by that every Metropolitan was ve&s;ted with Su|preme Power in his own Province; yet &s;ome particular Churches had in proce&s;s of time gain'd, by u&s;e and Cu&s;tom particular Priviledges, e&s;pecially the Churches planted in tho&s;e great Cities, <HI>Rome, Alexandria,</HI> and <HI>Antioch; Rome</HI> the Seat of the Proud Em|pire; <HI>Alexandria</HI> the head City of <HI>Africk,</HI> and Seat of the great <HI>Ptolomies; Antiochia</HI>
<PB N="195" REF="102"> Queen of the <HI>Ea&s;t,</HI> and Seat of the great <HI>Se|leucus,</HI> and his Succe&s;&s;ors: So that having &s;uch great Splendor and Authority above all other Cities, that mu&s;t naturally give them &s;ome proportionable Preeminences in the Church, though what they were, or whether any at all does not appear; for the Council mentions no other Privileges, than what relate to the Bounds of Juri&s;di|ction. But though this is apparently all that is expre&s;s'd by that Canon, yet the greate&s;t part of the Learned men of the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> clearly &s;py in it, an ac|knowledgement of the <HI>Popes Supremacy,</HI> by Pre&s;cription from the <HI>Apo&s;tles;</HI> but with the&s;e high-flyers we &s;hall treat apart, and by paralelling their Proofs for their <HI>univer&s;al Supremacy</HI> in all Ages, with the certain Records, and undoubted pra|ctice of the Church in every Age, make all their Pretences look very ridiculous, for they are no better than gro&s;s and per|ver&s;e Fal&s;ifications of, nay ungrounded contradictions to all the Records of the Church. At pre&s;ent I &s;hall treat with men more mode&s;t and more moderate, and here the lea&s;t that mo&s;t Learned men of all Profe&s;&s;ions make of this Canon, is the In&s;titution or Ratification of the three great Patriarchates. And this is thought &s;o evident, that the greate&s;t part do not
<PB N="196" REF="103"> di&s;pute but &s;uppo&s;e it; even <HI>M. Antonius</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>De Rep. Ec. lib.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 10.</NOTE> <HI>de Dominis</HI> him&s;elf takes it for granted, and he was none of your following Wri|ters, but u&s;ually examin'd and con&s;ider'd things throughly him&s;elf before he deter|min'd. <HI>Petrus de Marca, Carolu&s;a Sto. Paulo</HI> and others think them&s;elves Cock|&s;ure of the <HI>Popes Supremacy</HI> over the <HI>We&s;tern</HI> Churches, by the unque&s;tionable evidence of it, and till of late it was never &s;o much as controverted. The Learned <HI>La noy</HI> was the fir&s;t of that Church, that made it a Que&s;tion in his Treati&s;e <HI>de rect&acirc; interpretatione Canonis Nicaeni;</HI> and Dr. <HI>Beveridge</HI> hath been his only &s;econd in ours, in his Notes upon the Canon; but the generality of Learned men look upon it as a great Paradox, and particularly the Learned <HI>Vale&s;ius</HI> hath oppos'd him&s;elf to his Learned Friend <HI>La noy,</HI> with unu&s;ual heat and Confidence, boldly challenging him to produce one Author, antient or modern, <HI>Greek</HI> or <HI>Latin,</HI> that ever under|&s;tood the Canon any other way, than of the In&s;titution or Confirmation of Apo|&s;tolical Patriarchates. But tho' it is no matter how other men under&s;tand the Canon, when it is plain enough to make it &s;elf to be rightly under&s;tood; yet be|cau&s;e <HI>Vale&s;ius</HI> is &s;o confident in his A&s;&s;er|tion, we will clo&s;e with him in it, and ca&s;t
<PB N="197" REF="103"> the i&s;&s;ue of the Debate upon it, and by his own Argument prove that there is no &s;uch thing as Patriarchs, or any Superior order to Metropolitans, till many years after the Council of <HI>Nice.</HI> And this will evi|dently appear if we divide the Records of the Church into two Periods, tho&s;e that were Written before the Council of <HI>Calce|don,</HI> that fir&s;t own'd and gave Counte|nance to this new Order, and tho&s;e that were Written after it; For as for the Wri|ters after, it mu&s;t be confe&s;s'd that they unanimou&s;ly agree in the Primitive Anti|quity of Patriarchates, which only &s;hews that when one man falls into a mi&s;take, how apt all that follow, are to &s;tumble upon him. For finding this Order in Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, and no Record of its In&s;tituti|on, it was ea&s;ie for &s;ome carele&s;s men, to conclude its being from the Beginning; and this conceit being once &s;tarted, it was ever after pur&s;ued without Examination. But if on the contrary the be&s;t Writers be|fore the time of the Council of <HI>Calcedon,</HI> or thereabouts, acknowledged no &s;uch Order in the Church; nay if they &s;uppo&s;e that there was not, then the ca&s;e is plain, that there never was any &s;uch thing till about that time.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="17" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. XV.</HEAD>
<P>And is it not &s;trange, that men &s;o wi&s;e and Learned as <HI>Petrus de Marca,</HI>
<PB N="198" REF="104"> and <HI>Vale&s;ius</HI> &s;hould &s;o far Impo&s;e upon them&s;elves as &s;eriou&s;ly to believe that they find the Preeminence of Patriarch's above Metropolitans in this Canon, when it &s;peaks &s;o plainly of only Metropolitical Preeminences, and when it is &s;o Notori|ou&s;ly evident, that there is not the lea&s;t mention of any &s;uch Office in all the Re|cords of the <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> Church till near an hundred years after this Council? and yet this <HI>Nicene</HI> Canon only confirms the old and accu&s;tom'd Rights of Churches, which could not be Patriarchal, becau&s;e we can find none &s;uch at that time. And the truth is this Canon &s;eems to have been made in pur&s;uance of the <HI>34th.</HI> Apo&s;toli|cal Canon, that requires the adherence of all other Inferior Bi&s;hops, to the fir&s;t Bi|&s;hop of their Nation or Province, and therefore it provides not only for the Pri|viledges of tho&s;e three great Sees, but of all other Metropolitans what&s;oever; for &s;o the Canon expre&s;ly runs, that not only at <HI>Alexandria</HI> and <HI>Antiochia,</HI> as well as <HI>Rome,</HI> but that in all other <GAP DESC="foreign"> or Pro|vinces (for <GAP DESC="foreign"> is never us'd to &s;ignifie any thing el&s;e in Church-Writers) their antient Priviledges &s;hould be pre&s;erv'd. So that indeed this is &s;o far from any De|&s;ign of erecting Patriarchates, or confirm|ing their Prerogatives, that it &s;uppo&s;es no
<PB N="199" REF="104"> &s;uch Office in the Church, and declares tho&s;e three great Cities to be but Metro|politan Churches, becau&s;e it joyns them with the <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>i. e.</HI> The other Provinces, and therefore they them&s;elves could be nothing, but Provincial Churches, as well as the&s;e other <GAP DESC="foreign"> with which they were coupl'd. And be&s;ides the &s;igni|fication of the words, it is plain from the whole &s;ence and de&s;ign of the Canon, that it only provides for the Supreme Rights of Metropolitans; for &s;o after its provi&s;i|on for the Rights of particular Churches, it &s;ets down one general Rule, <HI>That no|thing be done without the Metropolitan.</HI> That is the whole bu&s;ine&s;s of the Council in this Canon, to &s;ecure this old Rule that had been of late violated, as will further appear by the Occa&s;ion of it, which was this, That <HI>Meletius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Lycopolis</HI> within the Province of <HI>Alexandria</HI> having been depos'd by his Metropolitan in a Sy|nod of Bi&s;hops, as for divers other crimes, &s;o particularly for Sacrificing to Idols, he notwith&s;tanding takes upon him&s;elf to or|dain new Bi&s;hops within the Juri&s;diction of <HI>Alexandria,</HI> and &s;o violates all the Pre|eminences of his Metropolitan, both by &s;lighting his Cen&s;ure and invading his Power. Now complaint hereof being brought to the Council, they thereupon
<PB N="200" REF="105"> Decree that the Ancient Prerogatives of the Church of <HI>Alexandria</HI> over the Churches that had been of ancient time under its Juri&s;diction, &s;hould be kept as inviolable as tho&s;e of <HI>Rome,</HI> &s;o as no ordi|nation &s;hould be valid without the con|&s;ent of the Metropolitan; and upon this particular occa&s;ion ratifie the Juri&s;dictions of all the other Metropolitans in the world over the Bi&s;hops of their own Province. But here it is plea&s;ant to ob&s;erve, with what confidence Learned men run away with a palpable mi&s;take, either through prejudice or Intere&s;t: The <HI>Scholia&s;ts, Bal|&s;amon</HI> and <HI>Zonaras,</HI> and all other Writers of later Ages, what they found practis'd in their own time, apply'd it to the pri|mitive Church, and therefore Patriarch|ates having been of long &s;tanding, they take it for granted, without enquiry that they had always been, and &s;o both <HI>Bal&s;a|mon</HI> and <HI>Zonaras</HI> po&s;itively aver, That not only the Patriarchates of <HI>Rome, Alex|andria</HI> and <HI>Antiochia,</HI> but that of <HI>Jeru&s;a|lem</HI> it &s;elf was own'd by this Council over the Provinces of <HI>Pale&s;tine, Arabia,</HI> and <HI>Phenice,</HI> becau&s;e &s;o it &s;eems, it had been before their time; but certainly if the&s;e men had not been &s;tone-blind with pre|judice, they could not but have &s;een that <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> was then &s;o far from any Patri|archal
<PB N="201" REF="105"> dignity or Juri&s;diction over tho&s;e three Provinces, that it &s;elf was Subject to the Metropolitan of <HI>Cae&s;area,</HI> who&s;e Juri&s;diction extended not beyond the Province of <HI>Pale&s;tine.</HI> Nay notwith&s;tand|ing that its Subjection to the Metropolis of <HI>Cae&s;area</HI> is expre&s;ly declared in the very next Canon, they are &s;o bewitch'd with the Conceit of its being a Patriarchate, that when they read of its being a Subject Bi&s;hoprick, they believe it the very grant and Patent of its Patriarchal In&s;titution. But then as for <HI>Petrus de Marca,</HI> a man who is &s;carce ever in the wrong, but when he dares not be in the Right, to be &s;o peremptory in this mi&s;take of the Pri|mitive Antiquity of Patriarchates, that is &s;o apparently incon&s;i&s;tent with all the Re|cords of the Church, in which he was &s;o accurately vers'd; it plainly &s;hews what men are forc'd to do, that have bu&s;ine&s;s depending at <HI>Rome:</HI> And yet upon the A&s;&s;urance of the unque&s;tionable Truth of this Suppo&s;ition, he thinks he demon|&s;trates the <HI>Popes</HI> Supremacy, at lea&s;t by Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Con&s;titution, over the We|&s;tern Churches. It is true he often a&s;&s;erts his Univer&s;al Juri&s;diction over the Church <HI>Catholick,</HI> but that &s;eems to be done for form &s;ake, le&s;t his Holine&s;s &s;hould once more &s;top the Pall at his next Tran&s;lati|on.
<PB N="202" REF="106"> But the Fundamental Principle upon which he builds his whole work is the <HI>Popes</HI> being Patriarch of the <HI>We&s;t,</HI> and that as proved from the &s;ixth Canon of <HI>Nice,</HI> and that is the very Argument of his whole fir&s;t Book, which is the founda|tion of all that follow; I &s;hall con&s;ider the whole di&s;cour&s;e di&s;tinctly, and there|by it will appear, that all the Wit and all the Learning in the World (and he had a very great &s;hare of both) can do nothing without Truth, but much le&s;s again&s;t it. At lea&s;t I &s;hall make it evident, that the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> in tho&s;e early times of the Church, had no pretence to any Patriar|chal Power, much le&s;s over all the <HI>We&s;tern</HI> Churches.</P>
<P>And fir&s;t what do we mean by a Patri|arch, but the Bi&s;hop of a va&s;t Dioce&s;s Superior to all the Metropolitans, or Pro|vincial Bi&s;hops within his Dioce&s;s. For what ever Honours or Preheminences they enjoy'd be&s;ides, yet the thing by which they are di&s;tingui&s;hed from Metropolitans is their Authority over them, which was reduc'd to Practice according to the Bounds of the Dioce&s;&s;es, and that's the Definition that <HI>Vale&s;ius</HI> often gives us of a Patriarch, that he is <HI>Metropolitanus Me|trapolitanorum.</HI> Now it would be a prety di&s;covery to find &s;uch things as Dioce&s;&s;es
<PB N="203" REF="106"> containing many Provinces, either in the Chri&s;tian Church or the <HI>Roman</HI> Empire, long before the Council of <HI>Nice;</HI> and yet if Patriarch's there had then been by an|cient cu&s;tom, Dioce&s;&s;es there mu&s;t have been: Whereas there is nothing more e|vident then that there was no &s;uch thing till <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI>'s new Model of the Empire. From that time forward we hear enough, and as will appear in the &s;equel of this di&s;|cour&s;e, too much of them in the Tran&s;|actions of the Church. But before that time it would be a very new Di&s;covery to find out &s;uch Dioce&s;&s;es in Chri&s;tendom. Did not the&s;e Learned men know, that Dioce&s;&s;es were not older than <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI>'s new Project of Government? If they did, and it is certain they could not be Ignorant of it, then certainly they mu&s;t be Con&s;ci|ous to them&s;elves, that they had under|taken a Cau&s;e, that they mu&s;t, but could not maintain. And yet this very ab&s;ur|dity it &s;elf is one of the main Arguments, by which they would make good their A&s;&s;ertion; So <HI>Vale&s;ius: In hoc capite &s;exto agitur de Epi&s;copis qui regunt Dioce&s;in, non</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ob&s;erv. Ec. in Soc. &amp; Soz. lib.</HI> 3. <HI>cap.</HI> 2.</NOTE> <HI>autem de his qui regunt unicam Provinciam, atqui Metropolitani unam tantum Provinci|am regunt, &s;inguli enim prae&s;unt Epi&s;copis &s;uae Provinciae. Patriarchae vero Diocae&s;in id e&s;t multas &s;imul junctas Provincias Ad|mini&s;trant,</HI>
<PB N="204" REF="107"> <HI>&amp; Subjectos &s;ibi habent Metro|politanos; de his ergo intelligendus e&s;t hic Canon, non de Simplicibus Metropolitanis. Alioquin manca &amp; imperfecta e&s;&s;et con&s;ti|tutio Patrum Nicaenorum.</HI> That is in &s;hort, The Canon had been lame and imperfect, if it provided not for the Government of Dioce&s;&s;es as well as &s;ingle Provinces. What, before there were any &s;uch things as Di|oce&s;&s;es to be govern'd? If indeed they had been then in Being, and the Juri&s;diction of the Church had been divided by their Limits, it might have been a neglect or an over&s;ight not to take care of them; but when there was no &s;uch thing in the Chri&s;tian Church, it is a very hard Impo&s;i|tion upon its Governours to require it as a Duty from their hands, to provide for all the Alterations of Government that may happen in the State. And yet <HI>Petrus de Marca</HI> after all his Pains, is forc'd to dwindle this whole matter of Patriarch|ates, e&s;pecially as divided into <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> and <HI>We&s;tern</HI> into a kind of Prophe&s;y. <HI>Ita ut ab initio na&s;centis Eccle&s;iae videatur e&s;&s;e</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>De Con&s;t. Patriarch. In&s;tit. pag.</HI> 122.</NOTE> <HI>delineata, ill&acirc; qua&s;i futuri prae&s;ag&acirc; di&s;tri|butione, Orbis Romani in Occidentis &amp; Ori|entis Imperium divi&s;io.</HI> Into &s;uch disho|nourable &s;hifts do Learned men run them|&s;elves, when they Write for <HI>Faction</HI> not for <HI>Truth.</HI> This Learned man had fir&s;t
<PB N="205" REF="107"> given us an Account of the new State of the Empire from <HI>Con&s;tantine,</HI> and now immediately after that conforms the Mo|del of the Church to it, as it was &s;etled from the very time of the Apo&s;tles. What, when there was no &s;uch State in the World? Yes, yes, &s;aith he, they did it by the Spi|rit of Prophe&s;y. But what proof of that? this is plainly to for&s;ake the Evidence of the Records of the Church, and to appeal to unknown In&s;piration. His A&s;&s;ertion is that the Primitive Church de&s;ign'd to conform its Government to the pre&s;ent State of the Empire, and yet not regard|ing that, he now declares that it fram'd it by a new Model that it fore&s;aw would be &s;et up 300. years after. The&s;e di&s;cour&s;es become not the Ingenuity of Learned men, but men that are forc'd to &s;erve a Cau&s;e or quit preferment, cannot help them&s;elves. And yet after all the A&s;&s;er|tion is as fal&s;e, as it is vain and precarious; For if he could find but any one in&s;tance of a Dioce&s;s, or a Patriarch, or any ordi|nary Power Superior to a Metropolitan in the Church before the time of <HI>Con&s;tan|tine;</HI> I will allow him his Cau&s;e without the help of this Machin of Prophe&s;y, but if there be no &s;uch thing, it is a very &s;len|der piece of wi&s;dom to require the Church|es care for the Government of its &s;everal
<PB N="206" REF="108"> Dioce&s;an divi&s;ions, when there were no &s;uch divi&s;ions in the World. And yet this very &s;ame Learned man a few Pages after <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>p.</HI> 126. 127.</NOTE> tells that us this Settlement of the three great Patriarchates over the <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> and <HI>We|&s;tern</HI> Dioce&s;&s;es, was made <HI>Secundum veterem &s;uperioris temporis con&s;uetudinem.</HI> What but ju&s;t now was done by pre&s;age of what was to come to pa&s;s in after times, is now done by the antient cu&s;tom of former times. But this Cu&s;tom is both as true, and as well prov'd as that Prophe&s;y, it hath no other ground but the Learned mans own a&s;&s;er|tion, and no better proof than the Autho|rity of <HI>Zonaras</HI> and <HI>Bal&s;amon;</HI> though him&s;elf confe&s;&s;es that they &s;peak (as it is manife&s;t they do) according to the cu&s;tom of their own time, and talk &s;o carele&s;ly as to affirm that the Patriarchate of <HI>Je|ru&s;alem</HI> over its three Provinces was &s;etled at the &s;ame time. In &s;hort I cannot but &s;tand amaz'd to hear this Learned man as well as others talk &s;o perpetually of the Divi&s;ion of Dioce&s;&s;es before the Council of <HI>Nice,</HI> when it is Impo&s;&s;ible that he could either be Ignorant or not aware that there was no &s;uch thing, either in Church or State till <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI>'s new Con&s;titution of the Empire. And that is an evident over|throw of all Patriarchal-pretences before that time, becau&s;e there were till then no
<PB N="207" REF="108"> Dioce&s;&s;es, which is the fir&s;t thing nece&s;&s;a|ry to the very being of a Patriarch, a Di|oce&s;s containing in it many Provinces.</P>
<P>But <HI>Vale&s;ius</HI> objects that the great Council had already provided for the Ju|ri&s;diction of Metropolitans in the fourth Canon, to what purpo&s;e then &s;hould it do the &s;ame again in the &s;ixth? It might do it upon a new and particular occa&s;ion; In the fourth it might have &s;etled the Juri&s;|diction of Metropolitans in general, and in the &s;ixth it doth the &s;ame, for the Pro|vince of <HI>Alexandria,</HI> upon account of the pre&s;ent Controver&s;ie about <HI>Meletius,</HI> and for that rea&s;on probably it adds, a new Penalty, the depo&s;ition of the Offender. So that if this allegation were true, there is no Incon&s;i&s;tency in it, but that the Council might have provided for the &s;ame thing in both Canons. Though the Ca&s;e is quite otherwi&s;e, for in the fourth Ca|non they only &s;etled the Rights of Ordi|nation; but, as <HI>Vale&s;ius</HI> him&s;elf ob&s;erves in the &s;ixth, they confirm all parts of Juri&s;|diction, and that &s;ure is a &s;ufficient addi|tion to the fourth, and material enough for the making a new Canon.</P>
<P>But <HI>Vale&s;ius</HI> per&s;i&s;ts that when the Or|dination of Bi&s;hops, by Metropolitans was provided for in the fourth Canon, the &s;ixth mu&s;t &s;ettle the Ordination of Metropoli|tans
<PB N="208" REF="109"> by Patriarchs, how otherwi&s;e &s;hall they be Ordain'd? This is a very unfor|tunate Argument, and utterly overthrows the Learned mans whole De&s;ign: When it is &s;o well known, that long after that time all Metropolitans were ordained on|ly by the Bi&s;hops of their own Province, and that there was no other Cu&s;tom till after the Council of <HI>Calcedon.</HI> And if <HI>Vale&s;ius</HI> could have produced one In&s;tance of their being ordain'd by a Patriarch, or any other than by their own Synod, it might have done his Cau&s;e &s;ome kindne&s;s; but when there is no &s;uch example, that is a manife&s;t proof that there was no &s;uch Power.</P>
<P>But to what purpo&s;e is it for men to argue what ought to have been again&s;t what certainly hath been? For it is cer|tain that the&s;e Canons &s;peak only of <GAP DESC="foreign"> and the Bi&s;hops that pre&s;ided over them, and that at that time there was no &s;uch thing as <GAP DESC="foreign"> in the Chri&s;tian Church, and therefore if we mu&s;t be ar|guing, the Proof is demon&s;trative that what ever the Council appointed in the fourth Canon, or ought to have appointed in the &s;ixth, that it is impo&s;&s;ible it &s;hould have taken any care of Patriarchs or Bi|&s;hops, as antiently pre&s;iding over Dioce|&s;es, becau&s;e it is certain that there were
<PB N="209" REF="109"> then no Dioce&s;&s;es to be taken care of. And therefore it is a plea&s;ant Interpretation that <HI>Petrus de Marca</HI> gives us of the <GAP DESC="foreign">, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>De Concord. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 3. &sect;. 8.</NOTE> that the words do not refer to all other Provinces in general, but parti|cularly to the three great Dioce&s;&s;es of <HI>A|&s;ia, Pontus,</HI> and <HI>Thrace,</HI> that are here on|ly intended. But alas it is too plain that <GAP DESC="foreign"> will &s;ignifie nothing but a Pro|vince; and therefore if the&s;e alone were here intended, they were Provinces and not Dioce&s;&s;es. And then the <GAP DESC="foreign"> being joyn'd with tho&s;e three great Sees of <HI>Rome, Alexandria</HI> and <HI>Antioch,</HI> they mu&s;t be of the &s;ame nature too. But the great difficulty of all would be to find the Bi&s;hops of the&s;e Dioce&s;&s;es, at the time of the Council of <HI>Nice.</HI> For that there was then any Bi&s;hop pre&s;iding over all the Metropolitans of a Dioce&s;s; men have no grounds to believe than that their Cau&s;e requires it. And though it were true in it &s;elf, yet it is here precariou&s;ly a&s;&s;erted by <HI>de Marca;</HI> for &s;uppo&s;ing that tho&s;e three Dioce&s;&s;es were then in Being, what evidence hath he that the Council by the general words of <GAP DESC="foreign"> intend|ed them only and not all others? No|thing at all but becau&s;e he thinks it a pret|ty conjecture, for he is very fond of it, and huggs it at every turn. But a Con|jecture
<PB N="201" REF="110"> without &s;ome ground is no better then a Dream; and the truth is, this is &s;o far from any neatne&s;s of gue&s;s, that it is a mo&s;t Enormous, if not a wilful mi&s;take. For whereas he will have the Council in|tend by <GAP DESC="foreign"> the three Dioce&s;&s;es of <HI>Pontus, A&s;ia</HI> and <HI>Thrace,</HI> he very well knew that the State of tho&s;e places was quite different at the time of that Coun|cil; for by <HI>A&s;ia</HI> before that time was un|der&s;tood only the Procon&s;ular <HI>A&s;ia,</HI> of which <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> was the Metropolis; Whereas when it was made a Dioce&s;s, ten more and tho&s;e large Provinces were laid into it. The Province of <HI>Pontus,</HI> of which <HI>Cae&s;area</HI> of <HI>Cappadocia</HI> was Metropolis, was confin'd to <HI>Pontus</HI> it &s;elf, but the Di|oce&s;s of <HI>Pontus</HI> contain'd ten Provinces more be&s;ide it &s;elf. The Province of <HI>Thrace,</HI> of which <HI>Heraclea</HI> was Metropo|lis, was no more than <HI>Thrace</HI> it &s;elf, but when it was made a Dioce&s;s, it contain'd &s;ix great Provinces within the Circuit of its Juri&s;diction. So wild a Conceit was it in this Learned man to imagin that the&s;e &s;ingle Provinces that were afterward mol|ded into va&s;t Dioce&s;&s;es, had long been Dioce&s;&s;es before they were made &s;o. If the Reader de&s;ire farther Satisfaction in this matter, be&s;ide the Records of the Church, and the <HI>Notitia</HI> of the Empire, he may
<PB N="211" REF="110"> con&s;ult an excellent di&s;cour&s;e upon it by <HI>Petrus de Marc&acirc;</HI> him&s;elf, in his little Book <HI>de Con&s;tantinopolitani Patriarchiatus In&s;ti|tutione;</HI> where he have an accurate Ac|count of the State of the Church, both when it was Provincial, and when Dio|ce&s;an, which will appear without any fur|ther pains to be &s;ufficiently different. For example, that the Procon&s;ular <HI>A&s;ia,</HI> as a Province contain'd only the Kingdom of <HI>Attalus,</HI> but as a Dioce&s;s it took in ten other Nations. And then the mi&s;take is very exhorbitant to confound the Dioce&s;s of <HI>A&s;ia,</HI> with the Province of it, at a time when there had been no &s;uch thing as a Dioce&s;s, and then prove it by the after-practice of the Church. But this is an u|&s;ual thing with this Learned man, to prove the Pre&s;cription of former times by the practice of later times. Thus in his Trea|ti&s;e <HI>de Con&s;tant. Patriarch. In&s;titut.</HI> he is <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 145&punc;</NOTE> very confident in it, that the Fathers in this Canon under&s;tand the Exarchs of the&s;e three Dioce&s;&s;es; and this he proves from the Council of <HI>Calcedon,</HI> that makes men|tion of the Dioce&s;an Exarchs. It does &s;o, and it is the fir&s;t Council that does it. But is not this a very inverted Method of in|terpreting the Records of the Church, that becau&s;e we meet with Exarchs of Dioce&s;|&s;es in the Council of <HI>Calcedon,</HI> that was a&s;|&s;embled
<PB N="212" REF="111"> a hundred years after; therefore when the Council of <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> &s;peaks of the Bi&s;hops of Provinces, they mu&s;t be under&s;tood of the&s;e Exarchs, though there is no Record of any &s;uch Title or Dignity at that time? But the truth is this error of Confounding the State of the Church and Empire after <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> with the State of both before, is very common a|mong Learned men, and hath indeed brought great Confu&s;ion upon this whole matter. The ancient State of the Empire they de&s;cribe or explain by the <HI>Notitia</HI> publi&s;hed by <HI>Pancirollus,</HI> that was not written till the latter end of <HI>Theodo&s;ius</HI> the younger, when the ancient State of the Empire was utterly demoli&s;h'd, and yet is this very Book made a Commentary upon the ancient Hi&s;torians, <HI>Dio Ca&s;&s;ius, Suetonius, Strabo, Pliny, Tacitus</HI> and all the Writers between <HI>Augu&s;tus</HI> and <HI>Con&s;tan|tine.</HI> And as for the Church, this is no|torious, at lea&s;t in all the Writers of the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> to accomodate ancient Pre&s;cription to modern Practice, and de|rive what they find in u&s;e in the latter ages of the Church from the fir&s;t times of it, though there are then no Foot&s;teps of any &s;uch u&s;age. Though the greate&s;t In|&s;tance of this grand mi&s;take is in <HI>Carolus a Sancto Paulo,</HI> who hath as he thinks or
<PB N="213" REF="111"> pretends, found out the Con&s;titution of the Primitive Church from the Apo&s;tles to the Council of <HI>Nice,</HI> from no earlier Record than the Council of <HI>Calcedon,</HI> the <HI>Ju&s;tinian Code,</HI> and other Writers after the great Alteration that was fir&s;t &s;etled by the Council of <HI>Calcedon.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="18" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. XVI.</HEAD>
<P>For as for the Authorities al|ledged for the Primitive In&s;titution of Patriarchat's, they are all of them after the time of the Council of <HI>Nice,</HI> and there|fore there were none before it; and that is a &s;ufficient pre&s;umption again&s;t their being at that time; for if they had been, it is impo&s;&s;ible but that we mu&s;t have heard &s;omething of them, that were the Supreme Power in the Church. And as they were all after the Council of <HI>Nice,</HI> &s;o were mo&s;t of them after the Council of <HI>Calcedon;</HI> by which Patriarchates were erected. As for tho&s;e that wrote between the Interval of the&s;e two Councils, <HI>Petrus de Marca</HI> alledges &s;ome Authors that &s;peak <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>C.</HI> 3. <HI>Sect.</HI> 8.</NOTE> of Dioce&s;&s;es. And &s;o they might without &s;o much as dreaming of Patriarchates, be|cau&s;e from the time of <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> it was u&s;ed as a term of Art in the divi&s;ion of the Empire. And the fir&s;t time that we <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Eu&s;eb. de vit&acirc; Con&s;t. lib.</HI> 3. <HI>e.</HI> 19.</NOTE> hear of the word Dioce&s;s at all, is from <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> him&s;elf, who u&s;es it in his
<PB N="214" REF="112"> Speech concerning the Pa&s;chal Controver|&s;ie, where he &s;peaks of the Con&s;ent of the Bi&s;hops of the Dioce&s;&s;es of <HI>A&s;ia</HI> and <HI>Pontus;</HI> for that was now their name in the new State of the Empire, but not a &s;yllable of one Bi&s;hop over any Dioce&s;s. And he &s;peaks of them as he doth in the &s;ame place of the Bi&s;hops of the <HI>Ea&s;t, We&s;t, North</HI> and <HI>South;</HI> &s;o that from his words we may as well conclude a Patriarch for every quarter of the Compa&s;s, as for eve|ry Dioce&s;s of the Empire. And of the &s;ame nature are the pa&s;&s;ages that <HI>Peter de Marca</HI> alledges out of <HI>Theodotius</HI> and <HI>Con|&s;tantius,</HI> who make mention of the Bi|&s;hops of <HI>A&s;ia, Pontus</HI> and <HI>Thrace,</HI> for they &s;peak as Emperours ought to do, according to the Civil State of the Empire; neither do they &s;peak of the Bi&s;hop, but the Bi|&s;hops of each Dioce&s;s, and that is very far from any mention of a Dioce&s;an Bi&s;hop. The fir&s;t Author that &s;peaks of the divi&s;i|on of Dioce&s;&s;es and In&s;titution of Patri|archates is <HI>Socrates</HI> the <HI>Hi&s;torian,</HI> who attributes it to the &s;econd general Coun|cil. But if &s;o, then however it is evident that there were none at the time of the fir&s;t. Though be&s;ides that it is plain e|nough that he is mi&s;taken, and that at the time of his Writing, though there were &s;ome that would have been pretending to
<PB N="215" REF="112"> this Superiority, yet were there none le|gally and canonically &s;etled. That he is mi&s;taken appears from the Council it &s;elf, where there is no &s;uch thing In&s;tituted; but on the contrary it is expre&s;ly forbid|den, as will farther appear when I come to the Examination of the &s;ence of that Council in this matter. And as for the &s;everal Patriarchs that he there &s;ets down, the gro&s;&s;ne&s;s of the mi&s;take is notorious, in that they were no Patriarchs, but only Bi&s;hops of the Orthodox Communion, which were commonly call'd the <GAP DESC="foreign">, as appears both by the &s;ixth Canon annexed to this Council, where all are defin'd <HI>Hereticks,</HI> that &s;eperate from the <GAP DESC="foreign"> (for &s;o it ought to be read, and not <GAP DESC="foreign">) and by the <HI>Theodotian</HI> Law it &s;elf extant in the <HI>Code,</HI> whereby it is enacted, that tho&s;e only &s;hould be accounted Orthodox and al|lowed publick Churches, that kept Com|munion with and were approved by &s;ome certain Bi&s;hops of the Emperours Nomi|nation, and the&s;e are the Bi&s;hops that <HI>So|crates</HI> Ignorantly enough calls Patriarchs, of the &s;everal Dioce&s;&s;es; though it is evi|dent that &s;ome of them belong'd to one and the &s;ame Dioce&s;s, as <HI>Helladius Otrejus</HI> of <HI>Militene,</HI> and <HI>Gregory</HI> of <HI>Ny&s;&s;a</HI> to <HI>Pontus, Amphilochius</HI> and <HI>Optimus</HI> to <HI>A&s;ia;</HI> and
<PB N="216" REF="113"> therefore they could not be Patriarch's of the new Dioce&s;&s;es, becau&s;e there were more then one in a Dioce&s;s. But if there were no divi&s;ion of Dioce&s;&s;es, or In&s;tituti|on of Patriarchates before the Council of <HI>Calcedon;</HI> How comes <HI>Socrates</HI> who liv'd before that time to dream of any &s;uch thing? This at the time of <HI>Socrates</HI> his Writing could be no great wonder; For it was not above &s;even or eight years before that Council, that his Hi&s;tory was writ|ten. Before which time the Bi&s;hops of Dioce&s;an Cities had been often labouring to rai&s;e them&s;elves above the other Me|tropolitans, and appropriate to them&s;elves the Titles of <HI>Exarchs</HI> of the Dioce&s;s; and though they were often repuls'd by the Church, yet by this time they (e&s;pe|cially the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Constantinople</HI> where he lived) had got Authority enough to maintain, and as it were by cu&s;tom to Legitimate their U&s;urpation; and &s;o <HI>So|crates</HI> finding them in &s;ome po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of their Power at the time of his Writing, what ought to have been a&s;crib'd meerly to their own Ambition, he either Igno|rantly or Carele&s;ly imputes to that very Canon of the &s;econd Council, that was made only to keep down the very Pre|tence to any &s;uch Power. Though, tis mo&s;t probable that he took his account from
<PB N="217" REF="113"> the current Opinion in that City at that time, <HI>(viz.)</HI> That &s;uch an Authority and Juri&s;diction had been &s;etled upon it by the <HI>Con&s;tantinoplitan</HI> Council, as we &s;hall find it pleaded by the Clergy of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> in the Council of <HI>Calcedon.</HI></P>
<P>As for the Te&s;timonies of St. <HI>Jerom, Innocent</HI> the fir&s;t, and <HI>Johannes Schola&s;ti|cus,</HI> or <HI>Antiochenus,</HI> they need no An&s;wer, becau&s;e it is evident without any that they are gro&s;s mi&s;takes. St. <HI>Jerom</HI> a&s;&s;erts that <HI>Antioch</HI> was made Metropolis of all the <HI>Ea&s;t</HI> by the Council of <HI>Nice;</HI> but with the Re&s;erve of a <HI>ni fallor,</HI> if I be not mi&s;tak|en. But that he was mi&s;taken is put out of all doubt by the words of the Canon it &s;elf, where we meet not with the lea&s;t mention of the <HI>Ea&s;t,</HI> much le&s;s of all the <HI>Ea&s;t,</HI> but only in general of <HI>Antioch</HI> and its antient Priviledges. And that <HI>Antioch</HI> had any Superiority or Juri&s;diction over any of the <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> Metropolitans, is a thing unheard of in <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;tical</HI> Hi&s;tory. So that this mu&s;t plainly pa&s;s among one of St. <HI>Jerom</HI>'s many ha&s;ty Expre&s;&s;ions, though the ra&s;hne&s;s of it is much abated by his <HI>ni fallor,</HI> a forme of Speech that he rarely u&s;es, but when he writes at all ad|ventures, as it is evident he doth here without any warrant or Authority. I know that &s;ome Learned men would bring
<PB N="218" REF="114"> him off by &s;aying that he means the Coun|cil of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> in&s;tead of that of <HI>Nice,</HI> in that not long after that Council there was compiled a <HI>Code</HI> of the Canons of the univer&s;al Church, in which the <HI>Nicene</HI> Canons bearing the Principal place, they gave the denomination to the whole Book. This I will grant to be true, but if it be, it is mending one mi&s;take with another, becau&s;e the Council of <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> no more owns any Patriarchal Juri&s;diction ei|ther in that See or any other than the Council of <HI>Nice,</HI> as I &s;hall prove when I come to con&s;ider it. But the be&s;t excu&s;e that can be made for St. <HI>Jerom,</HI> and the mo&s;t natural interpretation of his <HI>ni fallor</HI> is, that he Speaks according to the practice of his own time; for the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Anti|och</HI> then challenged a Superiority over the <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> Metropolitans, and mo&s;t of them had &s;ubmitted to his U&s;urpation; as <HI>Inno|cent</HI> the fir&s;t informs us, who requires the Metropolitan of <HI>Cyprus</HI> to be Subject to the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch,</HI> out of conformity to other Churches; and therefore St. <HI>Jerom</HI> finding him actually in&s;tated in this Juri&s;|diction; he after his ha&s;ty manner of wri|ting pa&s;&s;es it as an ancient Right, but be|cau&s;e he knew no proof of it, he &s;helters his A&s;&s;ertion under the Re&s;erve of a <HI>ni fallor.</HI> As for <HI>Pope Innocent</HI> his mi&s;take,
<PB N="219" REF="114"> it is the &s;ame with St. <HI>Jerom</HI>'s, only wor&s;e <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 18.</NOTE> becau&s;e more peremptory or rather more partial, and indeed he is too much a Party to be a Witne&s;s; For about his time the <HI>Exarchs</HI> or Bi&s;hops of the great Cities be|gan to domineer, and think them&s;elves bigger than their Brother Metropolitans, and then whatever they did mu&s;t have the formality of being ju&s;tified by the Council of <HI>Nice,</HI> though the Council is utterly &s;ilent about it. And thus in his Epi&s;tle to the Council of <HI>Toledo,</HI> he ordains of his own head, that neither Lawyers nor Courtiers, nor Souldiers &s;hould be admit|ted into Holy Orders, and then warrants his own Decree by the Authority of the <HI>Nicene</HI> Canons, though there is no &s;uch Rule in all the Decrees of that Council. The neare&s;t thing to it is enjoyning very &s;evere Penance upon Souldiers, that had Sacrificed to Idols in the Per&s;ecution of <HI>Licinius,</HI> and that I take it is a matter very remote from Holy Orders. And &s;o here when the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch</HI> complains to his reconciled Friend or Ma&s;ter <HI>Innocent,</HI> that the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Cyprus</HI> would ordain their Bi&s;hops without con&s;ulting his <HI>Ex|archate&s;hip</HI> (for that was the game at that time, though it would not hold) contrary to the <HI>Nicene</HI> Canons. His peremptory An&s;wer is that they ought to ob&s;erve the
<PB N="220" REF="115"> Canons, and &s;ubmit to the &s;ame Govern|ment as other Churches did, that is, to the <HI>Exarch</HI> of the Dioce&s;s. All which is prov'd Notoriou&s;ly fal&s;e by the <HI>Nicene</HI> Canons them&s;elves that a&s;&s;ert no &s;uch thing, and &s;o it was then judged by 200. Bi&s;hops in the Council of <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> to whom a little after the cau&s;e was appeal'd, who condemn'd the U&s;urpation of the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch,</HI> as an eminent Breach of the Liberties &s;etled by the <HI>Nicene</HI> Council. So apparently fal&s;e is the Allegation of this <HI>Pope,</HI> but forgery was his particular Ta|lent, and it is the Cu&s;tom of U&s;urpers to a&s;&s;i&s;t one another, till &s;ome one of them finds him&s;elf able to overtop all the re&s;t, and then is he as much concern'd to tram|ple them down, as ever he was to advance them; And &s;o the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome</HI> were for the mo&s;t part, at fir&s;t, very forward to lend an helping hand to the Ambition of other Prelates, becau&s;e how high &s;oever the&s;e were rai&s;ed, they them&s;elves &s;till mounted above them, till finding that they were arrived to their full heighth of Pow|er, nothing le&s;s would &s;erve their turn than an Univer&s;al Monarchy over their own Confederates as well as all other Churches. And for this rea&s;on this Pre|&s;uming <HI>Pope</HI> here fir&s;t gives his helping hand to the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antiochia,</HI> becau&s;e
<PB N="221" REF="115"> he gave it for a Rea&s;on, that would give a greater Authority to him&s;elf, <HI>(viz.)</HI> That <HI>Antioch</HI> had once been the Seat of St. <HI>Pe|ter,</HI> and was only Inferior to <HI>Rome,</HI> in that he &s;at there only for a time, and made it not the Seat of his fixed and perpetual Re&s;idence as he did <HI>Rome.</HI> And upon this he advi&s;eth him to ordain his Metropo|litans by his own &s;ingular Authority, and not to &s;uffer his Metropolitans to ordain their own Bi&s;hops without his Allowance. This was at that time very humble advi&s;e, for that proud <HI>Pope</HI> that was not arriv'd to the Dignity of a <HI>Servus Servorum,</HI> and very agreeable to all the known Canons of the Church. But if by this means he could contract all the Power of the Bi&s;hops and Metropolitans of that great Dioce&s;s into the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch,</HI> he very well knew that he had him Sufficiently at his own devotion; for <HI>Alexander</HI> the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch</HI> had before-hand laid him&s;elf with all Humility at <HI>Pope Innocents</HI> Feet, to be entirely govern'd, or if he plea&s;ed trampled upon by him. And the truth of it is that this <HI>Innocent</HI> the fir&s;t was re|ally the fir&s;t <HI>Pope,</HI> as will appear through the whole <HI>Sequel</HI> of this Di&s;cour&s;e. He fir&s;t challeng'd the dependence of Foreign Churches upon the Apo&s;tolic See. He fir&s;t broke down the old bounds of Metropo|litical
<PB N="222" REF="116"> Juri&s;diction, by making the Gap for appeals of greater Cau&s;es to <HI>Rome. Si</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg">Epi&s;t. ad Victric.</NOTE> <HI>autem majores cau&s;ae in medium fuerint de|volutae ad &s;edem Apo&s;tolicam, &s;icut Synodus &s;tatuit, po&s;t Epi&s;copale Judicium referantur.</HI> But what Synod that was, he is &s;o wi&s;e never to declare, and that hath been the common cu&s;tom of his Succe&s;&s;ors to ju&s;ti|fie their bold and unwarrantable U&s;urpa|tions by meer pretence of Authority from ancient Canons. As <HI>Pope Julius</HI> in his counterfeit Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> Bi&s;hops, is made to &s;ay roundly: <HI>Cujus Apo&s;tolicae &s;edis di&s;po&s;itioni omnes majores Eccle&s;ia&s;ticas cau&s;as &amp; Epi&s;coporum Judicia antiqua Apo|&s;tolorum eorum&abque; Succe&s;&s;orum, at&abque; Canonum Auctoritas re&s;ervavit.</HI> This is bravely &s;aid, and nothing but the boldne&s;s of the A&s;&s;ertion bears out it &s;elf. For it would be a wi&s;e undertaking to find out any Apo|&s;tolical Canon, Cu&s;tom, or Con&s;titution for Appeals to <HI>Rome.</HI> But as for <HI>Pope Inno|cent</HI> as he was the fir&s;t that pretended to this Power, &s;o was he high and Perem|ptory in his demands of it, particularly in his <HI>24th.</HI> and <HI>25th.</HI> Epi&s;tles to the Coun|cils of <HI>Carthage</HI> and <HI>Milevis;</HI> and in his Epi&s;tle of An&s;wer to the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Mace|donia,</HI> he chides them in down-right terms: <HI>adverti &s;edi Apo&s;tolicae, ad quam Relatio qua&s;i ad caput Eccle&s;iarum mi&s;&s;a cur|rebat,</HI>
<PB N="223" REF="116"> <HI>aliquam fieri injuriam, cujus adhuc in ambiguum &s;ententia duceretur.</HI> And this becau&s;e they had not immediately follow'd his Re&s;olution, but de&s;ired his opinion up|on better information of the Ca&s;e. And though upon that he found that he had been mi&s;taken, and was forc'd to quit it; yet he rates them for Su&s;pending the Ex|ecution of his former wrong &s;entence as an injury to the Apo&s;tolical See the head of all Churches. In &s;hort this <HI>Pope</HI> was a man of an active and bu&s;y temper, and flu&s;h't with Succe&s;s in all his undertakings, e&s;pecially in the cau&s;e of St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom,</HI> in which he brought the Emperour him&s;elf to Submi&s;&s;ion, conquer'd all the <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> Bi|&s;hops, and allow'd them his Communion only upon terms of Submi&s;&s;ion, in which the pre&s;ent Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch</HI> was mo&s;t forward to comply, for which he endea|voured to requite him with an Authority over his Brethren, had not the general Council of <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> vigorou&s;ly prevented it. In a word, he was the very <HI>Julius Cae&s;ar</HI> and founder of the Papal Empire.</P>
<P>La&s;tly as for the Te&s;timony of <HI>Johannes Schola&s;ticus</HI> or <HI>Antiochenus,</HI> it lies under as many or more di&s;advantages than the re&s;t. For fir&s;t it is apparently fal&s;e, not only as to the Canon of <HI>Nice,</HI> but of <HI>Con|&s;tantinople</HI> and <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> which he &s;ets down
<PB N="224" REF="117"> as In&s;titutions of Patriarchal Juri&s;diction, not only for the three Great Sees but for <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> too, though it is &s;o notorious that there was then no &s;uch thing as a Pa|triarchate there; and for the other Coun|cils I &s;hall make it appear that their Can|ons were made with &s;o little de&s;ign of owning or abetting any &s;uch Power, that their only de&s;ign was to &s;uppre&s;s it. Se|condly <HI>Johannes Schola&s;ticus</HI> him&s;elf was a Patriarch, and that of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> which was all along the mo&s;t encroaching See of all the Re&s;t, and who&s;e Ambition fir&s;t rai&s;ed the others, even <HI>Rome</HI> it &s;elf to this new dignity. And therefore he was as much or more concerned as a Party, than <HI>Pope Innocent;</HI> the Patriarch of <HI>Con&s;tan|tinople</HI> looking upon him&s;elf at that time, as a much greater man than the Bi&s;hop of the then for&s;aken City of <HI>Rome.</HI> But the real ground of <HI>Johannes Schola&s;ticus</HI>'s mi&s;|take is, that he liv'd at a time when this had been long granted and &s;uppos'd an un|doubted Truth; and therefore he &s;ets it down in cour&s;e, without making any de|mur upon it, as many others had done be|fore, and many more have done &s;ince. He liv'd in the time of <HI>Ju&s;tinian,</HI> when Pa|triarchs were ju&s;t arriv'd to their heighth, and &s;o &s;corn'd to own any later beginning than the Apo&s;tolical times; and therefore
<PB N="225" REF="117"> this Pretence having pa&s;s'd &s;o long uncon|troul'd, it is no wonder that <HI>Johannes Schola&s;ticus</HI> (e&s;pecially in a ca&s;e where him&s;elf was a Party, though a good and a Learned man) &s;hould &s;o ea&s;ily and heed|le&s;ly pa&s;s it in his Collection of Canons. It is needle&s;s to an&s;wer any of the latter Te&s;timonies, when it is &s;o clear that they all mi&s;take the Priviledges granted to Provin|cial Churches for Patriarchal Dignities, only becau&s;e they were &s;o in their own time; but otherwi&s;e there is a dead &s;ilence as to any &s;uch thing in all the more timely Records of the Chri&s;tian Church, and they are the only competent Witne&s;&s;es of the matter of Fact, whereas tho&s;e that came &s;ome ages after gives us only their Opinion, but not their Te&s;timony, and unle&s;s they could give us &s;ome ground for it from &s;ome more ancient Record, it is no better than a groundle&s;s Conceit of their own framing.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="19" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. XVII.</HEAD>
<P>Hitherto our way is clear that there was no authori&s;ed Superiority of Patriarchs, or any other Order above Metropolitans, at or before the Council of <HI>Nice.</HI> But now as for tho&s;e very few Learned men, that place their In&s;titution &s;omewhat lower, they fix it upon the &s;e|cond general Council held at <HI>Con&s;tantin|ople,</HI> though in that they &s;eem to me to
<PB N="226" REF="118"> be much more mi&s;taken than tho&s;e that derive it from the fir&s;t at <HI>Nice,</HI> for they that derive it from this, only impo&s;e upon the Canon, and make it &s;ay &s;omething, of which it is altogether &s;ilent; whereas the&s;e that fix it upon the &s;econd general Council, contradict it, and force it to vouch what it oppo&s;eth. For the &s;econd Canen, in which they &s;uppo&s;e they find their In&s;titution, was &s;o far from being made with any de&s;ign of Introducing or Confirming this new dignity, that the only de&s;ign of it was to bridle the very at|tempts of its U&s;urpation, and to keep up the ancient Bounds of Metropolitical Ju|ri&s;diction again&s;t the Inva&s;ions of tho&s;e topping Bi&s;hops of Dioce&s;an Cities, as will evidently appear from the words them|&s;elves, that run thus: <HI>Let not &s;uch Bi&s;hops that are over the Dioce&s;s go beyond their own Bounds, le&s;t they bring Confu&s;ion upon Churches; but according to the Canons, let the Bi&s;hop of</HI> Alexandria <HI>govern</HI> Aegypt, <HI>the</HI> Ea&s;tern <HI>Bi&s;hops the</HI> Ea&s;t, <HI>re&s;erving to the Church of</HI> Antioch <HI>the priviledges and preheminences that were confirm'd by the</HI> Ni|cene <HI>Fathers. And let the Bi&s;hops of the</HI> A&s;ian <HI>Dioce&s;s govern</HI> A&s;ia <HI>only, tho&s;e of the</HI> Pontic, Pontus: <HI>tho&s;e of the</HI> Thracian, Thrace. <HI>And let not Bi&s;hops unle&s;s they are reque&s;ted to it, go out of the Dioce&s;s either</HI>
<PB N="227" REF="118"> <HI>for Ordination or any other Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Of|fice. And now this Canon concerning Dioce&s;|&s;es being ob&s;erv'd, it is clear that the Synod of every Province ought to govern the Pro|vince as it was defin'd at</HI> Nice. One would think that the meaning of the Canon were plain enough for the re&s;traint of any new pretended Dioce&s;an Juri&s;diction, and yet it is univer&s;ally mi&s;taken either for its fir&s;t In&s;titution, or at lea&s;t its farther Ra|tification; and which of them it is, is be|come a Controver&s;ie among Learned men. Tho&s;e few that deny it to have been &s;etled by the Council of <HI>Nice,</HI> will have it to have been its fir&s;t In&s;titution, but this O|pinion is eagerly oppo&s;ed by <HI>Petrus de Marca, Vale&s;ius</HI> and many others, for no other Rea&s;on than that it was, as they think, antecedently &s;etled by the Council of <HI>Nice.</HI> So that however, it is agreed on all hands, that the Canon was made in behalf of either the Settlement or Ra|tification of Patriarchates. As for tho&s;e that derive it from the Council of <HI>Nice,</HI> they are con&s;ider'd already, but now as for them that make this their fir&s;t In&s;tituti|on, they are induced to it, partly by the Authority of <HI>Socrates</HI> the Hi&s;torian, who liv'd not long after, and partly from the &s;eeming &s;ence and novelty of the Canon it &s;elf, in &s;etting Bounds to the Bi&s;hops of
<PB N="228" REF="119"> the Cities of the Dioce&s;an divi&s;ions; for this is the fir&s;t time that we meet with any &s;uch thing in the Records of the Church, and therefore mu&s;t needs be its fir&s;t In&s;titution. But as for the Authority of <HI>Socrates,</HI> I have con&s;idered that already, and &s;hewn his undenyable mi&s;take in ma|king the appointment of <HI>Communicatory Bi&s;hops</HI> the In&s;titution of Patriarchates, and Di&s;tribution of Provinces. Now to this it is in vain to an&s;wer, as &s;ome Learn|ed men have done, that though the Ca|talogue of <HI>Communicatory Bi&s;hops</HI> follows immediately the Account of Patriarchs and Dioce&s;&s;es; yet they relate not to the &s;ame matter, when it is &s;o evident from the words them&s;elves, that he &s;peaks of one and the &s;ame thing. For when he had in general affirm'd that the Council had in&s;tituted Patriarchates and Dioce&s;&s;es, he proceeds to the particular &s;ettlement of the whole Affair, and tells us to what Bi|&s;hops Patriarchates belong'd, and &s;o reck|ons up the <HI>Communicatory Bi&s;hops,</HI> and calls the Juri&s;diction of each by the Title of Patriarchates; what then can be more clear than that he thought them true and proper Patriarchs? And how he fell into that mi&s;take, I have already accounted, though be&s;ide this grand mi&s;take, he ex|pre&s;&s;es him&s;elf &s;o very ambiguou&s;ly, that
<PB N="229" REF="119"> after all he a&s;&s;erts nothing. <HI>Thus</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>they in&s;tituted Patriarchs, and divi|ded Provinces, &s;o as that Bi&s;hops &s;hould not go beyond their own Dioce&s;&s;es to meddle with Forreign Churches.</HI> What an huddle and confu&s;ion of words is here? They made Patriarchs becau&s;e they divided Provin|ces, and they divided Provinces, becau&s;e they confin'd Bi&s;hops within their own Dioce&s;s, as if the divi&s;ion of Provinces had been the In&s;titution of Patriarchates, and the limitation of Dioce&s;&s;es the divi|&s;ion of Provinces. So that it is plain that he was only confounded with the &s;huffle of things between the new Dioce&s;&s;es and the old Provinces; and &s;o tells us in the Conclu&s;ion of all, after all his Stories of Patriarchs and Dioce&s;ans, that the Coun|cil determin'd that as <HI>need requir'd</HI> every Province &s;hould be govern'd by its own Synod.</P>
<P>But after all the Canon will be&s;t explain it &s;elf, and clear all difficulties if atten|ded to without prejudice. The greate&s;t difficulty lyes in the word <GAP DESC="foreign">, becau&s;e as it was new, &s;o was it not arrived to any &s;etled &s;ignification; for as this is the &s;econd or third time that we meet with it in the Records of the Church, &s;o was it for &s;ome time, as mo&s;t new words are, of a Fluctu|ating and uncertain &s;ence, and not limited
<PB N="230" REF="120"> to its own proper Import, <HI>(viz.)</HI> A Cir|cuit of Government containing many Pro|vinces, but was promi&s;cuou&s;ly u&s;ed to de|note any Bounds of Juri&s;diction. So <HI>Pope Syricius,</HI> who was In&s;tall'd <HI>Anno</HI> 385. a very &s;hort time after this Council, not a|bove four years, bids <HI>Himerius</HI> to Com|municate his Re&s;cript both to the Bi&s;hops, <HI>qui in tua &s;unt Diocae&s;i con&s;tituti</HI> of his own Dioce&s;s (that is <HI>Tarracona,</HI> that was a Provincial See in <HI>Spain)</HI> and to all the Neighbour <HI>Provinces;</HI> &s;o that <HI>Province</HI> was Synonymous with <HI>Dioce&s;s;</HI> And <HI>Pope Innocent</HI> the fir&s;t a few years after in his Epi&s;tle to <HI>Florentius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Tibur,</HI> char|ges him with Invading <HI>Nomentum,</HI> that belong'd to the Dioce&s;s of <HI>&V;r&s;us;</HI> and yet it is certain that they were both but very &s;mall Bi&s;hopricks of <HI>Italy.</HI> And the Synod of <HI>Rome,</HI> in or about the &s;ame time in their Synodical Epi&s;tles to the <HI>French</HI> Bi|&s;hops u&s;e the word Dioce&s;s, as Synony|mous with Metropolitical Juri&s;diction, for &s;o they expre&s;s it, <HI>Metropolitanus in &s;u&acirc; Diocae&s;i.</HI> And &s;o doth the Synod of <HI>Ephe|&s;us</HI> in the ca&s;e of the <HI>Cyprian</HI> Bi&s;hops, where it decrees that in all Dioce&s;&s;es and Provin|ces no Bi&s;hop Act beyond the Bounds of his own Province. From whence it plain|ly appears that for &s;ome time the word Dioce&s;s had no fixed &s;ignification, but that
<PB N="231" REF="120"> as it was at fir&s;t u&s;ed as a term of Art in the new divi&s;ion of the Empire; &s;o being a fa&s;hionable word at Court, it was &s;oon apply'd to expre&s;s all bounds of Juri&s;dicti|on. And &s;o the <HI>Scholia&s;ts</HI> them&s;elves un|der&s;tand the words of the Canon: When a Bi&s;hop (&s;ays <HI>Zonaras)</HI> is here commanded not to go beyond his Dioce&s;s, the meaning is, that he move not out of his Province. And &s;o <HI>Bal&s;amon,</HI> the only de&s;ign of the Canon was to pre&s;erve the Bounds of Ju|ri&s;diction, and not confound the Rights of Churches; and at la&s;t concludes from it, that at that time all Metropolitans were the Heads of their own Province, and were ordain'd by their own Synods; which though it be a Contradiction to their for|mer Conceit of the <HI>Nicene</HI> Antiquity of Patriarchates, yet it &s;hews that whenever they forget their Prejudices taken up from the Practice of later times, and con&s;ult the true and ancient Records of the Church, how ea&s;ily and even unawares they are lead by them into a full acknowledgement of the Truth. For it is apparent from all the Records of that Age, that the term <GAP DESC="foreign"> had not obtain'd its &s;etled &s;ence in the Church, but only &s;ignified in general any Bounds of Juri&s;diction, and &s;o was for the mo&s;t part apply'd to Provincial Churches.</P>
<PB N="232" REF="121">
<P> The next difficulty or di&s;pute will be, what is the meaning of <GAP DESC="foreign">, for the words them&s;elves are capable of a double Sen&s;e from the Am|biguity of the word <GAP DESC="foreign">, that &s;ignifies either <HI>above</HI> or <HI>beyond,</HI> &s;o that it may be rendred either the Bi&s;hops above the Dio|ce&s;s, as <HI>Diony&s;ius Exiguus</HI> does, <HI>Qui &s;unt &s;uper Diocae&s;in Epi&s;copi,</HI> or the Bi&s;hops out of their Dioce&s;s, as <HI>Zonaras</HI> expounds it. Though if we regard the de&s;ign of the Canon, and the whole Contexture of the words, they plainly enough expre&s;s their own meaning. For when it is &s;aid, let not Bi&s;hops over Dioce&s;&s;es, or Dioce&s;an Cities go beyond their own bounds to invade foreign Churches; then the Scene is plain to re&s;train Bi&s;hops, e&s;pecially tho&s;e of the Dioce&s;an Cities within the Circuit of their own Juri&s;diction. But if we read it the latter way, let not Bi&s;hops out of their own Dioce&s;s go beyond their own bounds to forreign Churches, it is meer Non-&s;ence; as if they &s;hould &s;ay, let not Bi&s;hops out of their bounds go beyond their bounds; for if they medled with Churches out of their Dioce&s;s, it is cer|tain that they were beyond their bounds: So that it cannot be under&s;tood any other way than of that greater &s;ort of Bi&s;hops in the new Dioce&s;an Cities, who then
<PB N="233" REF="121"> look'd too bigg, and encroach'd too bold|ly upon their neighbour Bi&s;hops. And that, it is plain, was the occa&s;ion of this Canon, that <HI>Melitius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch,</HI> and <HI>Peter</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Alexandria</HI> took up|on them to Ordain Bi&s;hops of <HI>Con&s;tanti|nople,</HI> that was in the Dioce&s;s of <HI>Thrace.</HI> For the Government of the Lievtenant of the <HI>Ea&s;t</HI> was divided into five Dioce&s;&s;es: The <HI>Ea&s;t</HI> properly &s;o call'd, <HI>Aegypt, A&s;ia, Pontus</HI> and <HI>Thrace,</HI> and therefore it was look'd upon as a new extravagance by this Council in the&s;e Bi&s;hops, one whereof was in the Dioce&s;s of <HI>Aegypt,</HI> and the o|ther of the <HI>Ea&s;t,</HI> to take upon them any Juri&s;diction in the Dioce&s;s of <HI>Thrace.</HI> And this new exorbitance being re&s;train'd, the Council adds, <HI>That it will be clear enough from the Canon of</HI> Nice, <HI>that every Province is to be govern'd by its own Synod.</HI> So that the Canon is &s;till &s;o far from in&s;tituting any of the&s;e new Dioce&s;an Bi&s;hops over the old Metropolitans, that the only end for which it was made was to pre&s;erve the Supremacy of Power in Metropolitans, from any Dioce&s;an Encroachment for the time to come. And as in the fir&s;t part they are forbid to meddle out of the bounds of their own proper Dioce&s;s; &s;o in the latter part are they from challenging any Superiority over the other Metropo|litans
<PB N="234" REF="122"> within the &s;ame Dioce&s;s; the Coun|cil declaring that the Supreme Govern|ment of every Province was placed in its own Synod, and Metropolitan by the Council of <HI>Nice.</HI> And as there is no ground to imagine that this Council ever in&s;tituted any Superior Order to Metro|politans, but rather a&s;&s;erted their Supre|macy again&s;t all U&s;urpations upon them; &s;o as for the next general Council that was conven'd at <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> it doth with more than u&s;ual vehemence &s;ecure the Me|tropolitical Rights, again&s;t all the&s;e new Pretences of Encroachment. For upon occa&s;ion of the great Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch</HI>'s taking upon him, partly by the encour|agement of <HI>Pope Innocent</HI> the fir&s;t, whom I have already ob&s;erv'd to be the fir&s;t <HI>Pope,</HI> but more by the huffing A&s;&s;i&s;tance of <HI>Di|ony&s;ius,</HI> a Commander in the Army, and then Governour of <HI>Antioch</HI> (as the <HI>Cyprian</HI> Bi&s;hops repre&s;ent their Ca&s;e to the Coun|cil) to ordain Bi&s;hops in the I&s;le of <HI>Cyprus,</HI> which had been a Church within it &s;elf by immemorial Pre&s;cription; It does not on|ly confirm the ancient Rights and Juri&s;|dictions of that Province, but of all other Metropolitan Churches; and that with this &s;mart re&s;entment, le&s;t under Pre|tence of <HI>Sacerdotal</HI> Power, the <GAP DESC="foreign"> Pride of &s;ecular Dominion be brought into the
<PB N="235" REF="122"> Church, and by degrees we be deprived of that Liberty, in which our Saviour hath in&s;tated us, and for a farther &s;ecurity a|gain&s;t all future U&s;urpations upon the Metropolitical Power, the Council orders all Metropolitans to take out and keep Copies of the Acts of the Council <GAP DESC="foreign"> for every mans own e&s;pecial &s;ecurity.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="20" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. XVIII.</HEAD>
<P>And as no &s;uch Power is hitherto own'd by the general Councils, neither is it mention'd or any way inti|mated by any Provincial Synods: and to pa&s;s by the re&s;t, that treat of other mat|ters, the two chiefe&s;t that concern the Di&s;cipline and Government of the Church are, the Council of <HI>Antioch</HI> in the <HI>Ea&s;t,</HI> and <HI>Sardica</HI> in the <HI>We&s;t.</HI> And yet it was altogether unknown to both. The Synod of <HI>Antioch</HI> was conven'd <HI>Anno Dom.</HI> 341. and among many Canons that it makes about Appeals, it makes no mention of Patriarch|al Appeals, but &s;uppo&s;es the la&s;t po&s;&s;ible Appeal to be made to the Metropolitan and Synod of the Province. Thus in the <HI>9th.</HI> Canon they enjoyn, that Bi&s;hops do nothing but what concerns meerly their own Bi&s;hoprick without their Metropoli|tan, as it is commanded by an ancient Canon of the Fathers. Now that ancient
<PB N="236" REF="123"> Canon can be no other than the <HI>34th.</HI> Apo|&s;tolical Canon, which is here repeated al|mo&s;t in the very &s;ame words; unle&s;s it be that he that is there call'd the <HI>fir&s;t Bi&s;hop,</HI> is here &s;til'd <HI>Metropolitan,</HI> which word was not brought into u&s;e in the fir&s;t and &s;econd Ages of the Church, and that by the way &s;hews the Antiquity of the Apo|&s;tolical Canons, that they never u&s;e it, but in its &s;tead always make u&s;e of the plain and &s;imple Phra&s;e of the <HI>fir&s;t Bi&s;hop,</HI> that was us'd by the Writers of that Age and &s;ome time after, as the Metropolitan See is &s;tiled by the Council of <HI>Illiberis,</HI> that was but 20. years older than the Council of <HI>Nice, prima Cathedra,</HI> and from hence came the term of <HI>Primates,</HI> peculiar to the <HI>African</HI> Church for Metropolitans.</P>
<P>And here by the way I cannot but take notice of one In&s;tance of <HI>Salma&s;ius</HI> his In|genuity, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>De Primatu Papae. c.</HI> 3.</NOTE> who indeed took great pains in reading the Ancients only to pervert them. He having occa&s;ion to quote this Apo&s;to|lical Canon, that &s;uppo&s;es and does not in|&s;titute the&s;e <HI>fir&s;t Bi&s;hops,</HI> from thence con|cludes, that the&s;e Canons were made long after the Apo&s;tles, becau&s;e there was no &s;uch thing as Metropolitans in their time, whereas there is no one thing more evi|dent in the Records of the Church than their Exi&s;tence from the beginning; &s;o that
<PB N="237" REF="123"> the whole force of his Argument lyes meerly in his own Confidence, oppos'd to the evidence of Truth it &s;elf. And though we affirm not that the&s;e Canons were compiled by the Apo&s;tles them&s;elves, yet they were by Apo&s;tolical men that &s;uc|ceeded in the Ages next after them; of which be&s;ide many other Proofs, <HI>Salma&s;i|us</HI> hath here given one, whil&s;t he is di&s;|paraging their Antiquity, becau&s;e he ob|&s;erves that this is the very Canon that is quoted by the Council of <HI>Antioch,</HI> as an ancient Canon, and if &s;o, then there is no avoiding it, but that its Antiquity mu&s;t ri&s;e up into the two fir&s;t Centuries after the Apo&s;tles, and we pretend no higher. Though after his con&s;tant cu&s;tom of con|tradicting him&s;elf, as well as the Records of the Church, when he hath &s;o po&s;itive|ly a&s;&s;erted, that the Council of <HI>Antioch</HI> quotes this very Canon: <HI>Quis non credat vidi&s;&s;e eos illum Apo&s;tolorum Canonem, &amp; de eo hic intelligere, prae&s;ertim cum ip&s;i&s;&s;ima verba ponant quae in illo extant?</HI> The next thing that he undertakes to prove after this, is, That the Council of <HI>Antioch</HI> quote no Canon at all, becau&s;e the word <GAP DESC="foreign"> &s;ignifies Cu&s;tom as well as Law, and may be &s;o under&s;tood here; What? when you have ju&s;t prov'd that 'tis &s;o undenyably evi|dent that it quotes this Law word for
<PB N="238" REF="124"> word? So that though the word Canon may &s;ignifie Cu&s;tom; yet here it cannot, becau&s;e it is &s;o evident from the words them&s;elves, that they refer to an ancient Law, and not a Cu&s;tom; and yet that the Apo&s;tolical Canons were more ancient than the Council of <HI>Antioch,</HI> is plain from their u&s;ing the term of <HI>fir&s;t Bi&s;hop,</HI> in&s;tead of Metropolitan; &s;o that our <HI>Grammarian</HI> might have &s;par'd all his tedious glo&s;&s;ing upon the word <GAP DESC="foreign">, though the truth of it is he cannot help it, it is his natural faculty; and his whole Book is more like a <HI>Dictionary</HI> than a controver&s;ial di&s;|cour&s;e.</P>
<P>But to proceed, as this Canon of <HI>Anti|och</HI> makes no Provi&s;ion for Bi&s;hops beyond their Metropolitan, &s;o neither does it for Metropolitans beyond their own Synod; whereas had there been any higher Power in the Church, it mu&s;t have allow'd and enjoyn'd appeals to its la&s;t Judgement. Nay the Fathers of this Council were &s;o far from dreaming of any farther Eccle&s;ia&s;ti|cal Appeal than to Provincial Synods, that they could not devi&s;e any other delay than by flying to the Secular Power, and there|fore it is enacted Canon the <HI>11th.</HI> That if any Clergy-man &s;hall appeal from the Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Rule to the Emperour with|out leave from the Metropolitan and Sy|nod,
<PB N="239" REF="124"> he &s;hall be depriv'd both of Com|munion and Dignity; and in the very next Canon is depos'd for ever without hope of Re&s;titution, unle&s;s by a greater Synod. And by Vertue of this Canon was St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> kept out of his See of <HI>Con|&s;tantinople,</HI> after he was re&s;tor'd by the Emperour and a Synod of Bi&s;hops, becau&s;e the Synod that re&s;tor'd him was le&s;s than that which depos'd him. And in the <HI>14th.</HI> Canon it is provided, That if the Bi&s;hops of the Province cannot agree in their Sen|tence upon an accu&s;ed Bi&s;hop, that the Metropolitan may call in the help of the Bi&s;hops of the next Province; that was the la&s;t appeal they could devi&s;e. And therefore in the <HI>15th.</HI> Canon, The Bi&s;hop that is Sentenc'd by the unanimous Vote of the Bi&s;hops of the Province hath no appeal, which could never have been de|creed, had there been at that time any &s;uch Power and Dignity as Patriarchal Thrones. And therefore <HI>Ju&s;tinian</HI> when he Enacts this Canon into a Law, <HI>Novel</HI> 167. he then allows the la&s;t Appeal to the Patriarch, becau&s;e then that order was brought in, which was unknown to the Fathers of this Council. And &s;o <HI>Bal&s;amon</HI> in his Notes upon this Canon &s;tarts the Que&s;tion, Whether it allows appeals from a Patriarch to the Emperour, and when
<PB N="240" REF="125"> he hath given the Opinions and Rea&s;ons of Lawyers on both &s;ides, his own is, That this Law was made before the compleat con&s;titution of the Church was fini&s;h'd, and therefore it makes no mention of Pa|triarchs, <HI>that is to &s;ay,</HI> becau&s;e there were none at that time. Though this is very con&s;i&s;tent with his Notes upon the &s;ixth Canon of <HI>Nice,</HI> where he will have that Council to confirm the ancient Rights of the four Patriarchates, and yet now they were not known at the time of this Coun|cil, that was a&s;&s;embl'd near 20. years af|ter; but it is an u&s;ual thing with him un|awares to forget him&s;elf into the Truth.</P>
<P>As for the Council of <HI>Sardica,</HI> that was conven'd about &s;ix years after that of <HI>An|tioch,</HI> and was of a peculiar Nature from all the other Councils; for though the Bi|&s;hops were &s;ummon'd out of both Em|pires to the Council; yet the <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> Bi|&s;hops for&s;ook it, &s;o that it con&s;i&s;ted meer|ly of the <HI>We&s;tern;</HI> and they being thus left to them&s;elves, began to make their Complements to the great See of <HI>Rome,</HI> that was the only Prerogative Bi&s;hoprick in the <HI>We&s;t;</HI> all the other great Sees going along with the <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> Empire. And this little accident was the fir&s;t Foundation of the <HI>Roman</HI> greatne&s;s; for though the par|ticular honour that this Synod gave it was
<PB N="241" REF="125"> little more than meer Court&s;hip and Civi|lity; yet in proce&s;s of time they rais'd it to the heigth of Power, as we &s;hall &s;ee afterwards. But as for the Council it &s;elf, that was &s;o far from owning any &s;uch Inherent Supremacy in him, that it &s;till limits the Supreme Juri&s;diction to the Me|tropolitan and Bi&s;hops of the Province. Thus in the very third and fourth Canons, that are the Darlings of the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> it is decreed that Bi&s;hops that have any Controver&s;ies among them&s;elves do not &s;eek for Judges out of their own Pro|vince; only it is propounded by <HI>Ho&s;ius, That if any one &s;hall think him&s;elf aggriev'd, if it &s;eem good to the Council, in honour to the memory of St.</HI> Peter, Julius <HI>Bi&s;hop of</HI> Rome, <HI>if he judge it convenient, may ap|point a Review of the cau&s;e by Neighbouring Bi&s;hops.</HI> And, Canon the fifth, by &s;ending &s;ome of his own Presbyters to &s;it in Com|mi&s;&s;ion with the Bi&s;hops. In all which it is &s;uppos'd that there was no &s;ettled Right of Appeal beyond the Metropolitan: And though the Council is pleas'd to allow a &s;mall kind of Priviledge to the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> to order a Review of the Cau&s;e in the &s;ame Province where it had been ad|judg'd, without any Power of judging it him&s;elf; they do not own any former Right or Cu&s;tom for this Priviledge, but
<PB N="242" REF="126"> now grant it out of a meer pang of com|plement in the Pre&s;ident <HI>Ho&s;ius,</HI> to the memory of St. <HI>Peter,</HI> or rather out of kindne&s;s to his friend the pre&s;ent Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome.</HI> And yet they were &s;o tender of allowing any real Right of Appeal, that they dur&s;t not own the name, and there|fore expre&s;s it very mode&s;tly in the fifth Canon, <HI>that if as it were appealing,</HI> the Party aggriev'd &s;hould fly for Sanctuary to the Holy Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome;</HI> &s;o as they do not allow any real Appeal of the cau&s;e, becau&s;e he had no power to judge it him|&s;elf, but could only return it to be judg'd in its proper place, &s;o neither do they al|low this &s;mall Priviledge, to be a proper Appeal, but <HI>as it were an Appeal.</HI> And yet how did this &s;lender <HI>as it were,</HI> &s;well it &s;elf in after ages to an immen&s;ity of Power, and &s;wallow up all the real Authority of the Chri&s;tian Church into it &s;elf. So dan|gerous a thing is it to pa&s;s Complements upon that de&s;igning See, that can make &s;o much Advantage out of &s;o &s;light a Civility; For we &s;hall at la&s;t find that this was the fir&s;t Plea for all their Greatne&s;s. But at pre&s;ent it is evident, that the Fathers of this Council knew no ordinary and &s;tand|ing Superiority of Power above Metropo|litans, nor any larger extent of Juri&s;dicti|on than Provinces. So that hitherto any
<PB N="243" REF="126"> higher Orders were unreceiv'd both in the <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> and <HI>We&s;tern</HI> Church, and for a good time after, as appears from the gene|ral Council of <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> which though but twenty years older than that of <HI>Calcedon</HI> would own no &s;uch thing; but on the contrary (as we have &s;een in the ca&s;e of the <HI>Cyprian</HI> Bi&s;hops) expre&s;ly confirm'd all the ancient Metropolitical Suprema|cies.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="21" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. XIX.</HEAD>
<P>And yet in the ninth Canon of the great Council of <HI>Calcedon,</HI> we meet with a new &s;ort of Officers above Metro|politans call'd the <HI>Exarchs</HI> of the Dioce&s;s; the Canon runs thus: <HI>If any Clergy man have a Controver&s;ie with another, he is fir&s;t to refer it to his Bi&s;hop, before he bring it to the Secular Court; if with the Bi&s;hop him|&s;elf to the Synod of the Province; if with the Metropolitan of the Province, to the</HI> Exarch <HI>of the Dioce&s;s; or to the Throne of the Royal City of</HI> Con&s;tantinople. Here is apparently a new order of <HI>Exarchs</HI> &s;upe|rior to the Metropolitans, but how they fir&s;t came in is the great Riddle of Eccle|&s;ia&s;tical Story, <HI>(viz.)</HI> To find a new or|der of Prie&s;thood thus &s;prung up on the &s;uddain in the Chri&s;tian Church, like <HI>Melchi&s;edek,</HI> from an unknown Birth and Parentage; and there is not a &s;tranger
<PB N="244" REF="127"> thing in all the Records of the Church, than that &s;uch an exorbitant Power &s;hould &s;o &s;uddainly and in&s;en&s;ibly &s;ettle and au|thori&s;e it &s;elf without any other Autho|rity than barely its own po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion; for as it was hitherto beat down by all the Coun|cils of the Church; &s;o this Council does not in&s;titute the Order, but only ratifies that Power in which they pretended to be actually in&s;tated. Now how is this po&s;|&s;ible, or how could it ever come to pa&s;s and not to be taken notice of in the Re|cords of the Church, e&s;pecially if it be true, as I pretend to have prov'd, that tho&s;e Canons and Decrees of Councils, that have hitherto pa&s;s'd for the Patent of their In&s;titution, were made on no other De|&s;ign than to a&s;&s;ert the Supreme Rights of Metropolitans again&s;t all &s;uch uncanonical Encroachments? But though this may at fir&s;t, &s;eem a great Difficulty, yet if we take a right Method to examin the mat|ter, the difficulty will clear it &s;elf. And that is by beginning our Enquiry where others leave off theirs: For as they end with the In&s;titution of the Patriarch of <HI>Con&s;tantin|ople,</HI> which is Univer&s;ally &s;uppos'd to have been the younge&s;t of them all; the bu&s;ine&s;s was &s;o far from that, that it was the fir&s;t born, and indeed gave being to all the re&s;t: So that had it not fir&s;t lead the way,
<PB N="245" REF="127"> they could never have arriv'd to that height of Power and Dignity. This I doubt not to make out of the Records of the Church, and trace its whole Progre&s;s from its fir&s;t beginning to its la&s;t perfe|ction.</P>
<P>Fir&s;t then <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> the Great built <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> either out of di&s;gu&s;t to the <HI>Senate</HI> of <HI>Rome,</HI> for their Aver&s;ion to the Chri&s;tian Religion, as <HI>Zozimus</HI> would &s;ugge&s;t; or for the Convenience of its Si|tuation, as a fit place for the Emperours Re&s;idence again&s;t the Incur&s;ions of the Barbarous Nations, that then fir&s;t began to Infe&s;t the Empire; but mo&s;t probable it was from his natural Magnificence and &s;ence of Glory, to have a great City call'd after his own Name, which had been the Ambition of all former Emperours; but it was his fortune, that as he excell'd them all in Magnanimity and greatne&s;s of mind, &s;o to out-&s;trip them in the Succe&s;s of Gran|deur and Glory; But mo&s;t e&s;pecially in the &s;uddain Growth and Greatne&s;s of this City, which as it obtein'd the name of <HI>Rome</HI> together with his own, &s;o it did its State and Beauty. It had its Senate, the &s;ame Orders of men and Magi&s;trates, the &s;ame En&s;igns of Dignity, the &s;ame Exem|ptions, Priviledges and Honours; in &s;hort, the Rights and Prerogatives of the <HI>Quirites</HI>
<PB N="246" REF="128"> or Citizens of <HI>Rome.</HI> To which he added many great Gifts of his own Munificence, as particularly 4000 Mea&s;ures of Corn daily di&s;tributed among its Inhabitants. And as it &s;oon equall'd old <HI>Rome</HI> in Power, &s;o it excell'd it in Beauty, Ornament and Plea&s;ure. He rob'd all other places, even <HI>Rome</HI> it &s;elf to Beautifie this; he adorn'd it with its Capitol, its <HI>Circus maximus, Amphitheaters, Forums, Porticu&s;es, Baths, Column's, Statues, Pyramids,</HI> and every thing that could give it State or Beauty. Now all this could not but draw a great Concour&s;e of People to a Place endow'd with &s;o many Priviledges, and the Suc|ceeding Emperours fixing the Court there, &s;o multiply'd the Inhabitants, that in a &s;hort time it became the head City in the World, and &s;o di&s;peopl'd <HI>Rome</HI> it &s;elf of its Citizens, that <HI>Pletho</HI> calls it <GAP DESC="foreign">. Neither was it much le&s;s beholden to the following Emperours than to its Founder; they &s;eem to con|tend who &s;hould &s;hew it mo&s;t favour, as the be&s;t Monument they could leave of their own Fame, &s;o that there were none of them that were not great Benefactors to it. <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> (who no doubt mu&s;t have a particular kindne&s;s for it, becau&s;e it was founded at the Solemnity of his be|ing made <HI>Cae&s;ar;)</HI> con&s;tituted a <HI>Praefect</HI>
<PB N="247" REF="128"> there; that was the only thing which was wanting in it of the Government of <HI>Rome,</HI> and to him lay Appeals from the Gover|nours of <HI>Pontus&punc; A&s;ia,</HI> and <HI>Thrace.</HI> The fir&s;t thing that <HI>Valentinian</HI> and <HI>Valens</HI> did, when they came to the Empire was to re|trieve the great Bounty of <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> for Victualling the City, &s;etling a certain por|tion of Bread out of his gift of Corn upon each Hou&s;e; &s;o that it was as it were part of the Fee &s;imple, and was bought and &s;old with the Hou&s;e it &s;elf. And whereas the Tyrant <HI>Procopius</HI> had in the time of his Rebellion violated the <HI>Jus Italicum</HI> of the City, <HI>i. e.</HI> its exemption from all manner of Taxes, <HI>tam capitis quam &s;oli</HI> (as the Law expre&s;&s;es it) by Impo&s;ing &s;evere ex|actions, not only upon the Citizens, but the Senators them&s;elves, the Emperour <HI>Valens</HI> immediatly after the Tyrants over|throw, re&s;tores its ancient Rights by an Edict extant in the <HI>Theodo&s;ian Code, Tom.</HI> 5. <HI>Tit.</HI> 13. as he expre&s;&s;es it, <HI>arbitr&acirc; aequitate,</HI> becau&s;e of its equality to <HI>Rome,</HI> and that was ever the Rea&s;on for any new priviledges that were at any time granted to it. And be&s;ides the Particular kind|ne&s;s of this his fir&s;t Law, he was all his life time a great Favourer and Benefactor of this City, adorning it with many pub|lick Buildings, <HI>Aquaeducts, Bathes,</HI> and
<PB N="248" REF="129"> <HI>Churches,</HI> be&s;ide a great many con&s;tituti|ons for its Benefit and Honour, extant under their &s;everal Titles in the <HI>Theodo&s;ian Code, de annonis Civicis, Lege</HI> 7. <HI>De &s;tudiis Libert. &V;rb. Rom. &amp; Con&s;t. lib.</HI> 20. <HI>de Praetoribus, lib.</HI> 3. <HI>De Dignitatibus Ord. lib.</HI> 1. <HI>&amp;</HI> 5. <HI>Et de Decurion. lib.</HI> 93.</P>
<P>But above all <HI>Theodo&s;ius</HI> the great, as he came neare&s;t of any to <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> in the greatne&s;s of his Actions, &s;o did he in kind|ne&s;s to this City. <HI>Themi&s;tius</HI> the <HI>Philo&s;o|pher</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Orat</HI> 6<HI>&mdash;Pag.</HI> 61.</NOTE> in his Orations, hath given us an am|ple Account of his Munificence, of which after having recounted all Particulars he concludes; <HI>That it will hence forth remain doubtful, whether of the two Cities be great|er and more beautiful, that which</HI> Theodo|&s;ius <HI>adds to</HI> Con&s;tantinople, <HI>or that which</HI> Con&s;tantine <HI>added to</HI> Byzantium. Now this City being grown to &s;o much great|ne&s;s, and having overtop'd old <HI>Rome</HI> in State and Glory, it is no wonder if it af|fected the &s;ame Grandeur in Religion; and as it was equall'd to old <HI>Rome</HI> in all other things, &s;o it ought to be in the Dig|nity of its Prelate and Precedency of its Church. And accordingly it &s;oon com|pa&s;&s;ed this De&s;ign under the Favour and Patronage of this Emperour, who was an equal friend both to the City and to Re|ligion; and therefore as he was always
<PB N="249" REF="129"> forward enough (perhaps too much) to do any Honour to the Church, &s;o no doubt he was more particularly Zealous to ad|vance it there for the Honour of the City. And therefore having Occa&s;ion to Sum|mon a general Council, he was pleas'd to Honour the City with it, where <HI>Gregory Nazianzen</HI> having in Obedience to the Canons of the Church re&s;ign'd the Bi&s;hop|rick, becau&s;e he was uncanonically elected to it; the Emperour either is or &s;eems more than u&s;ually Solicitous about the choice of a Bi&s;hop, for the great and Im|perial City; and the matter was &s;o order|ed either by Chance, or, as is mo&s;t pro|bable, by De&s;ign of the Emperour, though Flattery imputed it to Providence, that <HI>Nectarius</HI> a man of the <HI>Senatorian</HI> Order, of great Dignity in the State, very popu|lar for the Curte&s;ie and Obligingne&s;s of his Conver&s;ation; but above all an intimate favorite of the Emperour was plac'd in the Bi&s;hoprick. For the Emperour having commanded the Bi&s;hops to deliver him <HI>Schedules</HI> of the Names of tho&s;e Per&s;ons, that they would nominate to his choice; it happen'd that the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch</HI> (as 'tis &s;aid) meerly to plea&s;e the Fancy of <HI>Diodorus,</HI> an old Doting Bi&s;hop (though they call'd his Dotage In&s;piration) nam'd <HI>Nectarius,</HI> a Per&s;on altogether unqualified
<PB N="250" REF="130"> by the Canons, the la&s;t in his <HI>Schedule,</HI> whom the Emperour Immediately pitch'd upon: and though he were then Unbap|tiz'd, and &s;o by the Canons uncapable of a Bi&s;hoprick; and was for that Rea&s;on at fir&s;t refus'd by the Bi&s;hops of the Coun|cil; yet the Emperour per&s;i&s;ting in his choice, they were forced to yeild, and &s;o <HI>Nectarius</HI> being immediately Baptiz'd, he was, whil&s;t in his <HI>Neophytes habit,</HI> con|&s;tituted Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople.</HI> Now this great man being plac'd in the <HI>Epi&s;co|pal Throne</HI> of this great City, and made head of the great Council a&s;&s;embled in it; the Council proceeds to action, and after the Confirmation of the <HI>Nicene</HI> Faith, they ratifie the old Provincial Con&s;titution of the Church, that every Province &s;hould be govern'd by its own Synod, as I have &s;hewn above out of the Canon it &s;elf, and as it is expre&s;ly atte&s;ted by <HI>Sozomen.</HI> And <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Lib.</HI> 7 <HI>cap.</HI> 9</NOTE> now having thus &s;hewn their tender care of all other Churches Rights, they might with the le&s;s Jealou&s;ie and Su&s;picion enhance their own, and therefore the next decree that immediately follows is to a&s;|&s;ign its <HI>Praecedency of Honour</HI> next to <HI>Rome.</HI> And that was artificial enough to &s;eem to be content with its u&s;ual Power, and not to endeavour the advancing it &s;elf to any greater Authority than of an in|ferior
<PB N="251" REF="130"> Bi&s;hoprick, but only out of re&s;pect to the Imperial City of <HI>new Rome,</HI> that it might be allow'd the <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>the Precedency of Honour</HI> next to <HI>old Rome,</HI> the &s;ame thing that the Council of <HI>Nice</HI> had done for the Church of <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> re&s;er|ving the Rights of Juri&s;diction to the Me|tropolis of <HI>Cae&s;area;</HI> and this is the mo&s;t this third Canon could pretend to grant after the enacting of the &s;econd; for when they had confirm'd the Provincial Settle|ment of Churches, <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> having ever been Subject to the Metropolis of <HI>Heraclea,</HI> the Council could not pretend to rai&s;e it to any higher Power, than of a Subject Bi&s;hoprick, without manife&s;t in|jury to its Metropolitan. So that this Council was &s;o far from allowing this great City any Power Superior to Metro|politans, as 'tis commonly &s;uppo&s;ed, that it did not &s;o much as attempt to rai&s;e it to Metropolitical Authority, but left it un|der the Power of the Metropolis of <HI>He|raclea,</HI> to which it had belong'd from the beginning. And this no doubt was the ground of that cu&s;tom, that continued for a long time after that it was rai&s;ed up to a Patriarchate, that the Patriarch of <HI>Con|&s;tantinople</HI> was con&s;ecrated by the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Heraclea,</HI> in token (as <HI>Bal&s;amon</HI> upon the Canon ob&s;erves) that he had been
<PB N="252" REF="131"> once Subject to him; and this cu&s;tom he &s;ayes continued to his own time, <HI>i. e.</HI> to|wards the end of the eleventh Century, and <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Hist.</HI> Rom. <HI>lib.</HI> 6.</NOTE> <HI>Nicephorus Gregoruis</HI> continues it down in|to his own Age, and that is the fourteenth. But as this Precedency of Honour was granted to <HI>Con&s;tantinople;</HI> fir&s;t in the City it &s;elf; &s;econdly under <HI>Theodo&s;ius</HI> its Pa|tron; thirdly when <HI>Nectarius,</HI> a great man, was its Bi&s;hop; &s;o la&s;tly was it done when there were none but <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> Bi|&s;hops pre&s;ent at the Council; and there|fore we &s;hall find it ever after oppo&s;ed by the <HI>Popes,</HI> though at la&s;t it was allow'd of by <HI>Innocent</HI> the third, who began to Reign in the year 1199. in the Council of <HI>La|teran;</HI> that is, when the Patriarch of <HI>Con|&s;tantinople</HI> was reduc'd to &s;o low a Con|dition, that there was no danger of his ever being Rival to his <HI>Holine&s;s. Baronius</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ad annum</HI> 381.</NOTE> and after him <HI>Binius,</HI> is confident in it, that the Canon it &s;elf is Suppo&s;ititious; partly becau&s;e it was for &s;o long time di&s;|own'd by the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> partly be|cau&s;e it apparently contradicts the pre|ceeding Canon. But that it was genuine is evident from all the ancient Copies of the Councils, from the clear and concur|rent Te&s;timonies of the <HI>Hi&s;torians,</HI> from the Authority of the Council of <HI>Calcedon,</HI> who cite it in their Synodical Epi&s;tle to
<PB N="253" REF="131"> <HI>Pope Leo;</HI> &s;o that there can be no doubt of the <HI>Authenticalne&s;s</HI> of the Canon it &s;elf, neither is its being di&s;liked at <HI>Rome</HI> any proof of its Forgery, for that was never pretended by the <HI>Popes</HI> them&s;elves; and it only &s;hews the Jealou&s;ie of that See, that was always particularly watchful again&s;t the growth of <HI>Con&s;tantinople.</HI> And for its contradiction to the former Canon, no|thing more common in &s;uch ca&s;es than for men when they have Ambitious De|&s;igns in their heads to prote&s;t again&s;t them, and methinks one &s;o throughly knowing in the Hi&s;tory of his own Church as this Learned <HI>Cardinal</HI> was, &s;hould not be unacquainted with &s;uch &s;lights. But af|ter all he is plainly mi&s;taken, for the Coun|cil doth not give the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantin|ople</HI> any Preheminence of Authority, as he imagins, but only precedency of Honour, and that makes no Alteration in the <HI>Nicene</HI> bounds of Juri&s;diction: For every Metro|politan notwith&s;tanding that, &s;till enjoy'd the &s;ame Supremacy of Power within the Precincts of his Province. But though the Canon were not Spurious, it is more than probable, that it was clancular and obtein'd by Surpri&s;e, becau&s;e the Synod, as this Learned Hi&s;torian very well ob|&s;erves, in their Synodical Epi&s;tle to <HI>Pope Dama&s;us,</HI> in which they give an Account
<PB N="254" REF="132"> of all their Actions and Proceedings, make <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>apud</HI> Theo. <HI>lib.</HI> 5. <HI>cap.</HI> 9. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"></NOTE> not the lea&s;t mention of it; nay they &s;eem diligently to &s;uppre&s;s it, as a thing to be kept from his knowledge, and as doubt|ing of his Con&s;ent. And that which &s;hrewdly increa&s;es this &s;u&s;picion is, that though they leave this out in their Syno|dical Epi&s;tle to the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> and put him off with a general account of things, and a &s;olemn &s;tory of their great Re&s;pect to the <HI>Nicene</HI> Council; yet when they write to the Emperour him&s;elf, they &s;end him their particular Canons, as one to whom the De&s;ign might be imparted, and who probably &s;et it on foot, at lea&s;t they knew that he would take it kindly of them as an Honour done to his <HI>Royal City.</HI> But however this bu&s;ine&s;s was man|aged, whether fairly or fraudulently, this See being thus advanc'd to the heighth of Honour and Dignity, that alone was e|nough to mount it up to a Supremacy of Power; Some attempts of U&s;urpation had been made from the time of <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> of <HI>Nicomedia,</HI> who was an Active and a Bold man, and much the mo&s;t powerful Prelate of his time, and therefore when he was Tran&s;lated to <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> by the Emperour <HI>Con&s;tantius</HI> his Favour, and that too with an high hand; there is no doubt but a man of his Temper a&s;&s;i&s;ted with &s;o
<PB N="255" REF="132"> much Court-Power and Intere&s;t, would be very forward to advance and enlarge the Authority of his See; and according|ly we find his Succe&s;&s;or <HI>Eudoxius</HI> exten|ding <NOTE PLACE="marg">Philo&s;tor|gius.</NOTE> his Power to the Province of <HI>Hele|&s;pont,</HI> before the Council of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> ordeining <HI>Eunomius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Cy&s;icum,</HI> the Metropolitan City of the Province. But from this time forward <HI>i. e.</HI> from the <HI>Con&s;tantinopolitan</HI> Council, we perpetual|ly find the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> en|croaching upon the Juri&s;diction of their Neighbours, openly violating the Eccle|&s;ia&s;tical Canons by an exorbitant u&s;e of its greatne&s;s, &s;wallowing up not only whole Provinces but whole Dioce&s;&s;es into its U|&s;urpation, till at la&s;t it pu&s;h'd fair for the univer&s;al Supremacy; and had once &s;eiz'd it but it could not hold it. Its mo&s;t ob|&s;ervable irregularities between the &s;econd and fourth Council, when it was advanc'd from an honorary title to a real Power and Juri&s;diction, I &s;hall here remark, and &s;hew the &s;everal Steps and Methods, whereby an empty dignity may improve it &s;elf into a Supremacy of Power.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="22" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. XX.</HEAD>
<P>And in the fir&s;t place, the very erecting the Committee of <HI>Communi|catory</HI> Bi&s;hops by <HI>Theodo&s;ius,</HI> immediately after the Council of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> was a
<PB N="256" REF="133"> plain Subver&s;ion of the ancient Govern|ment of the Church. For it took away all Power in the Synods of the Province and plac'd it in one or two hands, and &s;ome|times made a private Bi&s;hop Superior in Authority to his Metropolitan, becau&s;e &s;ome of the Committee were Subject Bi|&s;hops, and yet the Right to Chri&s;tian Communion, not only in their own Pro|vince, but the whole new In&s;tituted Di|oce&s;s that conteined &s;everal Metropoli|tans, was at their &s;ingle di&s;po&s;al. So that I take this Edict of <HI>Theodo&s;ius,</HI> how well &s;o ever it might have been intended, to have been one of the fir&s;t open Breaches that was made upon the Original Con&s;ti|tution of the <HI>Chri&s;tian Church;</HI> for now the Government of it was turn'd out of its old Channel, where it had run from the time of the Apo&s;tles, the Synod of the Province under their Metropolitan, and diverted into new guts and cour&s;es as the favour or wantonne&s;s of the Court was plea&s;ed to appoint. So that though <HI>Theo|do&s;ius</HI> were a great Patron of the Church, yet by not protecting of it the right way, he did it great Injury; for in&s;tead of giving it the effectual A&s;&s;i&s;tance of the civil Government, he out of too much Zeal Invaded the Eccle&s;ia&s;tick Authority, by a&s;&s;uming to him&s;elf a Power of erecting
<PB N="257" REF="133"> new Models of Government, which is in effect to de&s;troy the Being and Con&s;tituti|on of a <HI>Chri&s;tian Church;</HI> for if it &s;tand upon divine Right from our <HI>Saviour</HI> and his <HI>Apo&s;tles,</HI> it is then in no mans Power to alter it; If it does not, 'tis no Church, for there can be no &s;uch thing without In&s;ti|tution by <HI>divine Authority.</HI> And to lay the foundations of a Church or Religion no deeper than humane Law, is to declare it an Impo&s;ture and artifice of State. But to proceed; as the&s;e Bi&s;hops were made heads of the <HI>Catholick Church,</HI> contrary to all the ancient practice of it; &s;o was it no le&s;s a Novelty to make <HI>Nectarius</HI> the Head of the <HI>Combination;</HI> For as that made &s;ome few Metropolitans, together with four or five privat Bi&s;hops, Superior to all the <HI>Provincial</HI> Synods and Metropo|litans in the World; &s;o this made a privat Bi&s;hop Supreme head of the <HI>Catholick Communion.</HI> And then be&s;ide, whereas the <HI>Juri&s;diction</HI> of other Bi&s;hops is limited to their own Dioce&s;&s;es, as to <HI>Aegypt,</HI> the <HI>Ea&s;t, A&s;ia, Pontus</HI> and <HI>Scythia,</HI> there is no confinement &s;et to his Authority, but it is expre&s;s'd in general terms without re|&s;traints or <HI>Limitations;</HI> For which the wri|ters of the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> a&s;&s;ign a very appo&s;ite Rea&s;on, particularly the wi&s;e&s;t of <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>De Concord. Sac. &amp; Imp. l.</HI> 1. <HI>c.</HI> 3. &sect;. 10.</NOTE> them all, the Learned <HI>Petrus de Marca:</HI>
<PB N="258" REF="134"> <HI>Becau&s;e</HI> (&s;aith he) <HI>the Council had rais'd the Bi&s;hop of</HI> Con&s;tantinople <HI>to the &s;econd Place next to the Bi&s;hop of</HI> Rome, <HI>and for that Rea&s;on therefore, he mu&s;t after the Example of that, have an unconfin'd Juri&s;|diction.</HI> And if this Learned man could have found us any Example at that time, of any &s;uch Power in the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome,</HI> it would have been a notable hint of their Supremacy. But when there is no &s;uch thing upon Record, and when the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> is particulraly left out of this A&s;&s;ociation, it is a &s;hrewd Intimation that his univer&s;al Supremacy was but little known or talk'd of in tho&s;e days; But it is plea&s;ant to &s;ee how this Learned man can &s;uit his Rea&s;ons to his Cau&s;e, and blow either hot or cold out of the &s;ame mouth as his own and the <HI>Popes</HI> convenience re|quires. For when he is to depre&s;s the See of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> then the rea&s;on why he had no particular Dioce&s;s a&s;&s;ign'd him in <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>De In&s;tit. pat. Con&s;t. Page</HI> 157.</NOTE> the A&s;&s;ociation, is becau&s;e he had none, and therefore his Juri&s;diction was exten|ded only to the City of <HI>Con&s;tantinople.</HI> And thus he who but ju&s;t now was one of the two Bi&s;hops that pre&s;ided over the whole world, is here confin'd to the Go|vernment of one City, mu&s;t be content with the narrow fortune of other ordinary Bi|&s;hops, and not be &s;o vain as to equal him|&s;elf
<PB N="259" REF="134"> with the great Sovereign Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome.</HI> But though his former Rea&s;on was founded upon a palpable fal&s;hood, yet it is po&s;&s;ible that this may be true, and that the Edict de&s;ign'd only that City to the particular Care of <HI>Nectarius,</HI> and if it did, that alone gave him great Influence over all the Bi&s;hops of the Empire, by rea&s;on of their great Re&s;ort thither, and their fre|quent occa&s;ions to make u&s;e of his intere&s;t to promote their Suits at Court, which would in cour&s;e oblige them to &s;ome de|ference to his Authority; So that in a little time the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Constantinople</HI> took up|on them&s;elves together with the Bi&s;hops that were occa&s;ionally there pre&s;ent, the Government of all other Churches. And that was one of the mo&s;t artificial &s;lights in all their U&s;urpation, the trick of get|ting a Synod of Bi&s;hops: For they being of the inferior Rank of Bi&s;hops, they had no right to a&s;&s;emble Synods, and without Synods they could exerci&s;e no Power ca|nonically, and therefore to &s;upply this want, they made u&s;e of this Advantage, that there being always a great number of Bi&s;hops more or le&s;s re&s;iding at <HI>Con&s;tan|tinople,</HI> and attending about the Court, upon emergent Occa&s;ions the Bi&s;hop of the City was wont to con&s;ult with them, which meetings in proce&s;s of time obtein'd
<PB N="260" REF="135"> both the Name and Authority of Synods. The mo&s;t remarkable In&s;tance that I know of this kind, was in the Proceed|ings of <HI>Anatolius</HI> with his Conclave a|gain&s;t <HI>Photius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Tyre,</HI> which were &s;o foul that the very Council of <HI>Calcedon</HI> were a&s;ham'd of them, as we find in the <HI>4th.</HI> Action of that Council. The Bu&s;i|ne&s;s was this, The Citizens of <HI>Beryte,</HI> that was Subject to the Metropolis of <HI>Tyre,</HI> had obtein'd of the Emperour the Grant of Metropolitical Supremacy, and an ali|enation of a great part of the Province of <HI>Tyre</HI> to be laid to its Juri&s;diction. Which Grant <HI>Anatolius</HI> ratifies, and threatens <HI>Excommunication</HI> to <HI>Photius</HI> the <HI>Tyrian</HI> Bi&s;hop, if he con&s;ent not to it. This be|ing &s;o great a Violation of the Rights of the Church, e&s;pecially when <HI>Photius</HI> was no way Subject to his Juri&s;diction; it was complain'd of to the Council, and by them condemned, and the Convention of Sy|nods at <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> di&s;own'd and declar|ed to have no Synodical Authority. Nei|ther had <HI>Anatolius</HI> any thing to plead in his own Ju&s;tification but only Cu&s;tom: He dur&s;t not &s;o much as pretend to any Canonical Right; that it &s;eems was too Impudent, but a kind of convenient cu&s;t|om, for the more ea&s;ie determination of emergent Controver&s;ies; becau&s;e there
<PB N="261" REF="135"> was alwayes a &s;ufficient number of Bi&s;hops re&s;iding upon the Place, and &s;o were rea|dy at hand to decide matters brought be|fore them without the trouble of calling Provincial Synods upon every occa&s;ion. So that this one In&s;tance, though no elder than the Council of <HI>Calcedon</HI> proves a more ancient cu&s;tom; for thereby <HI>Ana|tolius</HI> excu&s;es him&s;elf, and the Bi&s;hops that joyn'd with him; that what they did was no new thing, not &s;o much as <HI>No|vitati affine,</HI> but had been practic'd of old. And the In&s;tances of this kind are very frequent; it was &s;uch a Synod, by which <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Act</HI> 1. <HI>Conc. Calced.</HI></NOTE> <HI>Flavian</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> fir&s;t con|demn'd <HI>Eutyches,</HI> and therefore <HI>Eutyches</HI> excepts again&s;t their Authority, becau&s;e they were not canonically Summon'd, but were ca&s;ually met at <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> for their own private Affairs. Many more In&s;tan|ces there are of this kind in the Actions of <HI>Atticus, Proclus</HI> and St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom,</HI> who in the&s;e Synods &s;ettled matters that belong'd to other Metropolitans; And as for St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> (who probably fir&s;t began this cu&s;tom) he got him&s;elf re&s;tored to his Bi&s;hoprick by &s;uch a Court Synod, though his Re&s;titution would not hold, becau&s;e his Synod was not of equal number with that by which he was depo&s;ed. But to return to <HI>Theodo&s;ius</HI> his In&s;trument of <HI>Ca|tholick</HI>
<PB N="262" REF="136"> <HI>A&s;&s;ociation,</HI> and <HI>Petrus de Marca</HI>'s Remarks upon it, that the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con|&s;tantinople</HI>'s Power was not limited: Fir&s;t, Becau&s;e it re&s;embled the <HI>Popes</HI> that had no bounds. Secondly, Becau&s;e he had no Di|oce&s;s to be limited; and though this la&s;t may be true, yet I am apt to think that the mo&s;t probable Account of the thing is, that the Emperour in his Edict de|&s;ign'd neither a limited nor an unlimited Juri&s;diction to his Favorite Bi&s;hop, but only expre&s;s'd him&s;elf in general terms, that he &s;hould be one of this <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Committee,</HI> and then the nature of the thing it &s;elf would fir&s;t limit his direct Power to <HI>Con&s;tantinople;</HI> and that alone, we &s;ee gave him an Indirect Power over all other places. In &s;hort, He &s;eems on|ly to have de&s;ign'd to Honour his own Court Bi&s;hop; In the fir&s;t place, by give|ing him the fir&s;t place in the <HI>A&s;&s;ociation,</HI> but how far that would go, he left it to his own management, and what that was we very little know, becau&s;e for want of Learning he was forc'd to leave it to <HI>Cyri|acus</HI> a <HI>Sicilian</HI> Bi&s;hop, whom he kept with <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Sozom. lib.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">. <HI>cap.</HI> 10.</NOTE> him as his guide and guardian. But not|with&s;tanding that, it is certain that either through remi&s;&s;ne&s;s or want of ability, things were ill enough manag'd, as ap|pears by <HI>Gregory Nazianzen</HI>'s Epi&s;tle to him, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Inter Orat.</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 letter">6.</NOTE>
<PB N="263" REF="136"> wherein he complains of the wanton growth and encrea&s;e of Here&s;ies within his City, and exhorts him to obtain the Em|perours A&s;&s;i&s;tance for their effectual Sup|pre&s;&s;ion. But of the particular Actions of his Government, I find nothing recorded unle&s;s his attempt to depo&s;e <HI>Gerontius</HI> Bi|&s;hop of <HI>Nicomedia,</HI> in the Province of <HI>Bithynia,</HI> but was repuls'd by the <HI>Nicome|dians;</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Sozom. lib.</HI> 8. <HI>cap.</HI> 6.</NOTE> however we &s;ee by it how early the endeavours of the <HI>Can&s;tantinoplitans</HI> were after U&s;urpation.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="23" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. XXI.</HEAD>
<P>To him &s;ucceeds St. <HI>Chry&s;o|&s;tom,</HI> a very good man, but of a tart and eager Temper, as appears not only by the Character given of him by his own Hi&s;to|rians, but by the tenor of his actions. I &s;ay nothing of his Quarel with the Court and his own Clergy, becau&s;e that was within his own Juri&s;diction; and though perhaps he might &s;ometimes act with too much heat, yet I cannot &s;ee but that for the main, he behav'd him&s;elf as became an hone&s;t man, and one that made Con|&s;cience of his Duty and the faithful di&s;|charge of it. But as for his protecting the Rebellious <HI>Monks</HI> of <HI>Aegypt</HI> again&s;t the Canonical cen&s;ure of their Bi&s;hop and Pro|vincial Synod, and per&s;i&s;ting in it after the Bi&s;hop had inform'd him of their Mu|tinous
<PB N="264" REF="137"> Behaviour, not only again&s;t him|&s;elf, whom they had endeavour'd to Mur|der, but the Civil Magi&s;trate, who was forc'd for the Peace of the Province to drive them into Bani&s;hment; it is &s;uch an overthrow of the Di&s;cipline of the Church, that no candor can excu&s;e it. So that whatever were the merits of the Cau&s;e (and that of the <HI>Monks</HI> was bad enough) the Violation of the Canons of the Church was the thing with which <HI>Theophilus</HI> Bi|&s;hop of <HI>Alexandria</HI> upbraided him, as <HI>Pal|ladius</HI> him&s;elf, who is very Partial on St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI>'s &s;ide in this &s;tory, tells it. <HI>Ar|bitror te non ignorare quid praecipiant Con|cilii Nicaeni Canones, Sancientes Epi&s;copum non judicare cau&s;am extra Terminos &s;uos. Si autem ignoras, di&s;ce &amp; libellos contra me &s;u&s;cipere de&s;ine: nam et&s;i judicari me opus &s;it, ab</HI> Aegyptiis <HI>magis quam abs te id fieri oportet qui Septuaginta dierum Itinere &agrave; no|bis &s;eperatus es.</HI></P>
<P><Q><HI>I &s;uppo&s;e you are not ignorant of the</HI> Ni|cene <HI>Canon, which enacts that Bi&s;hops take not upon them to judge Cau&s;es out of their own Juri&s;diction; but if you are ignorant of it, learn from me, and cea&s;e to receive accu&s;a|tions again&s;t me. For if I de&s;erve any Cen&s;ure the Bi&s;hops of</HI> Aegypt <HI>ought to inflict it, not you that live at the di&s;tance of &s;eaventy days journey from us.</HI></Q></P>
<PB N="265" REF="137">
<P> This was &s;mart and unan&s;werable; It was a breach upon the whole Government of the <HI>Chri&s;tian Church.</HI> For if another Bi|&s;hop will receive &s;uch into Communion, as &s;tand Excommunicate by their own Bi|&s;hop, there is an end of all Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Di&s;cipline. And therefore that was the fir&s;t and mo&s;t &s;acred Rule in the Govern|ment of the ancient Church, not to ad|mit any Per&s;on that liv'd under the Juri&s;|diction of another Bi&s;hop, into Commu|nion without his Bi&s;hops Certificate. But to receive and patroni&s;e &s;uch as were Ca|nonically proceeded again&s;t by their own Bi&s;hop, and that after information of their Sentence, as St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> did, was in re|ality an Affront to the Government of all other Churches. For notwith&s;tanding that <HI>Theophilus</HI> &s;ent him a Copy of the Decree of the Council of <HI>Alexandria,</HI> and that <HI>Epiphanius</HI> attended upon him in Per&s;on, with another Decree of the Bi|&s;hops of <HI>Cyprus,</HI> to take him off from this uncanonical Interpo&s;ition, yet he would not de&s;i&s;t, but took to him&s;elf the Power of Umpirage between the Bi&s;hop and his <HI>Monks;</HI> and would part with them upon no other terms than that the Bi&s;hop would yield to be reconcil'd to them by his Me|diation. No wonder then that tho&s;e good men <HI>Theophilus</HI> and <HI>Epiphanius</HI> re&s;ented this
<PB N="266" REF="138"> thing with &s;o much Severity. <HI>Epiphanius,</HI> when he was at <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> would ne|ver &s;o much as communicate with him, becau&s;e when he had been before-hand advis'd by Letters from him&s;elf of the Sentence of the Council, he would not acquie&s;ce in it. <HI>Theophilus</HI> being Sum|mon'd by the Emperour, takes a journey to <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> and joyns with him as many Bi&s;hops as he could take up by the way, with a re&s;olution to depo&s;e <HI>Chry&s;o|&s;tom</HI> in Council, for his Irregular proceed|ings; and when he came would not &s;o much as &s;ee him; no nor as St. <HI>Jerom</HI> in|forms <HI>Pope Innocent,</HI> &s;o much as lodge within the Walls of the City. <HI>Baronius</HI> and the Writers of the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ad annum</HI> 403.</NOTE> blame <HI>Theophilus</HI> for the Vehemence of his proceedings again&s;t him, as too vio|lently pro&s;ecuting a private pique. But all the ground of their concernment for St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> was, becau&s;e the <HI>Pope</HI> was on his &s;ide, otherwi&s;e it is but an unchari|table &s;urmi&s;e to impute <HI>Theophilus</HI>'s Zeal, in this matter to per&s;onal revenge. A Quarrel, I know, there was between them, and that perhaps might pu&s;h him on with too much keenne&s;s: but had he not ju&s;t cau&s;e enough to be very warm in this ca&s;e, wherein the whole Di&s;cipline of the <HI>Chri&s;tian Church</HI> lay at &s;take? For if what
<PB N="267" REF="138"> St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> had done &s;hould pa&s;s uncon|troll'd, it would put an end to the effectu|al Di&s;cipline of all other Churches in the World. <HI>Theophilus</HI> was as far as I can di&s;|cern through the partiality of all the Hi|&s;torians again&s;t him, a good man, and mettle&s;om too, a great A&s;&s;ertor of <HI>Eccle|&s;ia&s;tical</HI> Di&s;cipline, and a lover of true Peace and Unity. And therefore he can|not be blam'd for the hotte&s;t Oppo&s;ition again&s;t &s;uch di&s;orderly proceedings. But when St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> was depos'd in the Council <HI>Sub Quercu,</HI> and his Interpo&s;ition between <HI>Theophilus</HI> and his Clergy re|mov'd; <HI>Theophilus</HI> with a Fatherly ten|derne&s;s invites the Offenders to Reconcili|ation, and upon Submi&s;&s;ion re&s;tores them to Communion, as <HI>Sozomen</HI> him&s;elf tells the Story. For he and all the Hi&s;torians <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>lib.</HI> 8. <HI>c.</HI> 17.</NOTE> are very Partial in repre&s;enting this Bu&s;i|ne&s;s on St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI>'s &s;ide for the &s;ake of <HI>Origen,</HI> again&s;t whom as they imagine, <HI>Theophilus</HI> made all this &s;tir. But if we con&s;ider the whole matter Impartially, it will appear that the <HI>Origenian</HI> conte&s;t was lea&s;t of <HI>Theophilus</HI> his concern, and that the main thing he labour'd in was the or|der of the Church. And therefore in the Synod under the <HI>Oak,</HI> in which St. <HI>Chry|&s;o&s;tom</HI> was depos'd, he makes no mention (as <HI>Sozomen</HI> in the &s;ame place informes us)
<PB N="268" REF="139"> of <HI>Origen</HI>'s Books, but only invites the <HI>Monks</HI> to repent of thir Schi&s;m, and upon their Repentance ab&s;olves them. And if the Acts of this Council, extant in <HI>Photius,</HI> may be believ'd (and I &s;ee very little ground to que&s;tion them) the chief Ar|ticle again&s;t St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> was his inva&s;i|on of other Provinces, and three Libels were prefer'd again&s;t him by three Bi&s;hops that he had depos'd, <HI>Gerontius, Fau&s;tinus</HI> and <HI>Eugnomonius.</HI> So that all <HI>Theophilus</HI> his Zeal again&s;t the <HI>Origeni&s;ts,</HI> was no|thing el&s;e but a trick of &s;ubtilty, thereby to gain a party to him&s;elf, and without that a&s;&s;i&s;tance the Canons of the Church, though on his &s;ide, would &s;carce have born him up again&s;t the greatne&s;s of St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom;</HI> but the World being at that time divided about this eontrover&s;ie, and the <HI>Anti-Origeni&s;ts</HI> being the prevailing Party, he by accu&s;ing his Schi&s;matical <HI>Monks</HI> of <HI>Origeni&s;m,</HI> gain'd all the adver&s;e party to his &s;ide, and particularly engaged the Zeal of <HI>Epiphanius</HI> and St. <HI>Jerom</HI> in his behalf, by whom, and that ruling re|putation that they then had in the World, he was able to make head again&s;t the Power of St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom,</HI> and at length break through it, though otherwi&s;e he was a great Student of <HI>Origen</HI>'s Work both before and after this Controver&s;ie; before
<PB N="269" REF="139"> he had like to have been Murdered for it by the <HI>Anthropomorphites,</HI> if he had not appea&s;ed them by his Wit; and afterwards it was objected to him, which he excu&s;ed by pleading that there were many good flowers in him be&s;ide his Errours and He|re&s;ies. But that <HI>Theophilus</HI> had no &s;uch im|placable unkindne&s;s to the Opinions of <HI>Origen,</HI> is evident from his intercour&s;e and friend&s;hip with <HI>Syne&s;ius,</HI> who being inform'd of his own Nomination to a Bi|&s;hoprick, to avoid it, he tells all the ill things that he can of him&s;elf; and among the re&s;t, that he was an Irreclaimable Ori|geni&s;t, which he &s;uppo&s;ed was at that time the wor&s;t objection that he could contrive again&s;t him&s;elf. And whether this were only an artificial Fiction, as <HI>Ba|ronius</HI> will have it, or his real Opinion, as it mu&s;t be, becau&s;e he declares it with a Prote&s;tation before God and his Holy An|gels of its truth; it is all one, &s;eeing the confe&s;&s;ion of it was not crime enough with <HI>Theophilus</HI> to deny him con&s;ecration, which he was &s;o far from doing, that he was the chief man that pre&s;&s;ed him to it; and though after he had ordein'd him, <HI>Syne&s;ius</HI> continued in his old Fondne&s;s to his Origenian Opinions, as is evident from divers of his Writings, e&s;pecially his <HI>Po|ems;</HI> yet for all that there was an intimate
<PB N="270" REF="140"> Friend&s;hip and Familiarity kept up be|tween him and <HI>Theophilus</HI> all his life time. Which plainly &s;hews that he was in his heart no &s;uch Enemy to <HI>Origen,</HI> but only pretended &s;o to be, thereby to gain a par|ty to a&s;&s;i&s;t and bear him up again&s;t the greatne&s;s of St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom.</HI> But if <HI>Theo|philus</HI> may be condemn'd for u&s;ing too much craft in the Origenian conte&s;t, and &s;uch counterfeitings, unle&s;s very prudent, are very &s;u&s;picious and hardly to be ex|cu&s;ed; however that may be, I think it is evident enough, that <HI>Theophilus</HI> can never with any pretence of Law or Ju&s;tice be blam'd for acting after &s;o high a manner in another mans Juri&s;diction; for he came not voluntarily to <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> but was forc'd thither by the Emperours Edict to an&s;wer the Articles of Accu&s;ation, that were there preferred again&s;t him by his own di&s;obedient Clergy. And therefore knowing his own Innocence and the Ju|&s;tice of his Cau&s;e, when he came, he would not appear as a guilty Per&s;on, but boldly a&s;&s;erts the Rights of the <HI>Chri&s;tian</HI> Church; and in&s;tead of an&s;wering before St. <HI>Chry|&s;o&s;tom</HI> and the Court Bi&s;hops, for any thing that had pa&s;&s;ed between him&s;elf and his own Clergy; he prote&s;ts as well as he could, again&s;t all their Illegal proceedings, and declares St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> unworthy of
<PB N="271" REF="140"> his Epi&s;copal tru&s;t, by having &s;tretch'd it to the Injury of all other <HI>Chri&s;tian Bi|&s;hops</HI> as well as him&s;elf. So that it is none of <HI>Theophilus</HI> his fault, that he ever appear|ed at <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> but when he came it was his Duty to a&s;&s;ert the Rights and Li|berties of the <HI>Catholick Church.</HI> And this he could not do without cen&s;uring St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom,</HI> who had &s;o ra&s;hly Invaded other Provinces as well as <HI>Aegypt,</HI> taking upon him to ordain and depo&s;e Bi&s;hops every where, without regard to the di|&s;tinction of Provinces and Limitation of Churches. Ordeining fifteen Bi&s;hops in <HI>A&s;ia,</HI> and Depo&s;ing thirteen, choo&s;ing the <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Soc. l.</HI> 6. <HI>c.</HI> 10. <HI>Soz. l.</HI> 8. <HI>c.</HI> 6.</NOTE> Metropolitan of <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> and thru&s;ting his own Deacon into the Government of that Church; in &s;hort he took upon him to reform all other Churches as well as his own of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> as <HI>Theodoret</HI> informs us; the Dioce&s;s of <HI>Thrace,</HI> and it's &s;ix Pro|vinces, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>lib.</HI> 5. <HI>c.</HI> 18.</NOTE> all <HI>A&s;ia.</HI> and its eleven Provinces, and <HI>Pontus</HI> that hath as many Provinces as <HI>A&s;ia.</HI> In <HI>Pontus</HI> he depo&s;ed <HI>Gerontius</HI> their Metropolitan, in <HI>Thrace</HI> he ordein'd <HI>Sera|pion</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Heraclea,</HI> that was his own Metropolitan. Now the&s;e and the like actions could not but be very offen&s;ive to the re&s;t of the World; &s;o that as the Hi|&s;torians tell us, both the <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> and <HI>We|&s;tern</HI> Bi&s;hops were di&s;plea&s;ed with him, and
<PB N="272" REF="141"> no wonder, when it was the common cau&s;e of all, and that was the real &s;tate of his ca&s;e, the Authority of the See of <HI>Con&s;tan|tinople</HI> &s;et up again&s;t and over the <HI>Catholick</HI> Church.</P>
<P>The Learned <HI>Petrus de Marca</HI> hath pleaded &s;everal things in his excu&s;e, fir&s;t, For his acting in <HI>A&s;ia</HI> and <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> he pleads the Nece&s;&s;ity of the thing, and the &s;ad degeneracy of that Church. And this I will allow to be true; but yet all corrup|tions are to be redre&s;&s;ed in a regular way, otherwi&s;e in&s;tead of reforming Churches, we do but de&s;troy them, and therefore he might have done his Duty towards the Reformation of the&s;e Churches, as the Canons had pre&s;crib'd, by Letters to the Synod of the Province to reform them&s;elves, by inciting other Bi&s;hops to joyn with him in the &s;ame work, by di&s;|owning Communion with them till they had remov'd abu&s;es out of their Churches. This was all the Authority, that the Bi&s;hops of one Province had over the Bi|&s;hops of another, and by this means was the Unity and Communion of the <HI>Catho|lick</HI> Church for a long time admirably pre&s;erv'd. But for a private Bi&s;hop to take upon him to ride his Circuit through other Provinces, and where ever he came, to ordein, depo&s;e, In&s;titute, and reform
<PB N="273" REF="141"> with an high hand, was &s;uch an Irregu|larity as no Nece&s;&s;ity can excu&s;e, or war|rant.</P>
<P>In the next place it is pleaded that he acted as honorary Exarch over the Dio|ce&s;&s;es of <HI>Pontus, A&s;ia,</HI> and <HI>Thrace,</HI> as he was made by the Council of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> that plac'd him next to <HI>Rome.</HI> But this honorary dignity gave him no Juri&s;dicti|on over his Neighbours, and therefore if by vertue of that he challeng'd any, it is plain that he u&s;urp'd it. Then &s;ays <HI>Petrus de Marca,</HI> Is there nothing to excu&s;e a man, &s;o much own'd and Patroniz'd by the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> that they re&s;tor'd him into the Dypticks of the Church? Truly I am &s;orry there is not, becau&s;e as I &s;eriou&s;ly believe him to have been a very good man, &s;o I take him to have been one of greate&s;t Wits of the <HI>Chri&s;tian Church.</HI> And perhaps the greatne&s;s of his Wit may be his be&s;t Apology, for that is always ac|companied with too much warmth and vehemence of Temper, and this joyned with &s;tiff hone&s;ty might hurry him incon|&s;iderately upon extraordinary and unwar|rantable actions, and e&s;pecially when his Zeal was exa&s;perated by gro&s;s and notori|ous crimes, that might very ea&s;ily tran&s;|port him beyond due bounds. Be&s;ides which, there are two things that may
<PB N="274" REF="142"> &s;omewhat palliate and alleviate his fault. The fir&s;t is, The cu&s;tom of his See, that he him&s;elf began not the&s;e excur&s;ions over the Dioce&s;&s;es of <HI>A&s;ia, Pontus</HI> and <HI>Thrace,</HI> but found <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> in Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of them, not only &s;ince the Council of <HI>Con|&s;tantinople,</HI> by the attempt of his Prede|ce&s;&s;or <HI>Nectarius</HI> to depo&s;e <HI>Gerontius,</HI> but before that by <HI>Eudoxius</HI> his ordeining the Metropolitan of <HI>Nicomedia;</HI> and men are too apt to make u&s;e of &s;uch Precedents for creating a right to them&s;elves.</P>
<P>But the be&s;t Plea is the clau&s;e in&s;erted in the &s;econd Canon of the Council of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> to explain and limit it, that when the Canon had fir&s;t forbidden the Inva&s;ion of other Provinces, it adds: <HI>Let not Bi&s;hops uncall'd go beyond the Bounds of their Dioce&s;&s;es, either to ordain or to ex|erci&s;e any other Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Office.</HI> So that by this clau&s;e if they are <HI>called</HI> they have liberty to go. And this Liberty St. <HI>Chry|&s;o&s;tom</HI> might have taken upon complaints from &s;everal Bi&s;hops to him; for as he was the man of greate&s;t Fame and Reputation in the Church at that time, &s;o being Bi|&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> the Seat of the Court, whither Bi&s;hops from all parts often re&s;orted; he could not but have frequent Appeals and Applications made to him, which through his great Zeal he
<PB N="275" REF="142"> might receive too eagerly, and &s;o turn that Liberty which the Council had left for extraordinary ca&s;es into an ordinary Juri&s;diction. And the truth of it is, when Laws allow &s;uch Re&s;erves, if men are not very tender and cautious in u&s;ing them, they defeat the Laws them&s;elves, that provide peremptorily for all ordinary Ca&s;es, and leave no &s;uch Liberty for them, and therefore when men too commonly make u&s;e of it, as St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> did, upon every complaint, they de&s;troy the De&s;ign of the Law it &s;elf, as he did this; for whereas the de&s;ign of the Canon was to re&s;train every Bi&s;hop within his own or|dinary Juri&s;diction, unle&s;s in one extra|ordinary ca&s;e, he by making u&s;e of this extraordinary ca&s;e too familiarly, plainly exercis'd an ordinary Juri&s;diction in other mens Provinces. This I take to be the true State of St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI>'s cau&s;e, and have repre&s;ented it as fairly and as candidly as I could without wronging the Truth, and if in any thing I have made it wor&s;e than it is, I &s;hould much rejoyce to amend that fault; for among all the ancient Wor|thys of the Church, I know not any who&s;e memory I more honour than St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI>'s.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="24" TYPE="section">
<PB N="276" REF="143">
<HEAD>&sect;. XXII,</HEAD>
<P>His next Succe&s;&s;ors were his two great Enemies, <HI>Ar&s;acius</HI> and <HI>Atticus,</HI> who manag'd the Accu&s;ation again&s;t him in the Synod <HI>Sub Quercu; Ar&s;acius</HI> was Brother to <HI>Nectarius,</HI> and prefer'd only for his &s;ake, being a decrepit old man, a|bove eighty years of Age when he was cho&s;en, and liv'd not above a year and two months after it; &s;o that we have lit|tle more recorded of him, than that be|&s;ides his great Age, he was more unquali|fied than his Brother for the Epi&s;copal Tru&s;t, both to his Parts and Learning. To him &s;ucceeds <HI>Atticus,</HI> a man (&s;ays <HI>Socrates)</HI> rather Politick than Learned, a Character that he made good by the cour&s;e of his following Actions: For being warn'd by St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI>'s troubles, and finding that it was impo&s;&s;ible to bear up (which if any man, St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI> would have done) again&s;t the united oppo&s;ition of all other Bi&s;hops; he takes another cour&s;e, and fortifies him&s;elf with the Em|perours Authority, procures Laws and Edicts to Authori&s;e his U&s;urpation, and if we believe <HI>Palladius,</HI> when <HI>Pope Innocent Excommunicated</HI> him, and the People re|fus'd to communicate with him, he ob|tein'd an Edict from the Emperour <HI>Arca|dius,</HI> commanding them to it under pain
<PB N="277" REF="143"> of Excommunication and Confi&s;cation of Goods. But as for his Foreign Inva&s;ions, <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Lib.</HI> 7. <HI>c.</HI> 28.</NOTE> <HI>Socrates</HI> tells us of a Law of his own pro|curement, though the occa&s;ion of menti|oning it happen'd not till the time of his Succe&s;&s;or <HI>Sicinnius,</HI> who undertaking to con&s;titute <HI>Proclus</HI> Arch-Bi&s;hop of <HI>Cyzicum</HI> in the Province of <HI>Helle&s;pont,</HI> the <HI>Cyzece|nians</HI> (&s;ays the Hi&s;torian) refu&s;e his Bi|&s;hop and choo&s;e one of his own; And that notwith&s;tanding that Law that enacts that <HI>no Bi&s;hop be appointed without the Con&s;ent and Authority of the Bi&s;hop of</HI> Con&s;tantin|ople; pleading for them&s;elves that the Law related only to the Per&s;on of <HI>At|ticus,</HI> and therefore expiring with him, ought to be of no force in the ca&s;e of his Succe&s;&s;ors. So that it is plain that &s;uch a Law there was, though he tells us not when, or by whom enacted (though it could be made by none but <HI>Theodo&s;ius</HI> the younger) neither how far it extended, whether to other Provinces, or only to <HI>Cyzicum,</HI> becau&s;e that was the fir&s;t and in|deed the only Precedent of their U&s;urpati|on before the Council of <HI>Con&s;tantinople;</HI> and therefore if that were but once rati|fied by Law, that alone would give Au|thority to all the other U&s;urpations, that follow'd its Example. But the mo&s;t &s;ub|tile and artificial Law was that, which
<PB N="278" REF="144"> concerns the Dioce&s;s of <HI>Illyricum,</HI> where|by all ancient both Cu&s;toms and Canons are confirm'd, but yet &s;o that if any con|trover&s;ie &s;hould ari&s;e, it is to be determi|ned by the <HI>Sacerdotal</HI> Convention, but not without the A&s;&s;ent of the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople.</HI> Here fir&s;t the Confirma|tion of all ancient Canons was plau&s;ible, but the thing aim'd at was under that pretence to &s;lur in the Confirmation of Cu&s;toms too, for by this time they plea|ded pre&s;criptions for their U&s;urpations. But 'tis &s;till more plea&s;ant to make the Bi|&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> Supreme Judge in tho&s;e Ca&s;es, in which him&s;elf was the only guilty Party; &s;o that the de&s;ign of the Law was only to empower him to abet him&s;elf in all his U&s;urpations. But the mo&s;t plea&s;ant of all is, not only to ju&s;tifie Illegal Cu&s;toms by Laws that contradict them, and to make the Chief Offender again&s;t the Law, chief Judge of the Lega|lity of the Cu&s;tom, but under pretext of ancient cu&s;tom to bring in meer Innovati|ons. For though the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Con&s;tan|tinople</HI> had for &s;ome time U&s;urp'd &s;ome Authority in the <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> Dioce&s;&s;es, yet till this time they never challeng'd any in the <HI>We&s;tern;</HI> but by virtue of this Law, they hoped under-hand to gain it, though we do not find that ever it took effect;
<PB N="279" REF="144"> And it is probable that this was the fir&s;t beginning of the open Breach between <HI>Rome</HI> and <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> concerning the Bounds of Juri&s;diction; which as it was a great Controver&s;ie in after-Ages, <HI>Illy|ricum</HI> being the middle bound of both Empires, and <HI>Theodo&s;ius</HI> the Great having not long before laid the <HI>Ea&s;tern Illyricum</HI> to the <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> Empire, whereas all <HI>Illyri|cum</HI> had till that time belong'd to the <HI>We&s;tern;</HI> his Son, it &s;eems, thought it conventient to have <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Juri&s;dicti|on</HI> follow it, and that probably by the In|&s;tigation and Ambition of <HI>Atticus.</HI> But what effect it took is not certain, unle&s;s it be that the two <HI>Prelates,</HI> that were by this time &s;etting up for Supremacy in each Empire, engag'd the two Emperours in the conte&s;t; <HI>Honorius</HI> the <HI>We&s;tern</HI> Empe|rour upon the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI>'s complaint <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Hol&s;ten Col|lect Rom. p.</HI> 81. <HI>&amp;c. Now in&s;er|ted into the Concil. max.</HI></NOTE> writes to <HI>Theodo&s;ius</HI> to withdraw the E|dict; <HI>Theodo&s;ius</HI> promi&s;es to refer it to the Examination of his <HI>Praefectus Praetorio;</HI> but what was done in it we know not, pro|bably nothing at all, for it was ever after upon any advantage on either &s;ide brought into debate, though for the mo&s;t part the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> was at the la&s;t in this, as he was in all other controver&s;ies, Victor. But the after-conte&s;ts about it relate not to my pre&s;ent Enquiry, which is to find
<PB N="280" REF="145"> out the beginnings of <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;tical &V;&s;ur|pation;</HI> and e&s;pecially in the See of <HI>Con|&s;tantinople,</HI> and here more particularly by <HI>Atticus.</HI></P>
<P>But though the <HI>Con&s;tantinoplitans</HI> could not prevail in the <HI>We&s;t,</HI> yet they kept their ground in the <HI>Ea&s;t.</HI> Of <HI>Si&s;innius</HI> who was immediate Succe&s;&s;or to <HI>Atticus,</HI> and his invading the Metropolis of <HI>Cyzicum,</HI> we have &s;poken already. To him &s;ucceeds <HI>Ne|&s;torius</HI> a man of that fiery Temper, that had he not &s;hortned his Reign, like <HI>Nero,</HI> by his own folly and fury, would no doubt have &s;et all the Chri&s;tian World on fire, as he did <HI>Constantinople</HI> at his very <HI>Con&s;ecration,</HI> whence he was ever after commonly called the <HI>Incendiary.</HI> But he had work enough to defend him&s;elf and his new <HI>Metaphy&s;icks,</HI> and was in a little time depo&s;ed by the Council of <HI>Ephe&s;us.</HI> Neither is there any thing material record|ded of <HI>Maximianus</HI> who &s;ucceeded, pro|bably becau&s;e of the &s;hort time of his &s;it|ting. <HI>Proclus</HI> is next who&s;e management of matters in the ca&s;e of <HI>Ba&s;&s;ianus</HI> and <HI>Ste|phanus,</HI> and divers other Metropolitans, is more remarkable than all the re&s;t, and was indeed the very Settlement of their U&s;urpation; but becau&s;e this whole cau&s;e was canva&s;&s;ed in the Council of <HI>Calce|don,</HI> and was withall the fir&s;t thing that
<PB N="281" REF="145"> gave occa&s;ion of debating the Rights of <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> in that Council; I &s;hall re|fer its enquiry thither, which follow'd but a &s;hort time after under <HI>Anatolius,</HI> who &s;ucceeded him after <HI>Flavianus,</HI> and who with his Clergy defended the Prerogatives of the Church of <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> in the Council.</P>
<P>But having given this Compendious Hi&s;torical Account of the U&s;urpations of that See, between the time of the Coun|cil of <HI>Constantinople,</HI> who only honour'd it with a Complement, and this of <HI>Calce|don,</HI> who emprov'd an empty Title into great Eminence of Power; before I pro|ceed any farther, it will be convenient to examine a little what was done in other Churches of the &s;ame kind, either by the Example of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> or rather by their advancement in the State of the Em|pire. For it is certain that the fir&s;t breach that was made upon the ancient and Apo|&s;tolick Liberties of the Church, was occa|&s;ion'd by the rai&s;ing of &s;ome Metropoles above others in the new con&s;titution of the Empire. The Bi&s;hops that re&s;ided in the great Cities, that govern'd all the Metro|politan Cities of the Dioce&s;s, taking &s;tate upon them&s;elves from the greatne&s;s and dignity of their Sees, and probably had for that rea&s;on a Preheminence of Place
<PB N="282" REF="146"> and Re&s;pect given them; for we find &s;eve|ral of them in a &s;etled po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion of honour and precedency at the time of the Council of <HI>Calcedon,</HI> where were eight of them pre&s;ent, that in every Action are reckon'd before the re&s;t and &s;ub&s;cribe in the fir&s;t place, <HI>Rome, Con&s;tantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jeru&s;alem, Heraclea, Cae&s;area, Ephe&s;us,</HI> that were all Dioce&s;an Cities in the civil divi&s;ion of the Empire; and &s;o had by cu&s;tom it &s;eems gain'd &s;ome honour of precedency. But nothing more; for the Sub&s;criptions to this, as well as all o|ther Councils are made according to the Ancient Divi&s;ion of the Empire into Pro|vinces, not after the new model by Dio|ce&s;&s;es. And though the Bi&s;hop of the Di|oce&s;an City &s;ub&s;cribes fir&s;t, yet he only &s;ub&s;cribes as the Metropolitan of his own Province; and in the fir&s;t place, becau&s;e fir&s;t Metropolitan within the Dioce&s;s. Though this they would not be content with, without &s;ome Supremacy of Power, as is evident from all the forementioned Canons, made on purpo&s;e to beat back their &s;everal Attempts of U&s;urpation. But they per&s;i&s;ting in their Pretences, not only of higher Privileges, but greater Power than other Churches, at la&s;t obtain'd it in the Council of <HI>Calcedon,</HI> out of meer com|plement and flattery to the Throne of <HI>Con|&s;tantinople,</HI>
<PB N="283" REF="146"> for who&s;e &s;ake it was that all the other were advanced with no kindne&s;s to them&s;elves; for that being but a pri|vate Bi&s;hoprick, it had been too invidi|ous a thing to advance it to &s;o great a heighth, had it not &s;eem'd to give &s;ome kind of Equality to tho&s;e great Churches that could challenge &s;ome Title to Prero|gative; and therefore the Council gives them a Superiority of Power over Metro|politans within their own Dioce&s;s meerly to countenance that <HI>&V;niver&s;ality</HI> of <HI>Juri&s;|diction,</HI> that it gave to the See of <HI>Con&s;tan|tinople,</HI> Canon <HI>19th. If any Clerke have a controver&s;ie with another Clerke, he is to complain to his own Bi&s;hop, and not the Se|cular Courts; if a controver&s;ie with his Bi|&s;hop, to the Synod of the Province; if with his Metropolitan, to the</HI> Exarch <HI>of the Dio|ce&s;s, or the Throne of the Imperial City of</HI> Con&s;tantinople. The word <GAP DESC="foreign"> &s;igni|fies any kind of Supreme Authority, and &s;o we find in the Council of <HI>Sardica</HI> the <HI>Exarch</HI> of the Province u&s;ed as <HI>Synonymous</HI> with the Bi&s;hop of the Metropolis or the head Bi&s;hop of the Province. But becau&s;e it was a kind of Secular word, and was by cu&s;tom appropriated to the <HI>Vicarii</HI> of Di|oce&s;&s;es, it was thought too Lordly by the wi&s;e <HI>African</HI> Bi&s;hops, who were of all o|thers the mo&s;t watchful again&s;t the En|croachments
<PB N="284" REF="147"> of Ambition. And therefore they decreed in the 42. Canon of the <HI>Afri|can Code,</HI> that no Metropolitan &s;hall be &s;tiled <HI>Exarch,</HI> but only Bi&s;hop of the <HI>fir&s;t See.</HI> Which they did, &s;ay the <HI>Scholia&s;ts, Bal&s;amon</HI> and <HI>Zonaras,</HI> to prevent Pride and Arrogance in the Church; and I do not know that it is any where but in the Council of <HI>Sardica</HI> given to Metropoli|tans. And the fir&s;t time that we meet with the <HI>Exarch</HI> of a Dioce&s;s is in the Council of <HI>Calcedon;</HI> and therefore it is a mi&s;take without bottom in <HI>Petrus de Marca,</HI> to <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Lib.</HI> 1. <HI>cap.</HI> 3. &sect;. 5.</NOTE> affirm that this Title is u&s;ed by the Coun|cil of <HI>Con&s;tantinople;</HI> there indeed we meet with &s;uch a thing as a Dioce&s;s, but not an <HI>Exarch;</HI> and the word Dioce&s;s is u&s;ed as a term of Art in the State, rather than in the Church, and &s;ignifies only the Metropoli|tan of that City, that is made the Dioce|&s;an City in the new divi&s;ion of the Em|pire, excluding all Superiority over the other Metropolitans of the &s;ame Dioce&s;s. For the Canon expre&s;ly vouches the Su|premacy of every Metropolitan. So that the meaning of the <HI>Con&s;tantinoplitan</HI> Canon is only and plainly this, that whereas by the Decree of the Council of <HI>Nice,</HI> the Metropolitan had Supreme Juri&s;diction within his own Province; yet notwith|&s;tanding that the&s;e Bi&s;hops of the new
<PB N="285" REF="147"> Dioce&s;an Cities grew &s;o exorbitant as to take upon them Authority in other Chur|ches, even beyond the Bounds of their own civil Dioce&s;s; therefore the Council &s;e|verely checks this new kind of In&s;olence. And that being re&s;trein'd, it immediately adds, <HI>That the Supreme right of Metropoli|tans is &s;ufficiently &s;ecured by the Council of</HI> Nice. As if they &s;hould have &s;aid, we need take no care for that which is already &s;o well &s;ettled; our pre&s;ent bu&s;ine&s;s is to re&s;train this new exorbitance of the Dioce|&s;an Cities. And therefore it is ob&s;ervable that the Canon is particularly made for the five Dioce&s;&s;es under the <HI>Praefectus Praetorio</HI> of the <HI>Ea&s;t;</HI> the <HI>Ea&s;t</HI> peculiarly &s;o called, <HI>Aegypt, A&s;ia, Pontus</HI> and <HI>Thra|ce,</HI> as they are there reckoned up: But as in that Council we fir&s;t meet with the Term Dioce&s;s, as di&s;tinctly denoting ma|ny Provinces according to the new civil Divi&s;ion of the Empire; So in the fourth Council held at <HI>Calcedon,</HI> do we fir&s;t find the Settlement of the <HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Exarch</HI> of the&s;e Dioce&s;&s;es, as &s;et up above Metro|politans.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="25" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. XXIII.</HEAD>
<P>For matters having been long prepared by &s;o many &s;everal Attempts of U&s;urpation, though they were &s;till in general condemn'd by Councils, yet many
<PB N="286" REF="148"> particulars took effect and pa&s;s'd uncon|troll'd, and then they became Precedents to Authori&s;e the &s;ame Irregularities for the time to come. But e&s;pecially <HI>Con&s;tantin|ople,</HI> being &s;omewhat countenanced (as they Impudently pretended) by this very Canon of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> and having the mo&s;t ancient pre&s;cription in this kind; but chiefly the bold and open practice of St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom,</HI> who was now the Favorite of the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> from whom alone the <HI>Con&s;tantinoplitans</HI> fear'd any Oppo&s;iti|on; they thought all things ripe for the full accompli&s;hment and legal Settlement of their U&s;urpation. And this was the chief de&s;ign at the bottom in calling the great Council of <HI>Calcedon;</HI> and though it came upon the Stage la&s;t of all, and was brought in very obliquely, yet both par|ties &s;eem to have come particularly pre|par'd for this Combate; and upon every &s;light occa&s;ion have their hands upon their Swords ready to draw. The fir&s;t breaking out of the Quarrel was from the Conte&s;t between <HI>Ba&s;&s;ianus</HI> and <HI>Stephanus</HI> for the Bi&s;hoprick of <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> to which neither of them being Canonically ordein'd, the Council Depo&s;e them both; and then the Que&s;tion is abruptly enough &s;tarted, where the new Bi&s;hop &s;hould be Con&s;ecra|ted, at <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> or <HI>Ephe&s;us?</HI> Upon
<PB N="287" REF="148"> this the Council is immediately in an up|roar, the Judges refer it to the Bi&s;hops, where the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> ought to be regularly ordein'd according to the Can|ons? They all An&s;wer within his own Province, and this <HI>Leontius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Mag|ne&s;ia,</HI> proves over and above by the Uni|ver&s;al practice of that Church, down from St. <HI>Timothy</HI> its fir&s;t Bi&s;hop. This immedi|ately gives fire to the <HI>Con&s;tantinoplitans;</HI> and though they dur&s;t not appear whil&s;t the Cau&s;e was referr'd to the Canons, yet the word <HI>Cu&s;tom</HI> was no &s;ooner mention'd, than they all Di&s;charge. <HI>Philip</HI> a Pres|byter of that Church contradicts it with the Practice of St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom,</HI> who De|pos'd fifteen Bi&s;hops in <HI>A&s;ia,</HI> and ordein'd others in their &s;tead; and among the re&s;t <HI>Memnon</HI> was ordein'd at <HI>Con&s;tantinople. Aetius</HI> the <HI>Arch-Deacon</HI> of <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> alledges the Precedents of <HI>Ca&s;tinus, Hera|clides</HI> and <HI>Ba&s;ilius</HI> Bi&s;hops of <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> and all ordain'd at <HI>Con&s;tantinople.</HI> To which the Bi&s;hops cry out <GAP DESC="foreign">. <HI>Let the Canons prevail.</HI> And the <HI>Con&s;tantino|politans</HI> an&s;wer; <HI>Yes let them, but let not the Privileges of the Church of</HI> Con&s;tantinople <HI>be impair'd, and let our Arch-Bi&s;hop ordein according to Cu&s;tom.</HI> Here the di&s;ingenuity of the <HI>Con&s;tantinopolitans</HI> is notorious, not only to &s;et up cu&s;tom again&s;t the <HI>Nicene</HI>
<PB N="288" REF="149"> Canons, for if it were again&s;t them, that alone mu&s;t prove it illegal, but to pre|&s;cribe a Cu&s;tom from &s;o few Precedents; for St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI>'s depo&s;ing fifteen Bi&s;hops in <HI>A&s;ia,</HI> as <HI>Philippus</HI> pleads, was nothing to the purpo&s;e, for his ordeining Bi&s;hops at <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> when he did it not at <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> but in the Province of <HI>A&s;ia;</HI> But <HI>Aetius</HI> his Plea of cu&s;tom from the In&s;tance of <HI>Ba&s;ilius</HI> is very Impudent, when he was inform'd ju&s;t before by <HI>Le|ontius,</HI> that this was done by force, again&s;t the will of the <HI>A&s;ian</HI> Churches, and with great Tumults and Di&s;orders; and yet from this violent and irregular action, which they were forc'd to maintain by the Emperours Authority, he does not blu&s;h to in&s;i&s;t upon the Plea of Pre&s;cription. But the Judges finding the debate &s;o warm and the Arguments of the <HI>Con&s;tantinopolitans</HI> &s;o weak, adjourn the Council to the next day, in which nothing was treated of but the Cau&s;e of <HI>Ba&s;&s;ianus</HI> and <HI>Stephanus.</HI> So that that opportunity being lo&s;t, the next Action of the Council was taken up with the Controver&s;ie between <HI>Eunomius</HI> Bi|&s;hop of <HI>Nicomedia,</HI> and <HI>Anasta&s;ius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Nice; Nicomedia</HI> was the ancient Me|tropolis of <HI>Bythinia,</HI> and &s;o the Bi&s;hop of it had Juri&s;diction over the whole Pro|vince; but <HI>Nice</HI> having been lately made
<PB N="289" REF="149"> a Metropolitan City by the Emperour; the Bi&s;hop of it thereupon took upon him Metropolitical Authority in &s;ome part of the Province, e&s;pecially in the Bi&s;hoprick of <HI>Ba&s;ilonopolis;</HI> of this <HI>Eunomius</HI> makes complaint to the Council, who upon per|u&s;al of the Canons, and the Emperours Letter of Grant, to <HI>Nice,</HI> determine (as was u&s;ual in &s;uch ca&s;es) that according to the ancient Canons, the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Nico|media</HI> &s;hall enjoy the Metropolitical Au|thority of the Province; and the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Nice,</HI> in obedience to the Emperours grant, Metropolitical honour, but &s;o as to be Subject to his Metropolitan as well as the other Bi&s;hops of the Province. This one would think remote enough from the Cau&s;e of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> yet here <HI>Aetius</HI> is not able to hold, but enters his Prote|&s;tation that this Judgement &s;hould be no Prejudice to the See of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> that had Power to ordein in <HI>Ba&s;ilonopolis</HI> and other Places. So that thereby the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> had a Right to ordein not only Metropolitans, but inferior Bi&s;hops, and &s;o this mans Confidence improves in every Action. But here it rais'd the Cho|ler and indignation of the Bi&s;hops, and renews their former Cry, <HI>to the Canons, to the Canons,</HI> and that cau&s;es the adjourn|ment of the Council.</P>
<PB N="290" REF="150">
<P> The next Action's taken up with the cau&s;e of <HI>Domnus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch,</HI> and <HI>A|thana&s;ius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Perrha,</HI> who being ac|cus'd of great Crimes; <HI>Domnus</HI> refers the hearing of the Cau&s;e to his Friend <HI>Pan|olbius,</HI> and yet <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> declines the Judgement, refu&s;es to appear, and re&s;igns his Bi&s;hoprick. And after all this repairs to <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> tells a &s;trange Story to <HI>Proclus</HI> and <HI>Cyrillus,</HI> who embrace his ap|peal, e&s;pecially <HI>Proclus,</HI> and write to <HI>Domnus</HI> in his behalf, wherein among o|ther things <HI>Proclus</HI> de&s;ires him not to take it ill as an injury offer'd to the See of <HI>An|tioch,</HI> that his Bi&s;hop &s;hould take refuge at <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> but that he did it to a|void the Tumult and Sedition of the Peo|ple; and therefore begg'd the Interce&s;&s;ion of <HI>Proclus</HI> and his Brother <HI>Cyril,</HI> as the mo&s;t mode&s;t and peaceable way to recon|cile him&s;elf to his Metropolitan. Arm'd with the&s;e Letters, he returns home, throws out <HI>Sabinianus,</HI> that was cho&s;en into his Place, and re&s;umes his Bi&s;hoprick, of which <HI>Sabinianus</HI> making his Com|plaint to the Council, they depo&s;e <HI>Atha|na&s;ius</HI> and re&s;tore him. Here we may &s;ee how ready the <HI>Con&s;tantinopolitans</HI> were to embrace and encourage &s;uch Fugitives; but above all the re&s;t <HI>Proclus</HI> was mo&s;t forward in the&s;e Irregularities, and made
<PB N="291" REF="150"> the bolde&s;t Precedents. It was he that or|dein'd <HI>Ba&s;ilius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> at <HI>Con|&s;tantinople</HI> in &s;pite of the Bi&s;hops of the Province; it was he that Protected <HI>Ba&s;&s;i|anus,</HI> both again&s;t the Canons and his Provincial Synod; and it is he that under|takes the fowl Cau&s;e of <HI>Athana&s;ius,</HI> in ap|pealing from his Metropolitan, and with|out making due Enquiry into the Merits of it, right or wrong interpo&s;es for his Re|&s;titution.</P>
<P>And now we come to the <HI>15th.</HI> Action in which the Canons of this Council are pa&s;s'd; and here the <HI>Con&s;tantinopolitans</HI> &s;eem to have been too &s;ubtile for the <HI>Romani&s;ts,</HI> for though they were both upon their Guard, yet the <HI>Popes Legates,</HI> I know not by what Inadvertency, voted with them, till they came to the twenty eighth Canon, which gave the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> a &s;trange kind of new Exorbitant Power. But before that, they had in effect given him as much as that demanded; for in the forementioned ninth Canon, it is enacted, That the la&s;t Appeal from the Metropoli|tan of the Province, is to be made either to the <HI>Exarch</HI> of the Dioce&s;s, or the Bi|&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople.</HI> The de&s;ign of this is plain enough, the <HI>Exarch</HI>'s or Bi&s;hops of the Dioce&s;an Cities were to be gratifi|ed in their Ambition of gaining a Superi|ority
<PB N="292" REF="151"> over the Metropolitans of the Dioce&s;s, and that was enough to oblige tho&s;e great Prelates, that drew the re&s;t after them to a forward complyance, for any thing that would gratifie the <HI>Con&s;tantinopolitan</HI> Cler|gy, that were the grand Contrivers of this Canon. And that was &s;o order'd as at the &s;ame time, that it gave them their Power, it took it away, and &s;ettled it all on the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> for where|as their Power was limited to their own Dioce&s;&s;es, his was Univer&s;al and unlimi|ted; and that engro&s;s'd all their Powers in his own hands. For where &s;everal Li|berties of Appeal are granted, if one be greater than another, as all Per&s;ons natu|rally re&s;ort to that, &s;o that as naturally takes all Appeals from the other Courts in|to its own Juri&s;diction, and makes it &s;elf Superior Judge of their Proceedings, and la&s;t head of all Appeals from them to it &s;elf. This was well contriv'd for the Supremacy of their own See; but it is better rivetted in the &s;eventeenth Canon, where it is decreed, that all Controver|&s;ies about Bounds of Juri&s;diction, &s;hall be referr'd to the Synod of the Province, and determin'd by thirty years Pre&s;cription; but if the Cu&s;tom be within the la&s;t thir|ty years, the Appeal may be made to the <HI>Exarch</HI> of the Dioce&s;s, or the Bi&s;hop of
<PB N="293" REF="151"> <HI>Con&s;tantinople.</HI> And hereby they made them&s;elves Judges of the Legality of their own Proceedings. For as for the Actions of St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom,</HI> they had been already ju&s;tified to &s;ome purpo&s;e by the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> and therefore they were &s;ecure of their allowance; and as for <HI>Proclus</HI>'s tran&s;|gre&s;&s;ions, that they pleaded as their main Precedents, they were within le&s;s than the Compa&s;s of thirty years; for he &s;ate in the Throne twelve years and odd months, dyed in the year 446. whereas the Coun|cil was conven'd in the year 451. So that by this Cannon they took the la&s;t Supreme Appeal, concerning all Irregular Actions to them&s;elves; and when they had made them&s;elves their own Judges, we may be &s;ure that they would not fail to be their own Advocates, and take care of their own Cau&s;e. Thus far the Council and the Legates went lovingly together; but the <HI>Con&s;tantinopolitans</HI> having gain'd this Ad|vantage to Authori&s;e their own Innovati|ons; they immediately &s;weep the three great Dioce&s;&s;es of <HI>A&s;ia, Pontus</HI> and <HI>Thrace</HI> into their own Juri&s;diction, becau&s;e they knew they had thirty years Pre&s;cription for their U&s;urpations there. But this was pa&s;s'd by &s;tealth, and in the ab&s;ence not only of the <HI>Legates,</HI> but in the ab&s;ence of the <HI>Exarch</HI> of <HI>Pontus,</HI> and the vacancy of
<PB N="294" REF="152"> <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> that were the chief Per&s;ons con|cern'd; and by the Votes of not above two hundred Bi&s;hops, that were not a|bove the third part of the Council. Of this the <HI>Legates</HI> next day make grievous Complaint; But <HI>Aetius</HI> an&s;wers as to their Ab&s;ence, that they ab&s;ented them&s;elves, and that they were acquaintd with the bu&s;ine&s;s, but refu&s;ed to act, as being be|yond their Commi&s;&s;ion. And to their Ob|jection of the Canon of <HI>Nice,</HI> for the Su|preme Power of Metropolitans in their Province, that was here de&s;troy'd, he op|po&s;es after his u&s;ual Rate of Impudence the &s;econd Canon of the Council of <HI>Con|&s;tantinople,</HI> for the honorary precedency of that City next to <HI>Rome.</HI> As for the Pretence of Compul&s;ion, the Bi&s;hops of <HI>A&s;ia</HI> and <HI>Pontus,</HI> that were mo&s;t concern'd (for <HI>Thrace</HI> was already devour'd) declare the freedom of their Vote and Sub&s;cripti|on. The other Bi&s;hops that had not Sub|&s;cribed, being ask'd their Opinion, were for the mo&s;t part &s;ilent, only <HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> Bi|&s;hop of <HI>Ancyra</HI> a&s;&s;erts the right of his Pro|vince of <HI>Galatia,</HI> and complains of the late inva&s;ion of <HI>Proclus,</HI> in ordeining the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Gangra</HI> within his Province. But here he is &s;chool'd by <HI>Anatolius,</HI> and call'd to give an Account of his own Ordinati|on; to which he confe&s;&s;es, that him&s;elf
<PB N="295" REF="152"> was ordein'd by <HI>Proclus,</HI> Upon this <HI>Tha|la&s;&s;ius</HI> Metropolitan of <HI>Pontus,</HI> and &s;o the Per&s;on mo&s;t concern'd, having been an old Courtier, and &s;eeing which way the Court drove, &s;ubmits him&s;elf to the Bi|&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople;</HI> the Judges &s;ie&s;e his complement, and without any farther Ceremony, Subject the Dioce&s;&s;es of <HI>Thra|ce, A&s;ia</HI> and <HI>Pontus</HI> to his Juri&s;diction, and &s;o (the <HI>Legates</HI> having only time to pro|te&s;t again&s;t it) break up the Council. And thus is this new Power in&s;tituted over Metropolitans, that had hitherto held their Original Supremacy in the Church; for whereas they were not ordein'd but by the Synod of their own Province, nor Sub|ject to any Authority out of it; now are the Metropolitans of <HI>Thrace, Pontus</HI> and <HI>A&s;ia</HI> reduc'd under an Inferior Bi&s;hop, &s;o as to be Subject to him and ordein'd by him. Though the Canon is piec'd toge|ther &s;o awkerdly, as plainly &s;hews the Impudence of its contrivers; they found it upon the Privileges granted by the Council of <HI>Constantinople</HI> to that See, which was nothing but Precedency of Honour; and yet by vertue of that they Subject <HI>Thrace, A&s;ia,</HI> and <HI>Pontus</HI> to its Juri&s;diction; notwith&s;tanding that the &s;ame Council at the &s;ame time, had &s;e|cur'd their Government to their own Me|tropolitans;
<PB N="296" REF="153"> &s;o that the &s;ence of the Canon was plainly this, fora&s;much as the Council of <HI>Constantinople</HI> hath ordein'd, that <HI>Thrace, Pontus</HI> and <HI>A&s;ia,</HI> &s;hall be govern'd by the Metropolitans of <HI>Heraclea, Cae&s;area,</HI> and <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> and none other; in pur&s;uance thereof we ordein that both they and their Metropolitans &s;hall be Subject to the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Constantinople.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="26" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. XXIV.</HEAD>
<P>But all this is only the open|ing of War, and &s;etting up the Standard of U&s;urpation, for at the News hereof the great <HI>Pope Leo</HI> is alarm'd, as &s;eeing him|&s;elf like to be overtop'd by <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> having &s;o large a Juri&s;diction laid to its Authority; a Power which him&s;elf and Predece&s;&s;ors had never directly pretended to. But that he might not be &s;urpri&s;ed, the Council it &s;elf takes care to acquaint him with their Proceedings in a Synodical Epi&s;tle, in which they tell him, that they had confirm'd the Precedency of Honour to <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> next to <HI>Rome,</HI> becau&s;e it had been &s;etled upon it by the &s;econd ge|neral <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 837. <HI>eam nam&abque; con&s;uetudi|nem,</HI> &amp;c.</NOTE> Council; and whereas there had been a Cu&s;tom of a long &s;tanding for the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> to ordein the Metropolitans of <HI>A&s;ia, Pontus</HI> and <HI>Thrace,</HI> they had thought good to E&s;tabli&s;h it by a Synodical Decree, not that they de&s;ign'd
<PB N="297" REF="153"> to add any thing to the Throne of <HI>Con|&s;tantinople,</HI> but only to provide for the Peace of the Churches, e&s;pecially <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> where had happen'd &s;o many Tumults and Di&s;orders in times of Vacancy; and to all this they &s;ay, they were induc'd be|cau&s;e they knew it to be a thing very ac|ceptable, not only to the mo&s;t Chri&s;tian Emperours them&s;elves, but al&s;o to the Il|lu&s;trious Senat, and to the whole Impe|rial City; and therefore de&s;ire his con|currence to &s;o grateful a Work. But <HI>Pope Leo</HI> was wi&s;er than to be put off with &s;uch rank Hypocri&s;ie. and fir&s;t he &s;chools <HI>Ana|tolius</HI> him&s;elf, writes him a &s;harp Letter, lays all this Prevarication at his Door, twits him with his own &s;carce Canonical C<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters">i<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters">tion and then with his pre&s;uming to Com<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="5 letters"> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 span"> of <HI>Antioch,</HI> and then tells him that he is <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters">ry, that after the&s;e failings he &s;hould be &s;o pre&s;umptuous as to infringe the <HI>Nicene</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="4 letters">ons, by which the &s;econd Preeminence <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> Honour is &s;etled upon the See of <HI>Alexand<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="2 letters"></HI> and the third upon <HI>Antioch;</HI> and yet <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="UOM" EXTENT="1 word"> with&s;tanding that, he &s;hould place him|&s;elf about them, and deprive all other Me|tropolitans of their ju&s;t Honour; for which unheard of Attempts, he abu&s;es the Authority of the Council, that was only call'd to extingui&s;h, not to abet Ambiti|on:
<PB N="298" REF="154"> But all in vain, for nothing can ever take effect, that is contrary to the <HI>Nicene</HI> Canons, that are receiv'd through the whole world, and are to continue in force to the end of it; and therefore he requires him to de&s;i&s;t from the&s;e Attempts for the time to come, and not upon frivolous Pretences, to de&s;troy the Right of Pro|vinces, and the ancient Privileges of Me|tropolitans, not to rob St. <HI>Mark</HI>'s See of <HI>Alexandria,</HI> and St. <HI>Peter</HI>'s of <HI>Antioch</HI> of their Dignity; but if he have a mind to advance his own See, his be&s;t way to do it, is by being an Example to other Churches in Vertue and Humility, by which he will make him&s;elf greater than by all his ways of Ambition. And as for the Canon of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> that &s;et|tles the &s;econd Place of Preheminence upon that See; he tells him that the Apo&s;tolick See was never acquainted with it, and that it was now too late to prop up &s;uch a tot|tering Title by forcing the &s;hew of a Con|firmation from the Council. And then deals plainly with the Emperour and Em|pere&s;s, by acquainting them with the In|&s;olency of <HI>Anatolius,</HI> and the Illegality of his Attempt to get Power over Metropo|litans, declares his utmo&s;t Oppo&s;ition, and threatens Peremptory Excommunication. And here the only thing he pretends to
<PB N="299" REF="154"> &s;tand upon, is the Authority of the Coun|cil of <HI>Nice,</HI> by which the Supremacy of Metropolitans within their Province is e&s;tabli&s;h'd; this Rule he will by no means &s;uffer to be violated, but will have it &s;o Sacred and Unalterable, that it cannot be retrench'd by any Council how great &s;o ever. And therefore he requires <HI>Anatoli|us</HI> to de&s;i&s;t from this Ambition, with &s;ome &s;evere &s;ugge&s;tions if he doth not, and conjures the Emperour and Empere&s;s not to &s;uffer &s;uch an unwarrantable Innovati|on to be thru&s;t upon the Church in their time, as they would not &s;tein the Honour of their Reign. Then he takes the Council it &s;elf to task, and &s;ends them too to School to the <HI>Nicene</HI> Council. After this <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 15. <HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 17.</NOTE> he incites <HI>Maximus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch,</HI> to maintain the Right of his See, as it &s;tood &s;etled by the Council of <HI>Nice,</HI> and not &s;uffer him&s;elf, that was the third Bi&s;hop in the World, to be thru&s;t down into the fourth place by the Pride and Ambition of <HI>Con&s;tantinople.</HI> At the roaring of this great Lyon (as <HI>Baronius</HI> wittily in&s;ults) they are all affrighted. The Emperour <HI>Marcian</HI> by Edict nulls his confirmation of the <HI>Calcedon</HI> Canon, as contrary to the <HI>Nicene</HI> Canons; and acknowledges all E|dicts of Princes, that are incon&s;i&s;tent with them, not to be obligatory. <HI>Anatolius</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Leon Ep.</HI> 7.</NOTE>
<PB N="300" REF="155"> &s;ubmits and transfers the fault from him|&s;elf to his Clergy, and is hardly forgiven by the <HI>Pope,</HI> even at the Emperours Inter|ce&s;&s;ion. <HI>See</HI> (&s;ays <HI>Baronius) the Sovereign Power of the</HI> Pope <HI>over the</HI> Catholick <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Anno</HI> 454.</NOTE> Church, <HI>who alone was able to rever&s;e and countermand the Decree of &s;ix hundred Bi|&s;hops.</HI> But for this Complement <HI>Pope Leo</HI> is beholden to the Cardinal, for in his own Epi&s;tles, (though he was a &s;tout and an Imperious <HI>Pope,</HI> and without doubt de|&s;ign'd the <HI>Papal</HI> Monarchy of the Apo&s;to|lick See, as high as any of the whole Suc|ce&s;&s;ion) he makes no &s;uch Pretence to any Sovereign Authority; he claims no Pow|er Superior to Metropolitans; nay he ex|pre&s;ly di&s;claims it as a Breach of the <HI>Nice|ne</HI> Canons, and that is the ground of his Remon&s;trance; &s;o that he here &s;tands not upon his own Authority (as <HI>Baronius</HI> in|timates) as if it were to overrule a general Council, but only upon the great Autho|rity of the Council of <HI>Nice,</HI> in obedience to which he enters his Prote&s;tation again&s;t the Council of <HI>Calcedon,</HI> declaring they had Power to determin any Cau&s;es that were left undetermin'd by the <HI>Nicene</HI> Council; and that he would not have concern'd him&s;elf about it, but whil&s;t they &s;o openly contradicted that, he for his part mu&s;t declare to all the World that all
<PB N="301" REF="155"> Canons and Laws contrary to the De|crees of <HI>Nice,</HI> are <HI>ip&s;o facto,</HI> null and void. This is &s;hort is the plain &s;ub&s;tance of all his thundering Epi&s;tles about this mat|ter.</P>
<P>And &s;o he dying things re&s;ted a while during the Reign of <HI>Marcian,</HI> and the &s;itting of <HI>Gennadius,</HI> who &s;ucceeded <HI>Ana|tolius</HI> at <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> and <HI>Hilarius</HI> who &s;ucceeded <HI>Leo</HI> at <HI>Rome.</HI> But the <HI>We&s;tern</HI> Empire being then invaded and overrun by the barbarous Nations, <HI>Rome</HI> it &s;elf twice taken by the <HI>Goths,</HI> and at that in|&s;tant en&s;lav'd by the <HI>Hunns,</HI> and the <HI>He|ruli,</HI> and perpetually wa&s;ted with <HI>Nor|thern</HI> Incur&s;ions, and reduced into Sub|jection to Forreigners, and at be&s;t when they enjoyed any Liberty, were govern'd by a <HI>Vice-Roy</HI> from <HI>Constantinople;</HI> This <HI>Acacius</HI> a bold man, who &s;ucceeded next in that Throne, thought a convenient time to recover the grandeur of that See. And therefore obteins a Re&s;cript from the Emperour <HI>Leo,</HI> to re&s;tore him to all the rights, Priviledges and Preeminences that any of his Predece&s;&s;ors ever enjoy'd, and to null all Laws made to the contrary. <HI>Sacro&s;anctam quoque Religio&s;i&s;&s;imae hujus Ci|vitatis Eccle&s;iam &amp; matrem no&s;trae pietatis, &amp; Chri&s;tianorum Orthodoxae Religionis om|nium,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Lib.</HI> 16. <HI>De Sacro&s;anct. Eccle&s;i.</HI></NOTE> <HI>&amp; eju&s;dem regiae &V;rbis Sancti&s;&s;imam</HI>
<PB N="302" REF="156"> <HI>&s;edem privilegia &amp; honores omnes &s;uper Epi&s;|coporum creationibus, &amp; jura ante alios re&s;i|dendi, &amp; caetera omnia, quae ante no&s;trum im|perium, vel nobis imperantibus habui&s;&s;e dig|no&s;citur, habere in perpetuum firmiter regiae</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Gela&s;E.</HI> 11.</NOTE> <HI>urbis intuitu judicamus &amp; &s;ancimus.</HI> This immediately nettles <HI>Pope Simplicius,</HI> and away he writes both to <HI>Acacius</HI> and the Emperour, rates them both for their di&s;|orderly actings, and requires them to de|&s;i&s;t from their Attempts. But all in vain, for the Emperour never revers'd his Edict, neither would <HI>Acacius</HI> yield to any of his demands. Only in the depo&s;ition of <HI>Ti|motheus Aelurus</HI> from <HI>Alexandria,</HI> he was pleas'd to gratifie the <HI>Popes</HI> Importunity, and no wonder, when he had been one of the bolde&s;t A&s;&s;ertors of the rights of the Church, again&s;t the <HI>Con&s;tantinopolitan</HI> U|&s;urpation. The &s;tory in &s;hort is this: The Tyrant <HI>Ba&s;ili&s;cus</HI> having put the Empe|rour <HI>Zeno</HI> to flight, and &s;eis'd the Em|pire, he calls back <HI>Timotheus Aelurus</HI> from Bani&s;hment, whom the Emperour <HI>Leo</HI> had Bani&s;h'd becau&s;e of his re&s;tle&s;s Temper; but he returning to the Bi&s;hoprick of <HI>A|lexandria</HI> procured circular Letters of the <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Evag. l.</HI> 3.</NOTE> Tyrant to revoke all the Decrees of the Council of <HI>Calcedon,</HI> and though he did this chiefly for the &s;ake of his Here&s;ie, yet by this means he re&s;tor'd the dignity of
<PB N="303" REF="156"> his own Church, and (as <HI>Evagrius</HI> records it) the Patriarchal right of <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> which had been taken away by the Council of <HI>Calcedon,</HI> which though true, the Hi&s;to|rian is &s;omewhat mi&s;taken, for <HI>Ephe&s;us</HI> never actually enjoy'd a Patriarchal Right, <HI>i. e.</HI> a Power over Metropolitans; but the meaning of the Hi&s;torian is that it was re|&s;tor'd to its ancient Liberty, which the Council had taken away by Subjecting it to the See of <HI>Con&s;tantinople;</HI> &s;o that it was not re&s;tor'd to its own Patriarchal right, but was deliver'd from that of <HI>Con&s;tantin|ople.</HI> But a while after the Tyrant being di&s;tre&s;s'd by <HI>Acacius</HI> and his <HI>Monks,</HI> and hearing that <HI>Zeno</HI> was marching towards him with a great Army, to appea&s;e <HI>Acaci|us,</HI> he recants his former Edict to <HI>Timo|theus Aelurus,</HI> and re&s;tores the Patriarch|al right of <HI>Con&s;tantinople;</HI> and then he be|ing overcome, and <HI>Zeno</HI> re&s;tor'd to the Imperial Throne, <HI>Acacius,</HI> who was the chiefe&s;t in&s;trument of his Re&s;titution, ea|&s;ily obteins of him to condemn the Ty|rants fir&s;t Edict, and confirm'd the Patri|archal priviledges of the Royal City. And flu&s;h't with this Succe&s;s and the Emperours de&s;erved Favour; he mounts above all Power in the Chri&s;tian Church, places and di&s;places Arch-Bi&s;hops in the great Cities of <HI>Alexandria</HI> and <HI>Antioch</HI> at his
<PB N="304" REF="157"> plea&s;ure. When he had depos'd <HI>Calendion</HI> at <HI>Antioch,</HI> he would never at all the <HI>Popes</HI> Importunity yeild to his Re&s;titution: And when <HI>John</HI> the new cho&s;en Bi&s;hop of <HI>Alex|andria</HI> neglected to &s;ignifie his Election to him, he removes him by the Emperours Authority, and places <HI>Petrus Moggus</HI> in his &s;tead. The <HI>Pope</HI> vehemently oppo&s;es it, but the Emperour at the In&s;tigation of <HI>A|cacius,</HI> &s;ends his peremptory commands to the Prefect of <HI>Aegypt,</HI> to Bani&s;h <HI>John</HI> and in&s;tal <HI>Peter; John</HI> flies to <HI>Rome</HI> and beggs the <HI>Popes</HI> a&s;&s;i&s;tance for his re&s;titution, who entertains his Suit, but dyes before he could effect it, and leaves it to his Succe&s;|&s;or <HI>Faelix,</HI> who receives from <HI>John</HI> Ar|ticles again&s;t <HI>Acacius,</HI> and writes to the Emperour to &s;end him to <HI>Rome</HI> to clear him&s;elf in Council there; but <HI>Acacius</HI> out|wits his Legates, and draws them into Communicate publickly, not only with him&s;elf but <HI>Peter Moggus,</HI> and &s;ends them <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Evag. l.</HI> 3. <HI>Cap.</HI> 18. 21.</NOTE> back with &s;mart Letters from the Empe|rour and him&s;elf again&s;t <HI>John,</HI> and Impri|&s;ons <HI>Faelix</HI> the <HI>Popes</HI> own Kin&s;man, be|cau&s;e he refu&s;ed to joyn in Communion with them. Upon this <HI>Faelix</HI> Depo&s;es and Excommunicates not only his Legates, but <HI>Acacius</HI> and <HI>Peter Moggus;</HI> upon that <HI>Acacius</HI> fires, and as he had before Depos'd <HI>Calendion</HI> from the See of <HI>Antioch</HI> in &s;pite
<PB N="305" REF="157"> of <HI>Simplicius;</HI> &s;o now he puts <HI>Petrus Fullo</HI> that &s;tood convicted of Here&s;ie by the Apo&s;tolick See, in his &s;tead, requites the <HI>Pope</HI> with his own Curte&s;ie of Excommu|nication, and &s;trikes his name out of the Dypticks of the Church. A &s;econd Coun|cil is call'd at <HI>Rome,</HI> and <HI>Acacius</HI> Excom|municated a &s;econd time, particularly for his Stubbornne&s;s again&s;t <HI>Calendion,</HI> and this is &s;ignified to the Emperour, the Clergy of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> and the <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> Bi&s;hops. But <HI>Acacius</HI> a &s;econd time overcomes his Legate with Bribes, and makes him di&s;|cover all the Plots and De&s;igns at <HI>Rome</HI> again&s;t him, &s;tands undauntedly to his cau&s;e; and not long after dyes the very <HI>Thomas a Becket</HI> of the Church of <HI>Con&s;tan|tinople,</HI> and his memory was &s;o dear to the People of that City, that the Emperour <HI>Ana&s;ta&s;ius</HI> a good time after, to make him|&s;elf popular to the <HI>Con&s;tantinopolitans,</HI> re|fu&s;ed to have his name expung'd out of the Dypticks, at the Importunity of <HI>Pope Hormi&s;das</HI> for this very rea&s;on, le&s;t it might rai&s;e a Tumult among the Peo|ple, who honoured his name above all others.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="27" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. XXV.</HEAD>
<P>But though he was dead, the Controver&s;ie dyes not with him; <HI>Phrani|tas</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 13.</NOTE> &s;ucceeds, to whom <HI>Pope Faelix</HI> refu&s;es
<PB N="306" REF="158"> communion, till the name of <HI>Acacius</HI> be expung'd; but before the Controver&s;ie came to any head, or indeed that he re|ceiv'd the <HI>Popes</HI> Letter, <HI>Phranitas</HI> dyes within four months after his Election. To him &s;ucceeds <HI>Euphemius</HI> an Orthodox Bi|&s;hop, he re&s;tores <HI>Faelix</HI> his name to the Dypticks; but becau&s;e he would not ex|punge <HI>Acacius, Faelix</HI> admitts him not to <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Liberaetus Cap.</HI> 18.</NOTE> Communion; and writing a Congratula|tory Letter to the Emperour <HI>Zeno,</HI> for the choice of &s;o good a Bi&s;hop, he tells him that this is the only thing that remain'd to perfect his Reformation; and then writes to <HI>Thala&s;&s;ius, Prior</HI> of the <HI>Monks</HI> of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> and <HI>Vetranio</HI> the Depo&s;ed Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch,</HI> not to Communicate with the Church of <HI>Constantinople,</HI> till the name of <HI>Acacius</HI> was expung'd, and that they had leave from the Apo&s;tolical See. And that Plea is very ob&s;ervable in his and <HI>Leo</HI>'s Letters; many &s;trictures there are of it in the other <HI>Popes</HI> from the time of <HI>In|nocent</HI> the fir&s;t, but the&s;e finding them|&s;elves over power'd by the Court of <HI>Con|stantinople,</HI> leave the Plea of Primacy from the dignity of their City, and the Vote of the Council of <HI>Nice,</HI> and in&s;i&s;t upon no|thing but the honour of St. <HI>Peter,</HI> and the Authority of the Apo&s;tolick See, to bear up again&s;t the greatne&s;s of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI>
<PB N="307" REF="158"> and the favour of the Emperours to their Imperial City; and by the Confidence of this new Plea bore them down, oppo&s;ing the name of St. <HI>Peter,</HI> to what ever the Emperours Enacted; and at la&s;t this <HI>Pope</HI> made a Decree, that in Eccle&s;ia&s;tical mat|ters <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Gratian dist.</HI> 10.</NOTE> the Prie&s;tly Authority ought to over|rule the Imperial, knowing that if that were cut off from the See of <HI>Con&s;tantin|ople,</HI> he could ea&s;ily over-top all its pre|tences, that was t'other day but a private Bi&s;hoprick by Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Law and Pre|&s;cription. And as he rai&s;ed this Pretence &s;o high, none of his Succe&s;&s;ors would ever abate it; <HI>Gela&s;ius</HI> a &s;tiff man that follow'd next, refu&s;es all Communion with <HI>Euphe|mius</HI> of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> till <HI>Acacius</HI> is ex|pung'd; the pretence of all which wrath was his Complyance with the <HI>Eutychians</HI> in his latter days; but the fir&s;t Quarrel was his Ambition to over-top <HI>Rome,</HI> and therefore the <HI>Romani&s;ts</HI> re&s;olv'd never to let the bu&s;ine&s;s fall till they had bla&s;ted his name and memory, that had been their bolde&s;t and mo&s;t dangerous Adver&s;ary; and that is the thing in&s;i&s;ted upon in all <HI>Gala&s;ius</HI>'s Epi&s;tles to the Oriental Chur|ches, that <HI>Acacius</HI> is never to be forgiven, as dying in open Rebellion to the Autho|rity of the Apo&s;tolical See; which alone as he tells the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Dardania</HI> in his
<PB N="308" REF="159"> <HI>13th.</HI> Epi&s;tle, is &s;ufficient to warrant his Condemnation. And therefore to pre|vent mi&s;takes and Objections (that pro|bably were made at that time) he Pub|li&s;hes his Manife&s;to, that the Council of <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Council Max. Vol.</HI> 4. <HI>p.</HI> 1227.</NOTE> <HI>Calcedon</HI> was not &s;ufficient to ju&s;tifie his Proceedings; and that though that had given him &s;o great Authority, yet that being contradicted by the Apo&s;tolical See, was in it &s;elf void, the Acts of Councils having no force or validity without the Confirmation of the Apo&s;tolical See. And &s;o came out the meaning of their Zeal a|gain&s;t <HI>Acacius;</HI> the Cry was his Comply|ance with the <HI>Eutychians.</HI> But, I pray why is that a Crime? Becau&s;e condemn'd by the Council of <HI>Calcedon,</HI> for either (as <HI>Gala&s;ius</HI> begins his Manife&s;to) <HI>Ne fort&egrave;, quod &s;olent, dicant,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>But if it be &s;aid, as it commonly is, that if we admit the Coun|cil of</HI> Calcedon, <HI>all its Decrees are to be equally admitted, but if we admit not all, we lo&s;e the Authority of every part, and then what becomes of your out-cry again&s;t the</HI> Eutychians <HI>and</HI> Ne&s;torians <HI>by virtue of that Council?</HI> To this he replys, Let the world know that what the Apo&s;tolical See confirm'd, was good and valid, and ought to be receiv'd of the <HI>Catholick Church;</HI> but if there were any thing there treated of and determined, that the Apo|&s;tolical
<PB N="309" REF="159"> See di&s;lik'd, it was null and void. And thus he boldly gain'd his Point, when the Council of <HI>Calcedon</HI> was &s;et again&s;t it &s;elf in the Cau&s;e of <HI>Acacius,</HI> to di&s;tingui&s;h between what was and was not allowed by the Apo&s;tolical See; for &s;o the cau&s;e was carried both again&s;t the <HI>Eutychians</HI> and the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> for the fir&s;t they pa&s;s'd, and the la&s;t they di&s;a|vow'd. So that the Authority of this Council was at la&s;t ca&s;t upon the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome;</HI> and &s;o far as he was plea&s;ed to allow it, it was valid, but if not, it was again&s;t the Tradition of the <HI>Catholick Church.</HI> And to &s;hew the great Authority of the Apo&s;tolick See, he takes upon him in a private Synod of his own, to Con|firm or reprobate any ancient Council or Doctor of the Church, by virtue of his own Decree. For he doth not pretend to be guided by the Tradition of the Church, but only to make u&s;e of St. <HI>Peters</HI> Prima|cy: for &s;o he begins his Decree; <HI>Sancta Romana Catholica &amp; Apo&s;tolica Eccle&s;ia nul|lis Synodicis con&s;titutis caeteris Eccle&s;iis pr|lata e&s;t, &s;ed Evangelic&acirc; voce Domini &amp; Sal|vatoris no&s;tri primatum obtinuit, Tu es</HI> Pe|trus, <HI>inquientis;</HI> And upon this, pretends to pa&s;s his Judgement at Random, but with full Apo&s;tolical Authority, and hath to &s;hew his Judgement, rejected mo&s;t of
<PB N="310" REF="160"> the be&s;t writers of the Chri&s;tian Church, and admitted great numbers of others, both counterfeit and fabulous, and that may pa&s;s among the other Proofs of his Infalli|bility; though in tho&s;e days they were not come to that Degree of Confidence; But however here is St. <HI>Peter</HI>'s Primacy with a witne&s;s, not by Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Cu&s;t|om or Con&s;titution, but by Divine Right, and that over the <HI>Catholick Church;</HI> for &s;o he expre&s;ly affirms in the Preface of his Decree. Here is Primacy or Precedency by Cu&s;tom turn'd, Fir&s;t into Divine Right: Secondly into Authority; whereas before the Quarrel with <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> no Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> ever pretended to any Power in another Province; but now the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> aims to mount above him by a&s;&s;uming equal dignity, much greater Authority and larger extent of Juri&s;dicti|on, he is re&s;olv'd to out-bid him, and no le&s;s Dioce&s;s will content him than the whole <HI>Catholick Church.</HI> And thus was the Supremacy of the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> foun|ded meerly upon the Ambition of the Church of <HI>Con&s;tantinople. Gala&s;ius</HI> having thus laid the foundation of the <HI>Papal</HI> Empire, he dyes, and <HI>Ana&s;tafius</HI> &s;ucceeding in his &s;tead, the fir&s;t Act of his Reign is to di&s;patch his Mandate to <HI>Ana&s;ta&s;ius</HI> the Emperour, demanding Ju&s;tice upon the name of <HI>Aca|cius,</HI>
<PB N="311" REF="160"> and requiring his obedience to the Apo&s;tolick See, and having thus made his Prote&s;tation, he dyed. <NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Though <HI>Gratian,</HI> not|with&s;tanding he quotes the very Epi&s;tle in which <HI>Ana&s;ta&s;ius</HI> requires of the Emperour to Expunge the name of <HI>Acacius</HI> out of the Dypticks, is &s;o blind as to tell us, that he was &s;truck by the Judgement of God, be|cau&s;e he endeavour'd his Re&s;titution. <HI>Quia vo|luit occult&egrave; revocare Aca|cium, &amp; non potuit, nutu Divino percu&s;&s;us e&s;t.</HI> Di&s;t. 19. <HI>Cap.</HI> 9.</NOTE></P>
<P>And though his Succe&s;&s;or <HI>Pope Symmachus</HI> had work enough to defend him&s;elf again&s;t <HI>Theo|dorick</HI> an <HI>Arrian</HI> King, and the Accu&s;ations of &s;ome of the great men at <HI>Rome,</HI> and con|tinual Dome&s;tick Di&s;turbances, yet he will not let this Contro|ver&s;ie fall; and in pur&s;uit of it Excommunicates the Empe|rour <HI>Ana&s;ta&s;ius;</HI> upon which the Emperour writes an Inve|ctive again&s;t him; in an&s;wer to which, <HI>Symmachus</HI> writes a brisk Apologetick, from which it appears that one of the great Articles of their Conte&s;t was about Communicating with the name of <HI>Aca|cius, i. e.</HI> keeping it in, or blotting it out of the Dypticks. And then having bound up the Emperour, he writes to the Ori|ental Bi&s;hops, to &s;ubmit them&s;elves to the Apo&s;tolical See, under pain of Excommu|nication. <HI>Quia &s;i ab eorum, quos Apo&s;toli|ca &s;edes damnavit, non &s;e &s;ocietate remove|rint, &s;ciant nullo colore, nullo figmento, nul|laque calliditate Eccle&s;ia&s;ticae &s;e cu&s;todiae po&s;&s;e Subrepere.</HI> The Bi&s;hops at lea&s;t &s;ome them being &s;car'd either with his bold
<PB N="312" REF="161"> proceeding again&s;t the Emperour, or his Imperious Comminations again&s;t them|&s;elves, return him a very meek and &s;ub|mi&s;&s;ive an&s;wer, renounce <HI>Acacius</HI> and all the Hereticks, and beg to be re&s;tored to the State of Salvation, by being received into the Communion of the Apo&s;tolick See: But who they were, or how many, we know not, becau&s;e there are no &s;ub|&s;criptions of Names. The Effect of it, as we find by the In&s;tructions of his Succe&s;|&s;our to his Legates, was that it &s;et the Bi&s;hops at variance, and reduc'd all things to di&s;pute and Confu&s;ion.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="28" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. XXVI.</HEAD>
<P>But the next <HI>Pope Hormi&s;|das,</HI> being a Stout and Re&s;olute man, and finding him&s;elf in a better State by the favour of two great Kings, <HI>Theodorick</HI> of <HI>Italy,</HI> and <HI>Clodoveus</HI> of <HI>France,</HI> and the Emperour <HI>Ana&s;ta&s;ius</HI> in a much wor&s;e by the Rebellion of <HI>Vitalian</HI> the <HI>Scythian</HI> a|gain&s;t him; he re&s;olved not to lo&s;e the opportunity, e&s;pecially when he found the Stout Emperour begin to bend, for he made the fir&s;t offer of Treaty, and that with Humility enough, only blaming the &s;tiffne&s;s of &s;ome of this <HI>Popes</HI> Predece&s;&s;ors towards him&s;elf, and profering for the Cure of the pre&s;ent Schi&s;ms, to call a ge|neral Council. This the <HI>Pope</HI> finding, re|ceives
<PB N="313" REF="161"> the bu&s;ine&s;s as loftily, ju&s;tifies his Predece&s;&s;ors, and to his motion of a gene|ral Council tells him, that when he knows the cau&s;e of calling one, he will give him his An&s;wer. The Emperour replyes, It is for curing the Schi&s;ms and Divi&s;ions in <HI>Scythia;</HI> the <HI>Pope</HI> rejoyns that he will let him know his mind by his Legates. To them he gives private In&s;tructions, not &s;o much as to conde&s;cend to any treaty, but upon entire Submi&s;&s;ion to the Apo&s;tolick See: If the Clergy neglect you, take no notice of it, if they court you, refu&s;e any Fea&s;t or Entertainment, till by the Recon|ciliation both Parties are fir&s;t qualified for the Participation of the Holy Fea&s;t: when you deliver my Letters to the Emperour, if he enquire of you their Contents, pre|tend perfect Ignorance, and refer him to the Letters them&s;elves. But if he per&s;i&s;t to enquire what you &s;tand upon, tell him the Council of <HI>Calcedon.</HI> If he &s;ay the Bi|&s;hops are ready to do it, ask whence then ari&s;e tho&s;e divi&s;ions and animo&s;ities a|mong them. To which if he an&s;wer, that they were enflam'd by the Letters of my Predece&s;&s;or <HI>Symmachus,</HI> tell him that there is nothing faulty in them, unle&s;s it be a&s;|&s;erting the Council of <HI>Calcedon.</HI> No a|batement! But if he &s;ay, Communicate with me, I embrace all you de&s;ire, both
<PB N="314" REF="162"> the Council and the Epi&s;tles of <HI>Pope Leo&punc;</HI> Reply, That we Sir, believe your Inte|grity, but we fir&s;t de&s;ire your care to make up the breach of the Church. If he ask how; Reply with all humility that your <HI>Holy Father</HI> hath written about that to the Bi&s;hops them&s;elves, &s;econd the&s;e Letters with yours, declaring that you will be govern'd by the Apo&s;tolick See, and then as the Orthodox will never leave its unity, So the Hereticks will di&s;cover them&s;elves; but if he ask you in the mean time to Communicate with the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople;</HI> By no means, till the Peace be concluded. But what if he receive the Council of <HI>Calcedon</HI> and <HI>Pope Leo</HI>'s Letters. Tell him you are glad of that, but refer him for clearing him&s;elf to his Tryal be|fore the Council. If the Emperour reply, What will you not leave me my Bi&s;hop here for my Spiritual guide. Tell him, You cannot help that, the Canons force him to attend the Council, and that he hath ma|ny other Remedies for Gho&s;tly advice, without injuring the forme of Proceed|ings. If he ask what they are. Tell him, the bu&s;ine&s;s will &s;oon be at an End, if he will refer it to the judgement of the Apo|&s;tolick See. If he con&s;ent to all, I may come my &s;elf. But above all things they are ordered to avoid the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Can&s;tan|tinople,</HI>
<PB N="315" REF="162"> not &s;o much as to di&s;cour&s;e the Emperour before him. And if he de&s;ire it, excu&s;e your &s;elves by an&s;wering that part of your Errand is to accu&s;e him, and there|fore you can &s;ay nothing before him till he appear to an&s;wer in Council. In &s;hort the Council of <HI>Calcedon</HI> and <HI>Pope Leo</HI> mu&s;t be &s;ubmitted to by the Emperour, and all the World; <HI>Acacius</HI> and the Hereticks mu&s;t be di&s;claim'd, the bani&s;h'd Orthodox Bi&s;hops re&s;tored. And if there be any pro&s;e|cution of that nature, it is to be referred to the Apo&s;tolick See. Here hath this cunning <HI>Pope</HI> betrayed the whole Plot: The Pre|tence was to be the faith of the Council of <HI>Calcedon,</HI> but the de&s;ign was to bring both the Emperour, the Rival Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> and all the Bi&s;hops of the <HI>Ea&s;t</HI> to a Submi&s;&s;ion to the Supremacy of the <HI>Apo&s;tolick See;</HI> this he follows with a Letter to the Emperour, to let him know that the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> was not wont to be Summon'd to Council by any Emperour of them all, but cares not if he comes, &s;o the Faith of <HI>Calcedon</HI> be own'd, <HI>Pope Leo</HI> ju&s;tified, and <HI>Acacius</HI> condemn'd. The Emperour complyes in all things, on|ly he de&s;ires to be excu&s;ed in the ca&s;e of <HI>Acacius,</HI> for fear of rai&s;ing Tumults among the People. But the <HI>Pope</HI> continues &s;tub|born, the Emperour writes to the Senate
<PB N="316" REF="163"> of <HI>Rome</HI> to &s;often him, who tell him that nothing is to be done till Ju&s;tice is fir&s;t done upon <HI>Acacius</HI> his Name. And &s;o en|ded the fir&s;t Emba&s;&s;y. But there follows a &s;econd, in which he plainly tells the Em|perour in the fir&s;t place, that it is in vain to talk of any Reconciliation till <HI>Acacius</HI> is condemn'd. But whil&s;t both Parties &s;tand &s;tiff upon the&s;e Terms, the Emperour dy|ed. And <HI>Ju&s;tin</HI> Succeeds, who having but an ill Title, courts this Powerful <HI>Pope,</HI> and for the &s;ame rea&s;on the <HI>Pope</HI> courts him. The Emperour fir&s;t writes to him in the name of the Bi&s;hop and Clergy of <HI>Con&s;tan|tinople</HI> to mediate a Reconciliation. But &s;till the an&s;wer is, Let them fir&s;t deliver up the name of <HI>Acacius,</HI> and &s;ubmit to the <HI>Apo&s;tolick See.</HI> The Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantin|ople</HI> complyes with him in all his demands, only omitting that concerning <HI>Acacius;</HI> the <HI>Pope</HI> tells him it is all trifling till that be done, and then adds: <HI>Po&s;t haec quid re|&s;tat</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 29.</NOTE> <HI>in &s;e ut Sedis Apo&s;tolicae cujus fidem a Te dicis amplecti, &s;equaris etiam &s;ine tre|pidatione judicia?</HI> The &s;ame he writes to the Emperour: And then &s;ends new Le|gates <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 31.</NOTE> with In&s;tructions, like tho&s;e given to the fir&s;t in the time of the Emperour <HI>Ana&s;ta&s;ius,</HI> and writes by them to the Em|perour, that no Regard ought to be had to &s;uch Per&s;ons that Sub&s;cribe the Coun|cil <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 32.</NOTE>
<PB N="317" REF="163"> of <HI>Calcedon</HI> if they refu&s;e to joyn in the condemnation of <HI>Acacius,</HI> as condemn'd <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 34.</NOTE> by the Apo&s;tolick See. This he repeats to <HI>John</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> and mak|ing Intere&s;t with the Empere&s;s and great men at Court, both the Emperour and Bi&s;hop yield, and expunge the Name of <HI>Acacius;</HI> And &s;o the Peace is concluded and the <HI>Pope</HI> Triumphs; and if the Rea|der de&s;ires to &s;ee with what In&s;olence, he may peru&s;e his following Letters, in which he demands the Submi&s;&s;ion of the Churches of <HI>Alexandria</HI> and <HI>Antioch</HI> as well as <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> &s;ends his di&s;patches into all the&s;e <HI>Western</HI> Parts of the World to inform them of his Victories, in&s;ults over the Bi&s;hops and Clergy of <HI>Con&s;tan|tinople,</HI> receives their Appeals, and or|ders their Affairs, Governs all Chri&s;ten|dom, keeps <HI>Ju&s;tinian</HI> him&s;elf in awe, and dyes in the heighth of his Glory. One of the mo&s;t fortunate <HI>Popes</HI> in the whole Succe&s;&s;ion of the <HI>Papal Empire.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="29" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. XXVII.</HEAD>
<P>But as great Conque&s;ts &s;el|dom long &s;urvive the Conqueror, &s;o it hap'ned here after the Death of this huffing <HI>Pope.</HI> For <HI>Ju&s;tinian</HI> coming to the Crown, and being re&s;olute and &s;uccesful, and with|all Orthodox, he knew his own Power, and if he u&s;ed it, the <HI>Popes</HI> had no advan|tage
<PB N="318" REF="164"> again&s;t him for his Religion, as they had again&s;t <HI>Zeno</HI> and <HI>Ana&s;ta&s;ius.</HI> And though he was forc'd to court and com|plement <HI>Hormi&s;da,</HI> and to &s;erve his Impor|tunity to &s;erve his own turn; yet he be|gan at la&s;t to grow weary of him, and writes one Letter to him to di&s;patch this bu&s;ine&s;s, and another not to be &s;o &s;evere with the names of dead men, and bobs him with a &s;aying of his <HI>Predece&s;&s;ors: Quia ve&s;ter quoque Praedece&s;&s;or beatae recordatio|nis ad memoriae principalis Ana&s;ta&s;ium &s;crip|&s;it, ut Si nomen Acacii tantumodo tollere|tur, una nobis e&s;&s;et Communio;</HI> That is the plain truth, and <HI>Ju&s;tinian</HI> &s;aw through the meaning of all this &s;tir; the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome</HI> were re&s;olv'd, if it were po&s;&s;ible to trample upon the Pride and Pre&s;umption of <HI>Acacius,</HI> that it might never become a Precedent to any of his Succe&s;&s;ors, to no&s;e them as <HI>Acacius</HI> had done; but <HI>Ju&s;tinian</HI> not regarding their di&s;plea&s;ure, turns the <HI>28th.</HI> Canon of <HI>Calcedon</HI> into an Imperial Law, and in&s;titutes new Patriarchates by his own Authority, <HI>Carthage</HI> and <HI>Ju&s;tini|ana prima</HI> the place of his Birth, <HI>Novel</HI> 131. Though how he came to enact &s;o many Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Laws as he did, 'tis difficult to di&s;cover; for him&s;elf was altogether un|learned, not &s;o much as able to read; and <HI>Trebonian</HI> the Lawyer, whom he employ|ed
<PB N="319" REF="164"> to compile the work was an Heathen, and &s;o but little skill'd in or concern'd for Laws in the Chri&s;tian Church; and there|fore <HI>Baronius</HI> not improbably conjectures that this part of the work was perform'd by the two Bi&s;hops of <HI>Con&s;tantinople, Epi|phanius</HI> and <HI>Menna,</HI> and Implicitely con|firm'd <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Ad annum</HI> 528.</NOTE> by the Emperour: And then no wonder if they took care of the dignity of their own See; but whoever drew up the Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Laws, it was taken care of, and the Emperours became oblig'd in ho|nour to their Imperial Laws, as well as their Imperial City to &s;ee it pre&s;erv'd. And <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> being thus firmly &s;etled in its Patriarchal Honour, it ever after held it. How this and the other <HI>Exarchs</HI> came by the Title of <HI>Patriarchs</HI> is &s;carce known, only it is certain that the Title was bor|row'd from the wandring <HI>Jews</HI> of tho&s;e times, who wherever they &s;etled in any Con&s;iderable Body, e&s;pecially in the <HI>Ea&s;t,</HI> had a Supreme Governour whom they &s;til'd their <HI>Patriarch;</HI> but in the fourth Century they were abrogated by <HI>Theodo&s;i|us</HI> the younger, for their intolerable in&s;o|lence; and &s;o this Title and Authority be|ing taken from the <HI>Jews,</HI> it was in a little time after applyed to the <HI>Exarchs</HI> of Di|oce&s;&s;es, and &s;o we find it u&s;ed in the Coun|cil of <HI>Calcedon,</HI> as Synonomous with the Ti|tles
<PB N="320" REF="165"> of Arch-Bi&s;hop and Exarch; and that's the fir&s;t time that I know of its being us'd in the Chri&s;tian Church. I am &s;ure we meet nothing of it in the <HI>Theodo&s;ian Code,</HI> but in the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> &s;ence. And from the time of the Council of <HI>Calcedon</HI> it is only u&s;ed in the Chri&s;tian Sence, nothing more frequent in the <HI>Ju&s;tinian Code,</HI> and the Acts of the fifth Council under <HI>Ju&s;tinian.</HI> And though it was at fir&s;t given to all the eighth <HI>Exarchs,</HI> yet but five of them re|tain'd either name or thing, the other three being &s;wallow'd up by <HI>Con&s;tantin|ople;</HI> this was the beginning of the five famous Patriarchates, and the fir&s;t time that we meet with them reckon'd all to|gether, is in the <HI>36th.</HI> Canon of the Coun|cil in <HI>Trullo</HI> under <HI>Ju&s;tinian</HI> the 2<HI>d. Anno Dom.</HI> 691. where the Order of Preceden|cy is determin'd, having never been de|fin'd before by Synodical Authority; how the other four came by this dignity is clear from this foregoing di&s;cour&s;e, <HI>Con&s;tantin|ople</HI> leading the way, which I have prov'd to be &s;o far from being in&s;tituted the la&s;t, that it was the fir&s;t] of all, and that it was for the &s;ake of that, that the Re&s;t were advanc'd to this Dignity. For though <HI>Rome, Alexandria</HI> and <HI>Antioch,</HI> had by Cu&s;tom and the <HI>Nicene</HI> Council gain'd the honour of Precedency; yet they never pre|tended
<PB N="321" REF="165"> to any Power more than Metro|political, till &s;uch a Power was given to the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> and then the&s;e having ever been as it were Prerogative Churches, and being then Dioce&s;an Cities in the new civil Divi&s;ion of the Empire, could not but be advanc'd for &s;hame to the &s;ame Superiority of Power over the Me|tropolitans of their own Dioce&s;&s;es: But how <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> could come to the dignity and Authority of a Patriarchate, is, I mu&s;t confe&s;s, a great My&s;tery; for though true it is that it was the <HI>Mother Church,</HI> of all <HI>Chri&s;tian Churches,</HI> &s;o that if any Church could Chalenge any Superiority over all others, that had the faire&s;t Plea; yet it was &s;o far from &s;o high a Claim, that it was never advanc'd to the Power of a Me|tropolitan, but was ever &s;ubject to the Metropolis of <HI>Cae&s;area;</HI> and yet now I know not how all on a &s;uddain it is ad|vanc'd to Patriarchal Sovereignity. But by what means or upon what grounds, it being no Dioce&s;an City, I cannot find. <HI>Sozomen</HI> indeed informs us that St. <HI>Cyril</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Lib.</HI> 4. <HI>c.</HI> 25.</NOTE> of <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> had attempted to remove the Metropolitical Juri&s;diction from <HI>Cae&s;area,</HI> to his own See, under pretence of its be|ing the Apo&s;tolick Throne; but that <HI>A|cacius</HI> the pre&s;ent Bi&s;hop of <HI>Cae&s;area</HI> was too hard for him, and upon the Provocation
<PB N="322" REF="166"> proceeded with that &s;everity again&s;t him, as to procure his Depo&s;ition by a Pro|vincial Synod. So that no Alteration was effected at that time as to Metropoli|tical, much le&s;s Patriarchal Dignity. But <HI>Petrus de Marca</HI> tells us, That <HI>Juvenal</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>De in&s;tit. Pag.</HI> 192.</NOTE> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Jeru&s;alem</HI> taking Advantage of the Quarrel between <HI>Cyril</HI> of <HI>Alexandria,</HI> and <HI>John</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch,</HI> in the Council of <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> endeavoured to bring both the <HI>Pale&s;tines</HI> that were Subject to <HI>Antioch,</HI> under his own Juri&s;diction, and effected it by the Emperours Edict, procur'd by the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> to make way for the great leap that him&s;elf was taking out of a Subject Bi&s;hoprick, over the heads of great Metropolitans. And it is certain that <HI>Juvenal</HI> was a great Court-Para&s;ite, and &s;o might obtain &s;uch Letters, but that he did I know no Proof, and wi&s;h this Lear|ned man had produc'd his Author, that this my&s;tery might have been unriddled. That <HI>Juvenal</HI> had &s;uch a de&s;ign in the Council of <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> I find in <HI>Pope Leo</HI>'s Letters to <HI>Maximus</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 16.</NOTE> <HI>Sicut enim in Ephe&s;ina Synodo Juvenalis Epi&s;copus ad obtinendum Pale&s;tinae Provin|ciae Principatum credidit &s;e po&s;&s;e &s;ufficere, &amp; in&s;olentes au&s;us per commentitia Scripta fir|mare, Quod &s;anctae memoriae Cyrillus Alex|andrinus Epi&s;copus merit&ograve; perhorre&s;cens,</HI>
<PB N="323" REF="166"> <HI>&s;criptis &s;uis mihi, quid praedicta Cupiditas au&s;a e&s;t, indicavit, &amp; &s;olicit&acirc; prece multum popo&s;cit, ut nulla illicitis conatibus praebere|tur a&s;&s;en&s;io.</HI> I cannot tell what he means by the <HI>commentitia &s;cripta,</HI> unle&s;s pretended <HI>Mandates,</HI> from Court, but it is likely he ob|tained not his reque&s;t in that Council, when <HI>Cyril</HI> that govern'd all there was &s;o violent again&s;t it; however he kept up his Pretence &s;o powerfully, that <HI>Maximus</HI> at la&s;t was forc'd to compound with him, and the compo&s;ition was &s;etled by a Re|ference to the Council of <HI>Calcedon,</HI> that <HI>Maximus</HI> &s;hould keep <HI>Arabia</HI> and both <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Act.</HI> 7.</NOTE> the <HI>Phaenicias,</HI> and <HI>Juvenal</HI> &s;hould have the three <HI>Pale&s;tines.</HI> This is all the account that I can find of the In&s;titution of this fifth Patriarchate, that had no other foundation than <HI>Juvenal</HI>'s Impudence in &s;tealing three whole Provinces, and leaping over the Head of his own Metropolitan. Though the Truth is <HI>Juvenal</HI> hereby offer'd no In|jury to the Rights of the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Anti|och,</HI> but only rob'd him of part of his Spoyls, as Thieves and Bea&s;ts of Prey are wont to &s;erve one another; for the legal Juri&s;diction of the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch</HI> reach|ed not beyond the Province of <HI>Syria,</HI> and all the other Provinces that were &s;hared be|tween him and <HI>Juvenal</HI> of <HI>Jeru&s;alem,</HI> were only the gains of U&s;urpation, and when a
<PB N="324" REF="167"> man hath no Right, he hath none to lo&s;e; all U&s;urpers are in Mr. <HI>Hobb</HI>'s his State of Nature, that live by mutual Stealth, and have no Law or Mea&s;ure of Right but pre&s;ent Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion. And therefore <HI>Juvenal</HI> had as good a Title as <HI>Maximus,</HI> and in my Opinion &s;omewhat better; for of all men the fir&s;t that does wrong is lea&s;t ca|pable of Right, and they that rob him of his Prey do &s;ome Ju&s;tice to the wronged cau&s;e. And it mu&s;t be confe&s;&s;ed that the See of <HI>Antioch</HI> had been a great and an old Encroacher, as we find by the Ca&s;e of the <HI>Cyprian</HI> Bi&s;hops, whom in the time of <HI>In|nocent</HI> the fir&s;t, it would have &s;wept away with divers other Provinces; For &s;o the <HI>Pope</HI> commands that that I&s;land &s;hould do as other Provinces did, in &s;ubmitting them&s;elves to the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Antioch;</HI> &s;o that it &s;eems there were then &s;ome Pro|vinces that were quite carried away cap|tive, and it was in the <HI>Popes</HI> Eye a great Singularity in the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Cyprus</HI> (who probably were the la&s;t to be conquered as being an I&s;land) to &s;tand it out when all others had long &s;ince yielded up the Keys of their Supremacy into his hands.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="30" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. XXVIII.</HEAD>
<P>But to return to the two great Champions of <HI>Rome</HI> and <HI>Con&s;tantin|ople. Pope Hormi&s;das</HI> being dead, I do not
<PB N="325" REF="167"> find that the War broke out in the time of the two next Succe&s;&s;ors, <HI>John</HI> the fir&s;t and <HI>Faelix</HI> the third, who&s;e Reigns were too &s;hort for any great Action, e&s;pecially the fir&s;t, who&s;e whole time was taken up in an Emba&s;&s;ay to <HI>Constantinople,</HI> and after his Return, in Impri&s;onment; and as he lived not two years, &s;o his Succe&s;&s;or <HI>Faelix</HI> lived but two months, and odd days beyond it. But it is probable that the <HI>Con&s;tantinopo|litans</HI> not regarding the Articles of Peace, went on in their accu&s;tomed U&s;urpation, and it is no wonder if Complaints were not &s;o &s;uddainly brought to <HI>Rome;</HI> and that likely was the Rea&s;on that we hear nothing of this bu&s;ine&s;s under the&s;e two <HI>Popes:</HI> But in the time of <HI>Boniface</HI> the 2<HI>d.</HI> who &s;ate but two years it broke forth with great Violence. <HI>Stephen</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Lari&s;|&s;aea</HI> the Metropolis of <HI>The&s;&s;aly</HI> being cano|nically elected and ordained, was by the Faction of <HI>Probianus</HI> one of his own Suffra|gans, and the Authority of <HI>Epiphanius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Constantinople</HI> Irregularly de|prived of his Bi&s;hoprick; he appeals to <HI>Rome,</HI> and tells a &s;ad &s;tory of his Suffer|ings; <HI>Boniface</HI> Summons a Council, where the whole bu&s;ine&s;s was canva&s;ed from the beginning: for now the War coming near|er home into <HI>Illyricum,</HI> which the <HI>Popes</HI> had hitherto kept, it alarm'd the Jealou&s;ie
<PB N="326" REF="168"> of <HI>Rome,</HI> le&s;t they &s;hould lo&s;e &s;o great a Part of their Juri&s;diction; the Com|plaints of <HI>Stephen</HI> are read, and the &s;um of the Story is, that he was depo&s;ed for not owning the Authority of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> and appealing as in duty bound to the <HI>A|po&s;tolick See;</HI> and among the re&s;t he tells them, That when he did but mention that the <HI>Pope</HI> &s;hould at lea&s;t be acquainted with the matter before Sentence was Pronoun|ced, they for that rea&s;on were &s;o &s;evere upon him, <HI>Quod dictum magis eos adver&s;um me amplius incitavit; putantes de Sacrarum Eccle&s;iarum Regiae urbis jure aliquid minui, quod Ego Apo&s;tolorum ve&s;tram &s;edem vi&s;us &s;um nomina&s;&s;e.</HI> And in the &s;econd Se&s;&s;ion, <HI>Stephen</HI> with two other Bi&s;hops of his Pro|vince <HI>Elpidius</HI> and <HI>Timotheus,</HI> tell the Council that the <HI>Con&s;tantinoplitans</HI> endea|vour to bring their Province under the <HI>Constantinopolitan</HI> Juri&s;diction, that after that Example no man may dare to &s;peak of the right of Churches and Cu&s;tom of Antiquity, becau&s;e their de&s;ign is to bring other Provinces under the Authority of the <HI>Royal City.</HI> But this Controver&s;ie concerned <HI>Rome</HI> it &s;elf as clo&s;ely as the Bi&s;hop of <HI>La|ri&s;&s;ea,</HI> and therefore upon this Occa&s;ion they fall to examining the right of the A|po&s;tolick See to <HI>Illyricum,</HI> and to that purpo&s;e produced many Letters of former
<PB N="327" REF="168"> <HI>Popes</HI> and Emperours to prove it; <HI>Pope Da|ma&s;us</HI> is the fir&s;t, but cited Impertinently enough; when <HI>Maximus</HI> the <HI>Cynick</HI> pre|tended to the Bi&s;hoprick of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> he writes to the Clergy of the City again&s;t him, and de&s;ires them to choo&s;e a fitter Per&s;on; from whence this Council would infer &s;ome Authority of the <HI>Pope</HI> over <HI>Con|&s;tantinople</HI> it &s;elf, whereas the Letter inti|mates no &s;uch thing, nor doth <HI>Dama&s;us</HI> dream of any Pretence to it, but only gives them Friendly advice (as any one Church may another) when they meet in Council to Elect a fit Per&s;on; nay, he is not come &s;o far as the Language of the <HI>Apo&s;tolick See,</HI> that was &s;et up after his time to oppo&s;e to that of the <HI>Royal City.</HI> But any Logick will &s;erve Ambition. The next is <HI>Siricius</HI> to as little purpo&s;e, who writes to <HI>Any&s;ius</HI> Metropolitan of <HI>Illyri|cum,</HI> that he &s;uffer no Ordinations to be made there without his own Con&s;ent, as the Canons of <HI>Nice</HI> command; this is a doubty proof of <HI>Siricius</HI> his Pretence to Authority over <HI>Illyricum,</HI> when he only writes to a Neighbour Bi&s;hop, than which nothing was at that time more common, to ob&s;erve the Canons. <HI>Ana&s;ta&s;ius</HI> is pa&s;|&s;ed over: <HI>Innocent</HI> the fir&s;t &s;peaks with more confidence, and advi&s;eth with more Authority, as if he would, but dur&s;t not
<PB N="328" REF="169"> pretend to an Authority over <HI>Illyricum,</HI> and therefore he only Commends it in an half Commanding way to the Govern|ment of its own Metropolitan. <HI>Zo&s;imus</HI> the next <HI>Pope</HI> is pa&s;&s;ed by, his Reign was &s;hort, and &s;pent in his <HI>African</HI> and <HI>Gal|lican</HI> U&s;urpations. <HI>Boniface</HI> the fir&s;t comes next, and he indeed talks bigger words, and in&s;i&s;ts much upon the <HI>Apo&s;tolick Chair,</HI> and it was but time, for then the <HI>Royal City</HI> was come to its heighth of Glory. What the matter was is not evident, but &s;omething had been done by &s;omebody in the Province of <HI>Illyricum,</HI> that mu&s;t not pa&s;s, and that too by &s;omebody that was no more than an ordinary Bi&s;hop, who took upon him to &s;et up again&s;t the Apo|&s;tolick See, and who that was, is ea&s;y to gue&s;s. <HI>Audio Epi&s;coporum quo&s;dam Apo|&s;tolico jure contempto novum quippiam contra Chri&s;ti propri&egrave; praecepta tentare, cum &s;e ab Apo&s;tolicae Sedis Communione, et ut dicam verius</HI> (that is but faintly &s;aid) <HI>pote&s;tate &s;e &s;eparare nituntur; Eorum petentes Aux|ilium</HI> (that is the Crime) <HI>quos Eccle&s;ia&s;ti|carum &s;anctio regularum majoris e&s;&s;e non de|dit Pote&s;tatis.</HI> The intimation is plain e|nough, but le&s;t he &s;hould not be through|ly under&s;tood, he tells us which was the &s;econd and the third See next to <HI>Rome,</HI> and how that they had alwayes been &s;o civil
<PB N="329" REF="169"> as to be content with their Place; and as for the City of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> when <HI>Theo|do&s;ius</HI> had a De&s;ign to make <HI>Nectarius</HI> Bi|&s;hop, he &s;ent for the Con&s;ent of the <HI>Apo|&s;tolick See.</HI> So that there was the grie|vance (what&s;oever the particular cau&s;e was) the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI>'s medling with any thing in <HI>Illyricum.</HI> But matters re&s;ted not here, the Emperours were engaged in the Controver&s;ie, and it is referred to the <HI>Praefecti Praetorio,</HI> as appears by <HI>Ho|norius</HI> his Letter to <HI>Theodo&s;ius,</HI> and <HI>Theo|do&s;ius</HI> his An&s;wer. But it came to nothing, for we find the &s;ame Controver&s;ie depen|ding in the time of his Succe&s;&s;or <HI>Cele&s;tine,</HI> who writes to the &s;ame purpo&s;e as <HI>Boni|face</HI> had done, to keep all Forreign Juri&s;|diction out of <HI>Illyricum,</HI> to &s;ettle its Government under the Metropolitan of <HI>The&s;&s;alonica.</HI> But at length the <HI>Romani&s;ts</HI> gain ground, for in the Letters of <HI>Xy|&s;tus</HI> that followed next, we find him Con|gratulating the Conver&s;ion of <HI>Perigenes,</HI> who had rai&s;ed all the Controver&s;ie, by appealing from the Bi&s;hop of <HI>The&s;&s;alonica</HI> to <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> and his Submi&s;&s;ion to his Metropolitan, and withal writes to <HI>Pro|clus</HI> of <HI>Constantinople</HI> to be more cautious again&s;t the <HI>Subreptions</HI> of Bi&s;hops (for that was their term for Uncanonical Appeals) and that for the time to come he entertain
<PB N="330" REF="170"> none of the Clergy of the Province of <HI>Illy|ricum,</HI> without commendatory Letters from the Bi&s;hop of <HI>The&s;&s;alonica,</HI> which broadly intimates that <HI>Proclus</HI> had been guilty of &s;ome <HI>Subreption</HI> in that Province. And then in the la&s;t place writes to the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Illyricum</HI> to &s;tand upon their guard again&s;t Forreign Juri&s;diction and be obedient to their own Metropolitan. <HI>Nec his vos, fratres Chri&s;&s;imi, con&s;titutis, quae praeter no&s;tra praecepta Orientalis Sy|nodus decernere voluit, credatis tenere prae|ter id quidem quod de fide nobis con&s;entienti|bus judicavit. Neither, my Brethren, think your &s;elves obliged by the Decrees of the</HI> Ea&s;tern <HI>Council, unle&s;s what it defin'd as to matters of Faith with our Con&s;ent.</HI> Now this <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> Council that he here &s;peaks of, could not be that of <HI>Calcedon,</HI> he be|ing dead eleven years before it was called, and therefore could be none but the Coun|cil of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> which giving only Preheminence of Dignity to that City next to <HI>Rome,</HI> had been it &s;eems pleaded for Preheminence of power over other Provinces. But now comes the Council of <HI>Calcedon,</HI> and Letters of <HI>Pope Leo,</HI> of which we have already given an Account, though be&s;ides them, there are &s;ome others that are pre&s;erv'd only in this manu&s;cript of this <HI>Roman</HI> Synod (fir&s;t publi&s;hed by
<PB N="331" REF="170"> <HI>Hol&s;tenius,</HI> and now in&s;erted into the <HI>Con|cilia Max.</HI> in its proper place, with his own Learned Notes upon it.) One to the <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 1717.</NOTE> Emperour <HI>Marcian,</HI> herein he declares his Reconciliation to <HI>Anatolius</HI> upon his Sub|mi&s;&s;ion, and an An&s;wer to him from <HI>Ana|tolius,</HI> in which he farther excu&s;es him&s;elf. <HI>De his autem quae</HI> Con&s;tantinopolitanae <HI>grati&acirc; &s;edis,</HI> &amp;c. But the mo&s;t remarkable Letters that are thereby pre&s;erv'd, are one to <HI>Ana&s;ta&s;ius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>The&s;&s;alonica,</HI> and two to the Metropolitans of <HI>Illyricum</HI> and <HI>Achaia,</HI> in which he Subjects all the Me|tropolitans of both to the Ordination and Authority of the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Tha&s;&s;alonica</HI> as his <HI>Vice-Gerent,</HI> and &s;ets up Appeals from the Provincial Synods to him. So that at the &s;ame time that this great <HI>Pope</HI> is beat|ing down this Ambition at <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> out of pure reverence to the Canons, is he breaking the very &s;ame Canons in <HI>Illyri|cum</HI> by &s;etting up a Juri&s;diction, Superi|or to Metropolitans and Provincial Sy|nods. So much for this Synod of <HI>Rome</HI> under <HI>Boniface</HI> the &s;econd, for here the in|&s;cript ends, and a &s;hort time after the <HI>Pope</HI> dyed; &s;o that what was the Event we know not, only it is certain that <HI>Rome</HI> held the Po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion, for it was never taken from them and given to <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> till the time of <HI>Leo I&s;aurus,</HI> who being Ex|communicated
<PB N="332" REF="171"> by <HI>Gregory</HI> the &s;econd, in the Controver&s;ie about Images; he to be reveng'd of the <HI>Pope,</HI> laid both this and a great deal more of his Territories to the Juri&s;diction of <HI>Constantinople.</HI></P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="31" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. XXIX.</HEAD>
<P>But to return to the time of <HI>Ju&s;tinian,</HI> after the Death of <HI>Boniface;</HI> the Controver&s;ie &s;lept under <HI>John</HI> the 2<HI>d.</HI> but broke out by a &s;ide wind under <HI>Aga|petus,</HI> who being &s;ent on an Emba&s;&s;y to <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> found <HI>Anthimus</HI> then Bi&s;hop of it an <HI>Eutychian,</HI> glad of which he Schools the Emperour for Electing &s;uch an <HI>Here|tick;</HI> this brings the Emperour him&s;elf into Su&s;picion of <HI>Here&s;ie</HI> among the Peo|ple, and that forces him for his own Ju&s;ti|fication to Publi&s;h his Confe&s;&s;ions of Faith, in &s;ome of which he &s;ordidly Flatters the <HI>Roman</HI> Bi&s;hop, and at his Importunity de|po&s;es <HI>Anthimus;</HI> and &s;uch an Affront as that to the Patriarch of the <HI>Royal City,</HI> was Victory enough for <HI>Agapetus,</HI> though he had the fate of <HI>Epaminondas</HI> to know but not &s;urvive his Conque&s;t; for <HI>Anthi|mus</HI> was not Synodically depo&s;ed till after his Death, by the Council of <HI>Constantin|ople</HI> under <HI>Menna,</HI> whom the <HI>Pope</HI> had en|gaged the Emperour to prefer to that See; However <HI>Agapetus</HI> had the Glory of the Work, and to him it is a&s;crib'd by the
<PB N="333" REF="171"> <HI>Monks</HI> of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> who were the <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Act.</HI> 1.</NOTE> <HI>Solicitors</HI> again&s;t <HI>Anthimus.</HI> This was one of the greate&s;t blows given to <HI>Con&s;tantin|ople</HI> by <HI>Rome</HI> during all this Civil War be|tween the two Sees, for a Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> to depo&s;e a Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> to confirm it by the Civil Sanction of the Emperour, that was the depo&s;ed Bi&s;hops <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Novel</HI> 42.</NOTE> Patron, and put a Creature of his own in his &s;tead, who was oblig'd to be grate|ful and obedient to his Creator, and accor|dingly he concludes the Sentence again&s;t <HI>Anthimus,</HI> with paying Devotion to him. <HI>We follow and obey the Apo&s;tolick See, and tho&s;e that it Communicates with, we receive to Communion, and tho&s;e that it Condemns, we Condemn.</HI> And he was all his time &s;uch a Spaniel to the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> that he fetch'd and carried at his Command, and &s;o when he Sub&s;crib'd to <HI>Ju&s;tinian</HI>'s Edict, again&s;t the <HI>tria Capitula,</HI> he did it with this Re&s;erve, That if the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> approved not the Edict, that then his Sub&s;cription &s;hould be null and void. But the Conte&s;t ended not &s;o, for though <HI>Aga|petus</HI> &s;caped &s;cot-free by &s;peedy Death, his Succe&s;&s;or <HI>Silverius</HI> paid the Reckoning. <HI>The|odora</HI> the Empre&s;s taking <HI>Anthimus</HI> his part &s;ent <HI>Vigilius</HI> to <HI>Beli&s;arius</HI> then at <HI>Rome,</HI> to command <HI>Pope Silverius</HI> to re&s;tore <HI>Anthi|mus,</HI> who refu&s;ing it, was accu&s;ed of High
<PB N="334" REF="172"> Trea&s;on, for holding Corre&s;pondence with the <HI>Goths,</HI> and &s;o depo&s;ed and thru&s;t into a Mona&s;tery, and <HI>Vigilius</HI> put in his place, who getting it by U&s;urpation, Legitima|ted it by a legal Election upon the Death of <HI>Silverius,</HI> and when that was done, de|fy'd the Empre&s;s, and refu&s;ed to re&s;tore <HI>Anthimus,</HI> huffs the Emperour in defence of the Privileges of St. <HI>Peter</HI>'s Chair, Su|&s;pends <HI>Menna</HI> the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> together with all the <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> Metropoli|tans, Chatechi&s;es the Emperour with the Rod of Excommunication in his hand, Actually Excommunicates the Empre&s;s, and all her Favorites, e&s;pecially <HI>Theodorus</HI> of <HI>Cae&s;area,</HI> oppo&s;es the Emperours Edict, coneerning <HI>the third Capitula,</HI> Excom|municates <HI>Menna,</HI> and all that &s;ub&s;crib'd it, &s;o incen&s;es the Emperour that (to &s;hel|ter him&s;elf again&s;t his di&s;plea&s;ure) he is forc'd to take Sanctuary in St. <HI>Peter</HI>'s Church, and then by night to e&s;cape to <HI>Calcedon,</HI> where he forces the Emperour to revoke his Edict, and brings <HI>Menna</HI> and <HI>Theodorus</HI> to Submi&s;&s;ion: Nece&s;&s;itates the Emperour to call fifth general Council, and when they are met refu&s;eth to &s;it with them, tells them that he will &s;igni|fie his mind by writing, forbids them to Decree any thing till they under&s;tand his Plea&s;ure, oppo&s;eth the Emperour and
<PB N="335" REF="172"> Council in the Condemnation of the <HI>three Capitula,</HI> is bani&s;h't, and in his Bani&s;h|ment Condemns the <HI>three Capitula</HI> him|&s;elf, and calls the Decree of his Condem|nation <GAP DESC="foreign"> which Word was pro|per to the Emperour's Edicts. Upon all which there is one plea&s;ant ob&s;ervation in <HI>Petrus de Marca,</HI> of the great Authority that the <HI>Pope</HI> then had from ancient times, in that <HI>Vigilius</HI> &s;hew'd great Reve|rence to the four fir&s;t general Councils, becau&s;e they had been confirm'd by the <HI>Pope,</HI> but this fifth he would not &s;o much as de&s;ign to give it the Title of Council, becau&s;e it wanted his Con&s;ent. After this manner are we forc'd to catch at every thing, how remote &s;oever, for our Supre|macy; for otherwi&s;e &s;o wi&s;e a man as <HI>de Marca</HI> could have concluded nothing el&s;e from this Action of <HI>Vigilius,</HI> than his own unparalell'd In&s;olence and Capriciou&s;ne&s;s; for what can be more extravagant than fir&s;t to force a general Council, and when it meets, to take State or Pet, and refu&s;e to joyn with them, and forbid them to Act without him; to &s;end his Perempt|ory Opinion to the Emperour again&s;t that of the Council; and when he is bani&s;h'd for his Perver&s;ene&s;s, to &s;end a kind of Imperial Edict to declare his Con&s;ent to their Decree; and after all this refu&s;e to
<PB N="336" REF="173"> give them the Civil Title of a Council? all this can argue nothing, but a very weak and Childi&s;h Peevi&s;hne&s;s. And yet is he brought off, not only for his Unchange|able Con&s;tancy, but for his wi&s;e and pru|dent Conduct in the whole Management of this Affair. And in the fir&s;t place he is his own Apologi&s;t, and gives a fair Ac|count as he thinks of his own Innocence, in his Decretal Epi&s;tle of Recantati|on, and fir&s;t he &s;aith: <HI>The Devil cheated him, and by his Subtile In&s;inuations had drawn him in without regard to Brotherly Love and Charity to &s;ow Di&s;cord and Di|vi&s;ion in the Chri&s;tian Church.</HI> This is a very fair Confe&s;&s;ion of a very foul fault, the Crime is great in it &s;elf, and how much &s;oever the Devil &s;har'd in it, the guilt will lye at his own Door; otherwi&s;e if that were any excu&s;e for a Crime, it is common to all Mankind, and every man may as well as the <HI>Pope</HI> load the Devil with his own Mi&s;carriages. But if the Devil were &s;o bu&s;y and Malitious with the head of the Church in this matter, that is a &s;ign that it was of very Mi&s;chievous Con&s;equence to the Body: For Mi&s;chief is the Motive of his Zeal, &s;o that where he is mo&s;t Active, he doth mo&s;t harm; and what can be wor&s;e than for the fir&s;t and mo&s;t Honourable Bi&s;hop in <HI>Chri&s;ten|dom,</HI>
<PB N="337" REF="173"> upon whom at that time in a great Mea&s;ure depended the good Government of the Church, to demean him&s;elf after that Factious and Di&s;orderly rate, no body knows for what, neither him&s;elf why, but that the Devil, he knows not how, had blown a cro&s;s-grain'd <HI>Capricio</HI> into his head. An admirable Apology &s;uited to the Tem|per and the Mode&s;ty of the Man. But what will he &s;ay to his contradicting him|&s;elf &s;o gro&s;ly and publickly in the face of the World? To that his an&s;wer is ea&s;y and ready. That he was grown wi&s;er and might retract as well as St. <HI>Au&s;tin.</HI> It is true, but then neither he nor St. <HI>Au&s;tin</HI> mu&s;t be infallible, but I think infallibility was not then pretended to, and therefore &s;hall not object that; But what will he &s;ay for the Fury and Vehemence of his Actings whil&s;t he was mi&s;taken? let him confe&s;s his ill Manners as well as his Er|rour. With what rudene&s;s did he treat the Bi&s;hops, and will he now give them no Satisfaction? <HI>Menna,</HI> and the <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> Bi|&s;hops were wrong'd and di&s;grac'd by his Excommunication, will he make them no amends, not &s;o much as ask them for|givene&s;s? take no notice either of his own folly, or their Injury, but only after an Im|perious manner, and in the Imperial Stile command them to be of their own Opini|on.
<PB N="338" REF="174"> But the mo&s;t Surprizing excu&s;e for their Incon&s;tancy, is that of his Succe&s;&s;or <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Marcas di&s;|&s;ert. de</HI> 5 to. <HI>Concilio, in the Concilia Maxima, Vol.</HI> 5. <HI>p.</HI> 601. <HI>Epi&s;t. ad Ep I&s;t. c.</HI> 8.</NOTE> <HI>Pelagius</HI> the &s;econd. <HI>Si igitur in trium ca|pitulorum negotio,</HI> &amp;c. Concil. Max. Vol. 5. P. 611. <HI>What if he grew wi&s;er upon enquiry in the bu&s;ine&s;s of the</HI> tria Capi|tula? <HI>Why mu&s;t the change of a Man's Opi|nion be objected to this See, which is Ho|noured by all the Church in its Governour, for it is not the Change of Opinion, but the Incon&s;tancy of Apprehen&s;ion that is to be bla|med. When therefore an unchangeable re&s;o|lution holds out to the di&s;covery of Truth, what harm is it, if leaving his Ignorance, he alter his Story?</HI> Truly none at all, if he were a mode&s;t man, and would not take too much upon him, and comptrol the whole World, and Doom every man to Hell, that was not or would not be &s;o fooli&s;h or &s;o ignorant as him&s;elf. But this is a pretty Device to prove that let a <HI>Pope</HI> change his mind never &s;o often, he is al|ways con&s;tant to him&s;elf, and &s;o indeed are all the greate&s;t time-&s;ervers; It is not the men but the times that alter, they are always true to them&s;elves and their own Intere&s;t: but however I will not charge that upon this Action, and will allow that <HI>Vigilius</HI> might be an hot-headed hone&s;t man, and was not wrought upon by hopes or rears in his Recantation: Yet &s;ure let
<PB N="339" REF="174"> us not be born down that he never chang'd his opinion, only becau&s;e he always thought him&s;elf in the Right; neither let men go about to excu&s;e his extream Indi|&s;cretion for his Violence and fury either way, and when he was grown &s;o much wi&s;er, as to find him&s;elf deceiv'd, he &s;hould have been &s;o much wi&s;er too, as at lea&s;t to think it po&s;&s;ible for him to be deceiv'd again, and not without any acknowledge|ment of his Blunder, to Impo&s;e his new Opinion upon all the World under pain of Damnation; and that upon tho&s;e very Per&s;ons, that he had before &s;o Perempto|rily Damn'd for holding it: Certainly all this is very incon&s;i&s;tent with good man|ners and prudent Government, but would have been Intollerable if he had pretended to that rank Infallibility that his Succe&s;|&s;ours now challenge. But the man that brings him off with Triumph and flying Colours is the Learned <HI>P. de Marca,</HI> in a Treati&s;e purpo&s;ely written upon the Ar|gument, and &s;ince in&s;erted into the <HI>Concil. Max. Vol.</HI> 5. <HI>p.</HI> 601. in which he thought he had done &s;uch a good piece of Service to the Apo&s;tolick See, as might very well &s;uffice to expiate all his &s;uppos'd Offences again&s;t it, as he tells <HI>Innocent</HI> the tenth in his Supplicatory Libel, after he had been four years kept out of his
<PB N="340" REF="175"> Bi&s;hoprick, and probably this promoted his Di&s;patch; for not long after he receiv'd his Confirmation: And I mu&s;t confe&s;s he de&s;erv'd it, for he did his be&s;t Endeavour, and hath with no &s;mall &s;hew of Learning made the Cau&s;e look &s;omewhat fair and plau&s;ible, though when all's done, it is &s;o Tran&s;parently bad, that nothing can re|lieve it. Fir&s;t he pleads that this was a Controver&s;ie, not concerning Faith but Per&s;ons. So that if the <HI>Pope</HI> were mi&s;ta|ken it was a matter of no great moment. But if it were not, why did he make &s;uch a &s;tir about it; to what purpo&s;e &s;hould he put the whole Church into a Flame about a Trifle? His Errour is not objected to him, but his wild demeanor, which is made much more inexcu&s;able by this Apology, in that all this outragi|ous Zeal was not &s;pent upon any point of Religion, but only the Opinions of &s;ome private men, and that's the highe&s;t Ag|gravation of a Schi&s;m to break the Peace of the Church, for things in which it is not at all concern'd. But &s;econdly, this Controver&s;ie was not only about Per&s;ons, but points of Religion, <HI>i. e.</HI> Whether &s;uch Opinions held by &s;uch Authors ought to be condemn'd by the Church or not? <HI>Vi|gilius</HI> was a long time for the Negative, and then at la&s;t in his Decretal Epi&s;tle
<PB N="341" REF="175"> condemns them as contrary to the <HI>Chri&s;ti|an Faith,</HI> and <HI>Bla&s;phemous Impieties:</HI> and certainly the <HI>Chri&s;tian Faith</HI> is, if any were, concern'd in &s;uch Ca&s;es as contra|dict or Bla&s;pheme it. So that if his la&s;t Decree be true, he had been all along an A&s;&s;ertor of <HI>Bla&s;phemy;</HI> but if it be not, then it is &s;till Fal&s;e. So &s;trangely hath the man entangled him&s;elf with his own Pa&s;&s;ion, that no Wit or Ingenuity can &s;et him loo&s;e from his own Folly. But not content with this &s;lender Excu&s;e, the Learned man proceeds to make out his pru|dent Management of the bu&s;ine&s;s. For we mu&s;t know, &s;aith he, that there are two ways of Exerci&s;ing Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Di&s;|cipline, either &s;trictly according to &s;eve|rity of Canon, or with Temperament abating of rigour of Law, when by that the Peace and Unity of the Church may be better pre&s;erv'd; Both which ways <HI>Vi|gilius</HI> acted, as he was directed by change of Circum&s;tances, for pre&s;ervation of Truth and Peace. And yet the <HI>Pope</HI> car|ried things &s;o awkerdly, that he hath cro&s;|&s;ed the Apology both ways. For as for Rigour of Canon, he had no &s;uch Pre|tence to oppo&s;e the Condemnation of the <HI>tria Capitula.</HI> And whereas he pretends that it look'd like correcting the Council of <HI>Calcedon;</HI> if that were of any force, it
<PB N="342" REF="176"> takes away all Government; for upon the &s;ame Terms no new Law may be Enacted, le&s;t it reflect upon the Imperfection of former Legi&s;lators. And upon the &s;ame ground the Council of <HI>Calcedon</HI> it &s;elf ought never to have pa&s;s'd with Authori|ty, becau&s;e it Innovated divers things, that were never admitted by any of the former Councils. But however granting that it may be unmannerly to add to, or depart from the Decrees of General Coun|cils, as <HI>Pope Leo</HI> determins, yet that Rule concerns matters of Faith, and not parti|cular Controver&s;ies, relating to &s;ingle Per&s;ons; and therefore it is no way per|tinent to the Rule it &s;elf, to affirm that the&s;e Authors ought not to be condemn'd of <HI>Here&s;ie,</HI> becau&s;e they are not particu|larly condemn'd by the Council of <HI>Calce|don,</HI> e&s;pecially when <HI>Vigilius</HI> him&s;elf pleads in his Decretal, that the Opinions them|&s;elves were condemn'd for damnable He|re&s;ies, and then the Ca&s;e is plain, that whoever holds them, ought to be cen|&s;ured as an Heretick. However he had no Canon to Ju&s;tifie his fir&s;t Ob&s;tinacy, and therefore it is a meer Precarious Plea of <HI>de Marca.</HI> And then to pa&s;s by many intermediate Actions, upon which our Learned man would put a fair Glo&s;s, his la&s;t Decree was &s;o far from Temperament,
<PB N="343" REF="176"> that it was more Furious than all the re&s;t; for he might have condemn'd the <HI>tria Ca|pitula</HI> to pre&s;erve the Peace and Unity of the Church, but then what need of char|ging them with &s;o foul a thing as Bla&s;|phemy? for if he only conde&s;cended for Peace &s;ake, he ought to have pa&s;&s;ed them over with a general Sentence of Condem|nation. But if he condemn'd them for their own Impiety, then there was no Conde&s;cention in the Complyance, but what he did was in pro&s;ecution of an In|di&s;pen&s;able Duty. So unhappy is this great man in his labour'd Apology: That where he pleads &s;trict Law, there was perfect Liberty, and where he pleads Li|berty, there was &s;trict Law. And that was the unlucky Fury of that Pa&s;&s;ionate <HI>Pope,</HI> that which way &s;oever he went, he was always in the wrong. And therefore how confidently &s;oever <HI>Vigilius</HI> might look, after his Recantation, and what&s;o|ever Apologies the <HI>Roman</HI> Clients and Para&s;ites may have made to varni&s;h over the Action, it was the foule&s;t Baffle that was ever given to that See, and lo&s;t them as much ground as all the huffing of <HI>Leo the Great</HI> and <HI>Hormi&s;da</HI> had gain'd. And therefore the <HI>Con&s;tantinopolitans</HI> having got this Advantage, and the Emperour on their &s;ide, who indeed had plaid foul play
<PB N="344" REF="177"> in this whole matter, for he promi&s;ed to call a general Council, of an equal num|ber of <HI>Ea&s;tern</HI> and <HI>We&s;tern</HI> Bi&s;hops, and yet Summon'd only the <HI>Ea&s;tern,</HI> and the <HI>Pope</HI> him&s;elf, who was to appear in Per|&s;on, and not by his Legates, of this the <HI>Pope</HI> had rea&s;on to complain; but then he ought in prudence to have &s;tood to it, and not to &s;ubmit; for when the Council was conven'd by his procurement, and he was &s;o openly overrul'd by it, he gave them that Advantage that they would be &s;ure never to lo&s;e. And therefore as I was &s;aying they made their be&s;t of it, and finding them&s;elves Ma&s;ters of the field, re&s;olved to make good their Ground, and pur&s;ue their Victory; &s;o that having over|top'd all the other Patriarchates, and ha|ving no Rival le&s;t but <HI>Rome,</HI> they were now once more embolden'd to pu&s;h for an Univer&s;al Supremacy.</P>
</DIV2>
<DIV2 N="32" TYPE="section">
<HEAD>&sect;. XXX.</HEAD>
<P>And their Pur&s;uit was very ea&s;y, there being no enemy to make head again&s;t them; for <HI>Pelagius</HI> the fir&s;t that Succeeded, having &s;ub&s;crib'd the late Council, with which the <HI>We&s;tern</HI> Bi&s;hops being highly di&s;plea&s;ed, for the Affront and neglect that had been put upon them, they refu&s;ed his Communion, in&s;omuch that he could procure but two Bi&s;hops
<PB N="345" REF="177"> and one Presbyter to be pre&s;ent at his Con&s;ecration, and in&s;tead of Forreign Wars, he was wholy employed in &s;etling Peace at home; and that is the Subject of his Epi&s;tles to per&s;wade his Neighbour Bi|&s;hops to a Reconciliation, and incite the Courtiers to bring them to it by Violence and Compul&s;ion; &s;o that he was never &s;o much as able to recollect his Scattered Forces. Neither were his three next Suc|ce&s;&s;ors, <HI>John</HI> the <HI>third, Benedict</HI> the <HI>fir&s;t,</HI> and <HI>Pelagius</HI> the <HI>&s;econd,</HI> the <HI>We&s;tern</HI> Church being over-run with Schi&s;m about the <HI>tria Capitula,</HI> and <HI>Italy</HI> it &s;elf mi&s;erably harra&s;t by the <HI>Lombards,</HI> only the la&s;t labour'd (or rather <HI>Gregory</HI> in his name, and by his command) to reduce his Bi&s;hops to obedi|ence, but all in vain, for they were too head-&s;trong, and both his Intere&s;t and his Arguments were too weak; of the latter I have given a ta&s;t in his Endeavour to prove <HI>Vigilius</HI> con&s;tant in his Incon&s;tancy. But now are we come to the very <HI>Phar&s;a|lian</HI> Field, in which was determin'd the Empire of the Univer&s;al Church. For <HI>Gregory</HI> the great Succeeding, a man of a Military Education, great Courage, Po|pular Piety and Devotion; he is no &s;ooner &s;etled in his Throne, but he labours every where for the &s;ettlement of the Church, and by his great Activity obtein'd an U|niver&s;al
<PB N="346" REF="178"> Authority in it, Depo&s;ing Patri|archs, and comptrolling Provincial Sy|nods; and as he took to him&s;elf the Of|fice of Univer&s;al Pa&s;tor, &s;o <HI>John</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Constantinople</HI> a&s;&s;um'd the Title, and ob|tein'd to have it &s;etled upon him and his Succe&s;&s;ors, by the Authority of <HI>Mauritius</HI> the Emperour. This puts <HI>Pope Gregory</HI> into a Rage, and he immediately Flies out again&s;t it, as the very heighth of <HI>Anti|chri&s;tian Pride</HI> and <HI>In&s;olence,</HI> e&s;pecially when <HI>Mauritius</HI> had given him the Title of Fool, for with that he begins his Com|plaint about this bu&s;ine&s;s; the fir&s;t Let|ter that he &s;ends to <HI>Mauritius</HI> is to com|plain of his being call'd Fool, and tax'd of indi&s;cretion, and minds him of that Re|verence <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Lib.</HI> 4. <HI>Ep.</HI> 31.</NOTE> that is to be &s;hewn to the Prie&s;t|hood by the Example of <HI>Con&s;tantine</HI> the great; in the next he thunders again&s;t the Title of Univer&s;al Bi&s;hop, but &s;o oppo&s;eth the &s;etting of the name upon the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> as to &s;ettle the real Au|thority of the thing upon the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome;</HI> for that is his Argument, that though St. <HI>Peter</HI> and his Succe&s;&s;ours re|ceiv'd from our Saviour Univer&s;al Power over the Church, yet he was &s;o mode&s;t as never to challenge the Title of Univer&s;al Apo&s;tle. But this is an odd kind of Coun|terfeit Humility that is practi&s;ed by the
<PB N="347" REF="178"> <HI>Popes</HI> of <HI>Rome,</HI> whil&s;t they make the proude&s;t claims to give them&s;elves the humble&s;t Titles, and under the name of <HI>Servus Servorum,</HI> to make them&s;elves Princes of the World: But however, if the thing were granted by our Saviour to St. <HI>Peter,</HI> I under&s;tand not what Pride it would have been to have own'd it by its proper name, e&s;pecially when the Go|vernment of the Church through all Ages depended upon the clearne&s;s of his Title to it; &s;o that the Re&s;ult of the Argu|ment is this, that it was a proud thing in <HI>John</HI> of <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> to a&s;&s;ume that Title that was only due to him&s;elf. But this moves not the Emperour, who only re|turns him this an&s;wer, as <HI>Gregory</HI> com|plains, <HI>ut cum fratre &amp; Con&s;acerdote meo Joanne debeam e&s;&s;e pacificus, i. e.</HI> to be &s;a|tisfied <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 34.</NOTE> with what is done. Upon this he Beleaguers the Empre&s;s, and lays the &s;tre&s;s of his cau&s;e upon the injury that was done to St. <HI>Peter,</HI> not to him&s;elf, and tells her that &s;he ought to be kind to his Church out of Gratitude, becau&s;e &s;he had receiv'd the Ab&s;olution of her Sins by vertue of his Authority: So that it is not the cau&s;e of the <HI>Catholick Church,</HI> that he &s;o Zea|lou&s;ly appears for again&s;t <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> but of his own See. And though he would make it &s;eem to be the cau&s;e of the
<PB N="348" REF="179"> whole Church, by inferring that if he were Univer&s;al Bi&s;hop, he would be &s;ole Bi&s;hop too; yet the Con&s;equence is equal|ly odious and Illogical; for could he not pretend to a regular Power over all other Bi&s;hops, but pre&s;ently there mu&s;t be no other Bi&s;hops be&s;ides him&s;elf? He had Supreme Power within his own Patriarch|ate; Was he therefore &s;ole Bi&s;hop in it? Nay St. <HI>Peter</HI> (as St. <HI>Gregory</HI> informs us) was Univer&s;al Pa&s;tor, though in mode&s;ty he would not take the Title: Was there therefore no other? If it follows in one ca&s;e, it follows in both, if not, in neither. And when he tells the Emperour <HI>Mauriti|us</HI> that the &s;ame Title that <HI>John</HI> had U|&s;urp'd, was offered to the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 32.</NOTE> by the Council of <HI>Calcedon,</HI> but was re|fu&s;ed becau&s;e it &s;eem'd to dimini&s;h the Ho|nour of other Bi&s;hops. Though here I doubt his Holine&s;s &s;omewhat lea&s;es, for no man be&s;ides him&s;elf ever heard of any &s;uch offer; neither was there &s;o good un|der&s;tanding between the <HI>Pope</HI> and the Council in this matter; they granted him Precedency, or the Title of the fir&s;t Bi|&s;hop, but nothing of Supremacy; So that it is but another ca&s;t of St. <HI>Gregory</HI>'s Lo|gick, to infer one from the other. But &s;uppo&s;ing the Truth of the A&s;&s;ertion, does it follow that they therefore re&s;ign'd their
<PB N="349" REF="179"> Bi&s;hopricks, and con&s;tituted him &s;ole Bi|&s;hop of the World? This were too ridicu|lous and too precarious to affirm, &s;o that he dares not do it here; for the Rea&s;on that he gives of the Refu&s;al is, becau&s;e it would dimini&s;h the Honour of other Bi&s;hops, but certainly it is one thing to lo&s;e a little Honour, and another to be &s;trip't of all Authority. This therefore is plainly an Invidious Con&s;equence of St. <HI>Gregory,</HI> to infer from the Title of <HI>&V;niver&s;al Bi&s;hop</HI> that of <HI>&s;ole Bi&s;hop,</HI> thereby to draw all other Bi&s;hops to his &s;ide. So that it is plain the Competition was between the&s;e two Sees, who &s;hould have the Univer&s;al Monarchy, and not between <HI>Con&s;tantin|ople</HI> and the <HI>Catholick Church;</HI> Neither was it the cau&s;e of St. <HI>Peter</HI> that he pleaded but his own, for St. <HI>Peter</HI> never alledg'd that we know of <HI>Tu es Petrus</HI> for any Uni|ver&s;al Monarchy; nay if we may believe St. <HI>Gregory</HI> never openly own'd it, or if he did, he was long &s;ince dead, and what happened now was none of his, but his Succe&s;&s;ors cau&s;e; however this is a poor begging of the Que&s;tion, for humble St. <HI>Gregory</HI> to transfer the Odium of the Con|trover&s;ie from him&s;elf to St. <HI>Peter,</HI> unle&s;s he could have better prov'd that St. <HI>Peter</HI> either had or pretended to any &s;uch Uni|ver&s;al Authority. Then he falls upon the
<PB N="350" REF="180"> Bi&s;hop him&s;elf, and Preaches him a Ser|mon <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 38.</NOTE> of Humility, and to his former Ar|guments tells him, That by a&s;&s;uming this Title he will become like <HI>Lucifer,</HI> when he &s;aid he would a&s;cend above the Stars and the Clouds, becau&s;e the Bi&s;hops are Stars that enlighten mens minds, and Clouds that rain upon them Showers of Truth. But Bi&s;hop <HI>John</HI> knowing that Bi&s;hops were neither Stars nor Cloudes, was not affrighted with the Argument of a&s;cending &s;o high, for he knew he &s;tood upon firm Ground, and had both Empe|rour and Empre&s;s to &s;upport him. And therefore taking Occa&s;ion to write to the <HI>Pope</HI> about another bu&s;ine&s;s &s;tiles him&s;elf, as the <HI>Pope</HI> complains in his Letter to <HI>Sa|binian,</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 39.</NOTE> <HI>pene per omnem ver&s;um</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>Patriarcha,</HI> and &s;o dies the Prince of Pride, the Forerunner of <HI>Antichri&s;t,</HI> and the Fa|ther of Bla&s;phemy; all which Titles and a great many more St, <HI>Gregory</HI> hath be|&s;towed upon that of <HI>Oecumenical Bi&s;hop.</HI> But whatever became of him, <HI>Cyriacus</HI> his Succe&s;&s;our was not at all &s;cared with St. <HI>Gregory</HI>'s Threatnings, and per&s;i&s;ts in the &s;ame claim with his Predece&s;&s;our; <HI>Gregory</HI> writes to him to lay a&s;ide that <HI>Nefandum Nomen,</HI> and intimates as if it were to be the Article of their Communion. The <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Lib.</HI> 6. <HI>c.</HI> 4.</NOTE> Emperour writes to him and taxes him
<PB N="351" REF="180"> with indi&s;cretion to make &s;uch a &s;tir about a <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 30.</NOTE> frivolous name; he an&s;wers, and that indeed wi&s;ely enough, That though he very much di&s;liked the thing, yet he was not &s;o indi&s;creet as for that to deny Commu|nion with him; and that though it were a frivolous name, it was of dangerous Con&s;equence, and would make way to bring in <HI>Antichri&s;tan Pride</HI> into the Church. And then he endeavours to <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 31.</NOTE> draw to his Party the Patriarchs of <HI>Alex|andria</HI> and <HI>Antioch,</HI> and makes it their Controver&s;ie, as well as his own; and the better to induce them to it, he is content to divide St. <HI>Peter</HI>'s Primacy between the three Sees; but this was to no purpo&s;e, for they had in the time of his Predece&s;|&s;our <HI>Pelagius</HI> the &s;econd, given their con|&s;ent to the thing in a Council of <HI>Con&s;tantin|ople,</HI> as him&s;elf intimates; and <HI>Pelagius</HI> complains, that it was done in their own <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>L.</HI> 4. <HI>E.</HI> 34. <HI>L.</HI> 1. <HI>E.</HI> 8.</NOTE> <HI>Conventicle.</HI> And &s;o the Controver&s;ie re&s;ted all the time of <HI>Mauritius;</HI> but he being Barbarou&s;ly Murder'd by his Rebel Servant <HI>Phocas,</HI> who was not content to deprive his Ma&s;ter both of Crown and Life, but fir&s;t Murder'd him in his Chil|dren, Sacrificing them all before his Eyes, before he laid the Knife to his own Throat; one of the greate&s;t in&s;tances of in&s;ulting and inhumanity, that is upon Record.
<PB N="352" REF="181"> And yet this Brutal Wretch, that had no pretence, nor Title to the Crown, but a ca&s;ual and &s;uddain Tumult, that had thus Bruti&s;hly Imbrued his hands in Royal Bloud, was no &s;ooner &s;etled in his U&s;urped Tyranny, but St. <HI>Gregory</HI> Congratulates the Providence that delivered the Empire from its former mi&s;erable Condition, and plac'd him on the Throne for the publick good. And this I mu&s;t confe&s;s I cannot but take very heinou&s;ly from a man that pretended to &s;o much Integrity; for as for his Prevaricating in the Controver&s;ie of Univer&s;ality, it is po&s;&s;ible that he might not under&s;tand the Pride of his own heart; and that's a common thing for men that are conceited of their Humility (as it is plain he was by his boa&s;ting &s;o much of it) to be guilty of the haughtie&s;t Pride with|out being &s;en&s;ible of it. He believ'd him|&s;elf a very humble and Mortified man, and therefore never &s;u&s;pected any Proud de&s;igns in his own Actions, and for that rea&s;on that vanity that he thought <HI>Anti|chri&s;tian Pride</HI> in another, he thought con&s;i&s;tent with humility in him&s;elf. But this was downright Di&s;hone&s;ty to ju&s;tifie &s;uch a wretch in his Villany, only to &s;erve his own Ambition, for the old Complaint again&s;t the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> is in the Tail of all his Flattery; when once
<PB N="353" REF="181"> he found that he had got into the Tyrant, in his fir&s;t Letter he Congratulates the happine&s;s of the Times, and the Goodne&s;s of God in his Advancement to the Throne. <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Epi&s;t. l.</HI> 11.</NOTE> He pre&s;ently &s;ends his <HI>Apocri&s;iary</HI> accor|ding to ancient Cu&s;tom to re&s;ide in the <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 38.</NOTE> Court of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> as the Tyrant de|&s;ired, and excu&s;es him&s;elf that there were none re&s;iding before he came to the <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 45.</NOTE> Crown, by the badne&s;s of the Times and the Barbarity of their u&s;age: The Tyrant be|ing thus prepared, he A&s;&s;aults the Em|pre&s;s, as thinking that &s;he was more ea&s;ily to be overcome with Flattery; and when he had di&s;charg'd that Topick with Ful|&s;omne&s;s enough, he then thinks fit to in|&s;inuate <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 46.</NOTE> his own Intere&s;t, <HI>Rogare for&s;itan debui,</HI> &amp;c. What encouragement he found <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Pag.</HI> 1535.</NOTE> I know not, but it is certain that he took heart upon it, and therefore writes to <HI>Cy|riacus</HI> him&s;elf after a more Peremptory manner than he was wont to do in the time of <HI>Mauritius,</HI> advi&s;ing him, That <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Epi&s;t.</HI> 47.</NOTE> he make ha&s;te to remove out of the Church, the Scandal of that Perver&s;e and Proud Title, le&s;t he find him&s;elf &s;epera|ted from the <HI>Communion of his Peace.</HI> But after he had thus Flattered and care&s;s'd the Tyrant in all his Wickedne&s;s, he liv'd not to reap the Fruits of it, for the Title of Univer&s;al Bi&s;hop was not taken from
<PB N="354" REF="182"> <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> and &s;etled upon the See of <HI>Rome,</HI> till the time of <HI>Pope Boniface</HI> the third his Succe&s;&s;our, who obtain'd from <HI>Phocas</HI> to declare that it appertain'd not of Right to the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> who had U&s;urp'd it, but was the peculiar right of the <HI>Roman See.</HI> This <HI>Boniface</HI> had been St. <HI>Gregory</HI>'s Re&s;ident at Court, and for his Courtly behaviour toward the Tyrant, was cho&s;en to &s;ucceed in the See; and <HI>Cyriacus</HI> a little after falling under the Tyrants di&s;plea&s;ure, for &s;iding with the Relations of <HI>Mauritius,</HI> and declaring a|gain&s;t the Execrable Murder of <HI>Phocas, Boniface</HI> &s;eizes the Opportunity of his di&s;plea&s;ure, and ea&s;ily prevails with him to declare by publick Edict, That the Bi|&s;hop of <HI>Rome</HI> was Head of the Univer&s;al Church, and commanded the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Con&s;tantinople</HI> to forbear a&s;&s;uming that Ti|tle to him&s;elf.</P>
<P>And thus having &s;hewn by what de|grees this See advanc'd it &s;elf in the Chri|&s;tian Church, till at length it gain'd U|niver&s;al Supremacy over the <HI>Catholick Church;</HI> it is not at pre&s;ent material to &s;hew how it u&s;ed it, that is another di&s;|pute, my pre&s;ent bu&s;ine&s;s is to &s;hew that there was no &s;uch thing from the begin|ning, either by Divine Right, or Apo&s;to|lical Pre&s;cription; or &s;o much as Eccle&s;i|a&s;tical
<PB N="355" REF="182"> Con&s;titution in the following Ages in the Church; that it was never preten|ded to, till the <HI>5th.</HI> nor &s;etled till the <HI>6th.</HI> Century; and la&s;tly, that its &s;etlement was made by a very Incompetent Autho|rity; and that &s;o very late, that it was only born time enough to be Elder Brother to <HI>Mahumetani&s;m,</HI> that being brought forth under the Reign of <HI>Phocas,</HI> and this under his immediate Succe&s;&s;our <HI>Heraclius:</HI> But here <HI>Baronius</HI> is very merry, and tells us, <HI>That when we make &s;uch a noi&s;e about</HI> <NOTE PLACE="marg"><HI>Anno Dom.</HI> 606.</NOTE> <HI>the</HI> Popes <HI>being fir&s;t made head of the Church by</HI> Phocas, <HI>we are like a pack of Hounds hunting a painted Hare: or like</HI> Saul<HI>'s Me&s;|&s;engers that when they thought they had ta|ken</HI> David, <HI>found they had only a Logg to their Pri&s;oner: For ahlas what if</HI> Phocas <HI>did declare this Title, to be the Right of the Bi&s;hop of</HI> Rome; <HI>did he therefore fir&s;t grant it? Is it not evident from all the Re|cords of the Church, that the Bi&s;hop of</HI> Rome <HI>ever had it in all Ages? Is it not then ri|diculous that when this Tyrant out of a Pique to</HI> Cyriacus <HI>happened to do it right, to in|fer that it had none before? For if we &s;earch the</HI> Annals <HI>of the Church from our Saviours coming, to</HI> Phocas <HI>his Reign (which is</HI> 600. <HI>years) we &s;hall &s;carce find a year to have pa&s;&s;ed without a Precedent of the</HI> Popes <HI>Pri|macy; and this is &s;o clear that it will be</HI>
<PB N="356" REF="183"> <HI>ea&s;ier to deny that the Sun &s;hines, or the Fire burns, than to ob&s;cure the Gli&s;tering Evi|dence of this Truth.</HI> Boldly &s;aid <HI>Cardinal!</HI> But your cau&s;e requires it, for it is no|thing but Confidence that &s;ets you up and bears the People down; for they cannot imagin that you &s;hould be &s;o peremptory in your Opinion, without an Infallible a&s;|&s;urance of your being in the Right. But when the&s;e general Challenges are reduc'd to particular Precedents, what work do you make with the Records of the Church? your whole bu&s;ine&s;s is to impo&s;e upon and pervert every thing that concerns your &s;elves, &s;o that I mu&s;t crave leave to be as po&s;itive in the right as you are in the wrong, and tell you that there is not one Precedent in the ancient Church on your &s;ide, and that the whole Practice of the <HI>Catholick Church</HI> is a perpetual Precedent again&s;t you. And that I may not be con|fident as you are without ju&s;t Rea&s;on; I will clo&s;e with your Chalenge and appeal to the Monuments of the Church. I have already told mine own Story out of them hone&s;tly and Impartially, and if it be true, your Cau&s;e is overthrown, for then it is certain that the Power you pretend to by Divine Right is meer U&s;urpation, and for the truth of it, I mu&s;t leave it to the judg|ment of the World; and though I doubt
<PB N="357" REF="183"> not but that there may be divers le&s;s mate|rial &s;lips and mi&s;takes in it; yet I am &s;o a&s;&s;ur'd of my own Integrity, that I know that as to the main Point I drive at, I have Irrefragable Truth on my &s;ide: And there|fore having done mine own part of the work, you may demoli&s;h it if you can; I will now return back with you to yours, and examine tho&s;e Precedents and Records of the Church, that you alledge on your behalf, and then when we have compar'd yours and mine together, let him be laugh'd at <HI>that Catches the Painted Hare.</HI> But at pre&s;ent I am tyr'd with this tedious Chace of 600 years, and therefore &s;hall adjourn the Match till the next Sea&s;on. In the mean while I &s;hall only de&s;ire the Reader to ob&s;erve that I di&s;pute not in a De&s;tructive and Negative way, nor Inte|re&s;t my &s;elf in the Quarrel of this or that particular Party. My only Concernment is for real Truth, which I mu&s;t and will a&s;&s;ert again&s;t all &s;orts of Oppo&s;ition. And therefore in every part of this Argument I &s;hall begin with the Demon&s;tration of that, and that being firmly laid, I &s;hall from thence proceed to the Conviction of all kinds of Errour. For the Enormity of Errour lyes meerly in its di&s;tance from Truth, and if the Di&s;tance be the &s;ame, it is all one to me whether it lye <HI>Ea&s;t</HI> or
<PB N="358" REF="184"> <HI>We&s;t.</HI> So that this will engage me in the Oppo&s;ition of all Extreams, and I &s;hall make no difference between Parties, how much &s;oever they differ between them|&s;elves, that agree in departing from the true Con&s;titution of the <HI>Chri&s;tian Church.</HI> For the only rule and mea&s;ure of our <HI>Re|formation</HI> is the Original Practice of the <HI>Primitive</HI> and <HI>Apo&s;tolick Church,</HI> and the Corruption of the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> lyes in nothing el&s;e than its departure and &s;epara|tion from that, &s;o that the only de&s;ign of reforming the <HI>Chri&s;tian Church</HI> is to re|turn &s;o far back to its fir&s;t Con&s;titution, as the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> hath departed from it. And if we do not limit it by tho&s;e Bounds that are pre&s;crib'd from the begin|ning, we may indeed make ten thou&s;and alterations in the Church, but not one Reformation. And therefore if any other Churches that have ca&s;hier'd the Corrup|tions of the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> in&s;tead of reforming them&s;elves by the Primitive Rule, have erected any new <HI>Fabrick</HI> of their own devi&s;ing, whatever Titles they may give them&s;elves, they are in the &s;ame Ca&s;e and Condemnation with the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> and in&s;tead of amending its Er|rours, have only exchang'd the old <HI>Apo|&s;tacy</HI> for a new one.</P>
<PB N="359" REF="184">
<P> Seeing therefore the defence of Truth will engage me in a defyance to all &s;orts of Errour, I &s;hall forbear particular Ap|plication to any Party of men, till I come to &s;um up the Evidence in the Conclu&s;ion of the whole, becau&s;e till then the Charge will not come in its full force, but then it will fall with equal weight upon all. And I am afraid before I have done, I &s;hall prove the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> to be much more <HI>Catholick</HI> than it thinks it &s;elf to be. And &s;hake &s;ome of its mo&s;t Zealous Friends and Fierce&s;t Enemies into the &s;ame bagg of Communion.</P>
</DIV2>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
