SECTION I.

OUR Blessed Savior, having Establish'd the Society of his Church in the World, and vested it with a Power of Jurisdiction within it Self, and settled the Supream Authority over it, in the Order of Apo­stles, and their Successors for ever; the next thing to be considered for the true stating of the Primitive and Apostolical Form, is to find out how they reduc'd their Master's Institution to Practice, in what manner, and upon what grounds they proceeded in their founding and erecting of Churches. For when our Sa­vior had prescrib'd the original Platform, they were left (as the nature of the thing requir'd) to their own Prudence, Judg­ment and Discretion for the manner of framing the Work, and raising the Build­ing. Thus for Example, tho He had vest­ed the Apostolical Order and Succession with Supremacy of Jurisdiction in the Church, Yet he hath no where prescrib'd [Page 2] the Bounds of every mans Jurisdiction, but hath left that to be determin'd by Them­selv's, when they came to reduce his Insti­tution to Practice, as They should judge most serviceable to the true Interest and Advantage of Christianity. But beside the Edification of the Church, they were to have a special Regard to the Peace and Quiet of Civil Government, so as not to interfere with, or any way disturb it, by the Exercise of their Jurisdiction. 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 strictly oblig'd above all things to be most punctual and conscien­tious in the great Duty of Allegiance and Subjection to their Lawful Prince. And therefore to discover the true Settlement of Christian Churches in the World, most for the Interest both of Government and Religion, We must compare the Apostles Practice with our Savior's Institution. And by that means we shall lay before our Ey's the perfect State and lasting Polity of the Catholique Church.

Now there is nothing more evident in the Apostolical and Primitive History, than that when the Apostles in pursuance of their Commission dispers'd themselv's into all Parts of the World to preach the [Page 3] Gospel and erect Churches, every man govern'd and presided over the Churches of his own Foundation. Hence St. Paul's Visiting his own Churches, Acts 15. 36. Hence his particular Care of Discipline in the Church of Corinth; so that whereas the Author of the Commentaries ascrib'd to St. Ambrose affirm's that Schism's were fomented in that Church by the Presby­ters, Quia adhuc Rectores Ecclesiis non omni­bus locis fuerant constituti, Becaus as yet Governors were not setled in all Churches, it is Evident by those Epistles, and particu­larly his Injunction to excommunicate the incestuous Corinthian, (1 Cor. 5. 4.) that the Apostle exercis'd this Authority himself, as he did over other Churches of his own planting, till by degrees setled Governors were fix'd in all Churches, as is plainly pointed out by this Passage. Hence this Apostle's so frequent Epistles to his several Churches, which are so many effects of his Episcopal Care over them, and I will freely grant (becaus men con­tend for it, tho I know not why, unless it be that they understand not what is to their purpose) that in most of the Churches, to whom He directs his Epistles, there was no fix'd Bishop; but tho there was not, Yet it is undenyable that the Apostle himself claimed and exercis'd Episcopal [Page 4] Jurisdiction over them. Hence the Title of St. Peter's Epistle to the Jews of several Provinces, to whom he had preach'd the Gospel according to the agreement be­tween him and St. Paul, Gal. 2. 9. and over whom he presided as Supreme Governor. And as every Apostle was at first Bishop of the Churches of his own Plantation, so if any of them made their fix'd Residence in any particular City or Bishoprick, he became the proper Bishop of it, as it is evi­dent in the Case of St. James of Jerusalem, by several Passages of the Scripture com­par'd with the undoubted Records of the Church: hence his constant Residence there, from St. Paul's first coming to Jeru­salem, to his last, which was 14 Years. Hence his precedency in Title, Honor and Authority above other Apostles, even St. Peter and St. John, Gal. 2. 9. Hence his presiding in the Council of Jerusalem, for it is He that draws up the Decree, Acts 15. 7, 13. Hence St. Peter's Command when he was deliverd out of Prison, that they should tell it to James, Acts 12. 17. Hence St. Paul's Address to him and his Presbyters at his last coming to Jerusalem, when there was no other Apostle residing there beside himself; and agreeable to these Passages Ignatius informs us, that St. Ste­phen Ep. ad Tral. was Deacon to this Bishop James, and [Page 5] it is generally suppos'd that he govern'd that Church till about the sixth or seventh Year of Nero, when he was murder'd by Ananus the Younger; but it is more pro­bable from Josephus, that it was the fourth Antiq. l. 20. c. 8. Year, it being done in the short Interval between the Death of Festus and the Ar­rival of his Successor Albinus, who conti­nued there from the 4^th till the 10^th of that Emperor, which agrees exactly with Epiphanius, who affirms, that St. James presided over the Church of Jerusalem Haeres. 78. about 24 years after our Savior's Ascen­tion.

His Government of that Church is at­tested by Hegesippus himself, who lived next to the first and Apostolical Age, i. e. to those who either were Apostles them­selv's, or convers'd with them, of whom St. Polycarp was the last, who suffer'd Martyrdome in the time of M. Antoninus, at which time Hegesippus was in the Flower of his Age, and therefore living so near to the very time of the Apostles, and making it the Design and Employment of his Life to enquire into the most antient Records and original Practice of Churches, he can­not but be admitted for an unquestionable Witness of Apostolical Customs and Con­stitutions. And of the same Authority is the Testimony of St. Clement in the Sixt [Page 6] Book of his Institutions, as he is quoted by Eusebius, where he expresly records, Hist. Eccles. lib. 2. c. 1. that tho Peter, James (the Great) and John were preferr'd by the Lord, Yet after his Assumption they did not challenge the Pre­rogative to themselv's, but chose James the Just, Bishop of Jerusalem. That is, saith Baronius, after the usual modesty of the Anno Chri­sti 34. num. 286. Romanists, he was chosen by St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and hath the con­fidence to prove it by this Passage, tho in it other Apostles are expresly joyn'd in Equal Authority with him. And the truth is, after the same rate of boldness, do these men impose upon all the Wri­tings of the Antients. Insomuch that there is not one Citation produc'd by them out of the Writers of the first 300 Years (to go no lower) for the Popes Su­premacy, that is not impudently strein'd or perverted; but that by the Way.

Now though these Constitutions were not written by Clemens the Famous Bishop of Rome, as plainly appears by the last Apostolieal Canon, (where Clemens his two Epistles are ascrib'd to that Eminent Bishop, but the Constitutions to another Clemens who owns himself Author of that very Collection of Canons) Yet who ever this Clemens was, he was a very ancient and an early writer, as appears by his [Page 7] own account of himself, That he was [...], next to the Apud Eu­seb. lib. 6. c. 13. Apostolical Succession: and as Dr. Beve­ridge hath very probably conjectur'd, in his Accurate and Learned Notes upon that Canon, it was Clemens Alexandrinus. For that he wrote a Book of Ecclesiastical Ca­nons (and so the Canons Apostolical were commonly call'd) is attested by the An­tients, Hist. Eccles. lib. 3. c. 13. in Coetael. Biblioth. c. 3. Eusebius, St. Jerom, Photius. And for his Book of Constitutions, himself af­firms in the Book of the Passeover, That at the Importunity of his Friends he wrote such a Book for the Information of Poste­rity from the Tradition of the Antients. And this afterward gain'd the name of Apostolical Constitutions, as the Canons did: not becaus they pretended to have bin fram'd by them, but becaus they were deriv'd by an uninterrupted Succession from them. And by those Fragments of the work, that are still remaining in the Antients, he seems to have made very great use of Clement, Polycarp, but especi­ally Ignatius for his Collection. Tho the Book that now goes under that Name is so 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 supposititious, yet becaus of its many, and uncertain Inter­polations [Page 8] it is altogether useless. And for that reason it is rejected by the Sixth General Council in Trullo, in its second Canon, becaus interpolated by Heretiques. But that he composed such a Book from the Traditions and the Writings of the Primitive Christians, is evident from the Testimony of those Learned Men that quote him; and particularly among the rest the foremention'd Citation out of him by Eusebius is remarkable to our purpose, That St. James was not onely Bishop of Jerusalem, but was chosen to that Office by the Apostles themselv's. But after all, Eusebius his own Testimony, though it had stood alone, and tho he liv'd at a good distance of time from it, is of it self more than a Demonstration, in that he hath given us an exact description of all the Bishops of Jerusalem from St. James down to Narcissus the 30^th Bishop in that Succes­sion; Lib. 4. Lib. 5. c. 12. partly from the Memoirs of antient Writers, partly from the Records of that Church it self; To which I might add, That the very Episcopal Chair in which he sat, according to the Custom of those first Ages, was to be seen in Eusebius his Lib. 7. c. 19. time, as he saith it was; for tho those Shews are of no great weight in them­selv's. Yet they are no small Argument of the constant Tradition of the Church, [Page 9] especially when they are joyn'd with so much other concurrent Evidence, and have no other design in them but plain truth and simplicity: So that it is not his own private Testimony, but both a con­stant Tradition and a public Register, up­on which his Authority rely's; and how carefully the Dypticks or Succession of their Bishops from the Apostles were re­serv'd in the Archiv's of the Apostolical Churches, is vulgarly known to all Per­sons of ordinary Learning. Now when the Testimonies of the most antient Wri­ters suit so exactly with so many Passages of the holy Scriptures, and are vouch'd by publique and solemne Records, they are too wilful or too Sceptical that demand any further Satisfaction. And therefore to all this Evidence, it is a doughty An­swer that is given us out of Salmasius, That this were to de­grade Walo p. 201. Absurdum igitur illud Clementis A­lexandrini commentum, qui Jacobum Apostolum ac proinde universalem Episcopum, in specialem et localem transmutare, et sic in ordinem cogere cogitavit. an Apostle to the Office of an ordinary Bishop. For this is not to appeal to the Testimony of competent Witnesses, which is the onely Evidence of the matter of Fact, but to baffle it with a Querke of Logick. The most an­tient and undoubted Records of the Church unanimously set down St. James for the first Bishop of Jerusalem. No, say [Page 10] we, that's impossible, for that were to de­grade an Apostle to a Bishop. Of the Lo­gick of the Argument afterwards; but at present what do we say to all these plain and undenyable Testimonies? If we ad­mit them, in spite of all the Logick in the World it is certain that he was Bishop of Jerusalem: if we reject them, we must upon the same terms throw away all the Records in the World, not only private but publick, and that when they both agree, without any other historical Coun­ter-Evidence or Exception. But then as for the Argument, it is so far from being an Absurdity, that it is an undenyable Truth, That the Apostolical Office was Episcopal, and the Episcopal Apostolical, both of them consisting in the Supreme Government of the Church; so that an Apostle was a moving Bishop to found Churches, and a Bishop a settled Apostle to govern them. And therefore St. James not travelling abroad, but residing con­stantly at Jerusalem, and exercising his Apostolical Authority there, was truly and properly their fix'd Bishop. And thus even the great Walo himself after a great deal of Leviathan tumbling about the dif­ference between the name of Apostle and Bishop, and guessing that this James was onely a Presbyter, and none of the 12 [Page 11] Apostles, concludes that he was accounted of, as Bishop of that City, Quia Presby­terio hoc est Coetui Episcoporum sive Pres­byterorum in illâ Civitate constituto cum auctoritate majore praefuit. Becaus he was placed in an higher Authority over the Pres­bytery or Clergy of that City. And what can any reasonable Man desire more to prove his Episcopal Supremacy in it? So that whether he were an Apostle that by Virtue of his fix'd Residence there, be­came Bishop 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.

§. II.

And now when the Apostolical Supremacy is so evident in this first Age of the Christian Church, one would think after that, there would remain no Con­troversy about the Equality of Ecclesiasti­cal Officers for their time, when this thing alone so plainly prevents and anticipates the very Dispute it self. And yet not­withstanding that this is unanimously granted, it is voluminously disputed by the pretended followers of St. Jerom, that there was then no inequality, only from the promiscuous signification of the words Bishop and Presbyter. Which is to argue [Page 12] both against their own Concession, and the undenyable Evidence of matter of Fact; viz. that though it is confessed that in the Apostles time there was an Inequality of Church Power, yet it is denyed that there was any, becaus there are some words common to all Persons, in whom any share of this Power resides. And tho I have elsewhere shewn the folly of this trifling, very briefly, yet more than it deserves, I shall now consider it more largely, because I find it still so eagerly insisted upon as the most artificial and plausible Argument to amuse the common People. And I shall treat it with all the favor and kindness I can, and then leave it to its own self to discover its own weak­ness and vanity, and that certainly is a lamentable Caus that no Civility will help out. And therefore tho some Learn­ed men to bridle our Adversaries great Presumption, are pleas'd to put them upon the proof of the Community of the names Dr. Ham­mond diss. 4. c. 10. Dr. Pear­son Vind. Ignt.—part post c. 13. Bishop and Presbyter in the Apostles time, (and the truth is, if it should be deny'd them, they have no better proof for it than remote and uncertain guesses) yet becaus nothing of the Controversy de­pends upon it, and becaus, if at all rely'd upon, it would rather be an Injury than an Advantage to my Caus, by mixing [Page 13] some uncertainty with it, (for if it be un­certain that the Names were promiscu­ously used, so it is that they were not) I shall therefore quit them of this Difficul­ty, and freely grant them not onely this, but all the Advantage that themselv's ever claim'd from the Apostolical History.

And therefore I will not dispute it with P. 10. Walo and Blondel, whether the Presbyters at Miletus, whom St. Paul calls Bishops, belong'd to the Church of Ephesus onely, Acts 20. 17. or were summon'd out of the several ad­joyning City's. Tho I must confess that Irenaeus expresly affirms that both Bishops Lib. 3. c. 14. and Presbyters were conven'd from Ephe­sus and the Adjoyning City's: and St. Jerom himself affirms, that there were in in Catal. Asia divers Bishops in the Apostles time, at whose request St. John writ his Apoca­lypse. So that if Irenaeus that liv'd so near the Apostles, Scholar to Polycarp, who was made Bishop of Smyrna by the Apo­stles, be a competent Witness of a thing so publique, and so near his own time, then it is certain that not onely the Cler­gy of that City, but of that Province, of which Ephesus was the Metropolis, attend­ed the Apostle at Miletus; And if St. Jerom may be trusted, there were then several Bishops among them. And that it was not the Clergy of a single City, [Page 14] but of a whole Country, looks very probable from the Address of St. Paul's Speech, in which he declares, that he had continued in Asia three years together, and appeals not to the Clergy of Ephesus, but of all Asia concerning the Innocence of his Life and Conversation among them. Yet notwithstanding all this, I will grant that they were only the Presbyters of E­phesus, and all that can be inferred from it is, that there were Presbyters in that City, but doth it therefore follow that they were Vested with a Supremacy over the Chur­ches in it? This were to contradict the Apostles own Proceedings among them, for that they were subject to his Authori­ty is evident from the Summons he sends them, and the Charge he gives them. He cites them from Ephesus to atend him at Miletus, and strictly enjoyns them to be faithful in the Performance of their respe­ctive Duties. So that if at that time there were no Bishop set over them, the Apostle was their Bishop, who now taking his last solemn farewel of them, leaves Timothy Supreme Governour of that Church in his stead; for it was in this Macedonian journey that he fixed Timothy there, 1 Tim. 1. 3, I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia. And there­fore though we find Timothy a Compani­on [Page 15] of St. Paul in this Voyage, yet after the Apostle's departure from Miletus, we find no more mention of him in all the Acts of the Apostles. But at whatever time he was appointed to preside over that Church, and how long soever he continued his Re­sidence in it, it is certain that as St. Paul exercised Supremacy of Power over it himself, so he settled him in the same Au­thority, particularly of Ordaining the Cler­gy; so plainly do we find in this very Text, with which our Innovators make so much noise, the true Primitive Form of Church Government, a Bishop presiding in it over the Presbyters.

As for Phil. 1. 1. where the Epistle is directed to the Bishops and Deacons, with­out the mention of any intermediate Pres­byters, and therefore the Bishops of that Church were no more then Presbyters, be­caus many in a City. I will not be so severe as to put them to prove that the See might not be vacant at that time, or that Epaphro­ditus their Bishop was not at that time ab­sent, or that there might not be different Churches of Jews and Gentiles in that, as well as in some other Cities, or that Philip­pi was not a Metropolis, so that in it, all the Bishops of the Province might be included; all which may be rationally presum'd in a particular Case, oppos'd to the universal Pra­ctice [Page 16] of the Church, and the Supposition of any of them is enough to abate and turn the Edge of their Confidence. But I will grant that the Bishops or Overseers here mentioned were proper Presbyters; but then I must demand of our Adversaries, that in Requital they will yield that these Presbyters were subject to the Apostles, and after that, let them make what Ad­vantage of the Text they please. As for our parts we are certain, that St. Paul was the Founder of that Church, the History whereof is Recorded, Acts 16. And there­fore whatever Presbyters were set over it, they were placed there by his Authority, and subject to it at the very time of the writing this Epistle: And here (by the way) it is observable, that though he was then in Prison at Rome, it is written with an extraordinary vigour and alacrity of Expression, from that particular Delight and Satisfaction he took in the great Con­fidence and Sincerity of their Faith; which was so much the firmer, as being founded upon two plain and publick Miracles, which being taken notice of by the Magistrates, made their Certainty absolutely unque­stionable; however that was, St. Paul was their Bishop, as the Apostles for some time kept to themselves the Episcopacy, or Su­preme Government of the Churches of [Page 17] their own Foundation. And therefore this Church is reckon'd by Tertullian a­mong the Apostolical Churches, that is, as himself defines them, those Churches over which some Apostle was known to have presided, Apud quas ipsae adhuc Cathedrae Apostolorum suis locis praesident. So that the Bishop of that Church in Tertullian's time was known to have succeeded the Apostle in that See, as now one Bishop doth another; and what Tertullian means by that is evident, in that he reckons up three Orders of the Clergy, Bishop, Priest, and Deacon; and gives such a Supremacy to the Bishop, as to allow nothing to be done in the Church by Presbyters or Dea­cons without his Authority; * so that De Baptis­mo, cap. 17. Dandi qui­dem habet jus summus sacerdos qui est Episco­pus; de hinc Presbyteri & Diaconi, non tamen sine Episco­pi Auctoritate, propter Ecclesiae honorem; quo salvo salva pax est. when he speaks of a certain Succession of Bishops to the Apostles, in the Govern­ment of any Church, it is certain that he means proper Bishops, as superior to the other Clergy, who by Succeeding in an Apostolical See, succeeded in their Aposto­lical Authority.

But again, the same Persons are stiled P. 12. Bishops and Presbyters, 1 Tim. 3. 2. Titus 1. 5, 7. So they are, but then they are sub­ject to Timothy, and Titus, as well as the Deacons with whom they are joined. For that is the very Argument of those Epi­stles [Page 18] to direct them how to govern the Churches over which they presided, and particularly the Clergy. So that without a Superiority in Timothy and Titus over the other two Orders, the Epistles are Non­sence, and instruct Men to govern with­out Authority: but with it we have appa­rently the three Orders of the Clergy set­tled in those Churches.

As for Heb. 13. 7. The [...] there mention'd, may be either Bishops or Pres­byters or both, for any thing that can be collected from the words themselves. And therefore it is mere Confidence in Blondel, from thence to infer that the Church of Jerusalem was govern'd by a common Council of Presbyters. Why so? Why not as well by a Bishop and Presbyters, as we certainly know it was. But what is this Epistle to the Church of Jerusalem? It is not directed to them, but to all the Jews in the World. Now cannot the Apo­stle exhort them to be obedient to their spiritual Guides and Governours wherever they reside, but there must be presently an Assembly of Divines at Jerusalem. Up­on such intollerable Presumptions as these doth the Presbyterian Cause subsist. But any thing will serve the turn to abuse men, that are resolv'd to abuse them­selves.

And lastly, As for those Passages in the Acts of the Apostles, concerning the Presbyters of Jerusalem join'd with the Apostles, I cannot understand what fol­lows from them, but this, That in that Church there were Presbyters subject to the Apostles; And therefore I would not accept of that Plea, if it could be made good, which is insisted upon by some lear­ned men. That in these several Texts are not meant the Presbyters of one City, but the Bishops of the Province of Judea met together in Council with the Apostles in the Metropolitan Church of Jerusalem, which tho it may be possible, is yet very improbable, in that there is no foot-step of any Record that in those early days of Christianity, there were any fixed Epis­copal Seats in all Judea beside Jerusalem; And withal, the Presbyters here mention­ed were fixed and constant in that Church, as is evident from Act. 21. 19. at St. Paul's second coming to Jerusalem, when there was no Apostle then residing there, but onely St. James the Bishop, the very next day after his Arrival it is said, That he went unto James, and all the Elders were present. And therefore they must reside in the City, for there was not sufficient time to Summon them from all Parts of the Country. And therefore the Enemies [Page 20] of Episcopal Superiority are so far from gaining any Advantage to their Cause by proving these Presbyters Assembled at Je­rusalem to be no Bishops, that it is a plain demonstration of the true Primitive Go­vernment of the Church from clear and express Apostolical Practice, viz. A Bishop, with his Subject Presbyters residing in the City or Church of Jerusalem.

But if after all this, men will still per­sist in it, as Walo doth without end, that if the Offices were distinct to demand the reason of the Community of the names, I might reply with Theodoret, because the distinction was signified by other names, the name of Apostle being appropriate to the Supreme Order: But because I have already treated with Walo about that Pas­sage out of Theodoret, which though he alledges in the first place as the most per­tinent Testimony in all the Ancients for his cause, is yet the clearest baffle that could have been put upon it; for it de­clares first an Inequality in Church-Offi­cers under the Apostles; Secondly, that the Bishops properly so call'd, succeeded the Apostles in their Apostolical Autho­rity; Thirdly, that the reason why the names Bishop and Presbyter were not di­stinguished in the Apostles own time, was because the Office of a Bishop was then ex­pressed [Page 21] by the name of an Apostle; and if that be so, it for ever puts to silence all their noise and out-cry from the Equiva­lency of those two names under the Apo­stles, because the Episcopal Superiority was then express'd by another name. But Salmasius being ever most confident when he is most in the wrong, as he made this Passage the foundation of his Walo Messa­linus, so he has found out another just as awkard to his design, for the main flou­rish of his Apparatus to his Books de Pri­matu, P. 40. which was written in defence of his Walo, and that is out of his darling Au­thor, the counterfeit Ambrose in his Com­mentaries upon the Epistles to Timothy, as he is quoted by Amalarius; where gi­ving the reason why the names Bishop and Presbyter that were promiscuously used in the time of the Apostles, were afterward distinguisht, he thus states it. Beatis verò Apostolis decedentibus, illi qui post illos ordinati sunt ut praeessent Ecclesiis, illis primis exaequari non poterant, neque mi­raculorum testimonium par illis habere, sed in multis aliis inferiores illis esse vide­bantur, grave illis videbatur Apostolorum sibi vendicare nuncupationem. Diviserunt ergo nomina ipsa, et iisdem Presbyteriorum nomen reliquerunt, alii verò Episcopi sunt nuncupati, hique Ordinationis praediti sunt [Page 22] Potestate, ita ut plenissimè iidem praeposiots se Ecclesiarum esse cognoscerent. The Blessed Apostles deceasing, those that were Ordain'd to preside over Churches after them, could not be Equall'd to those first, nor attain the like Gift of Miracles, but appearing inferior to them in many other things, thought it not decent to challenge to themselves the name of Apostles, and hereupon they divided the names, and left them the name of Presby­ters, (i. e. those that had both in the time of the Apostles) and the others were stiled Bishops, (i. e. those that presided over Churches after the Apostles) and these were endued with the Power of Ordaining, that they might know themselves to be set over the Churches in the fullest right. Up­on which observable Passage, though it would afford a great number of Remarks, I shall make no other than what I find the Judicious Mr. Thorndike has already made to my hand. ‘I marvel (says he) Review of the Right of the Church, pag. 77. what pleasure Salmasius had to alledge this Passage, which if it be admitted, is enough alone to overthrow all that he hath said in this Point. For first he sup­poseth, as the received Doctrine of the Church, that Bishops in their several Churches succeeded the Apostles. Se­condly, he answers all St. Hierom's Rea­sons, to prove that Bishops and Presby­ters [Page 23] are all one, because they are called by the same name in the Scriptures, by giving another reason, even that which you have here. Lastly he saith, That Bishops are set over their Churches ple­nissimè, in the fullest Right, and that therefore Ordination was reserved to them, which is to say, that in all things they have a special interest, but especial­ly Ordination is their peculiar.’ This one would think more then enough to satisfie the utmost demands that any in­genuous man could make for the cer­tain Apostolical Succession of Episco­pacy, and yet from this very passage Salmasius proceeds to make the contra­ry conclusion (as he always does) blindfold. Haec clarissimè demonstrant post Apostolorum demum obitum hanc divisionem munerum & nominum esse fa­ctam. This most evidently demonstrates that it was after the death of the Apostles, that this division both of the Offices and Names was made. When it so evidently demonstrates that the Officers were di­stinguisht before, though the Name's not till afterwards, for it expresly places the Office in the Apostles, to which those that after them presided over Churches suc­ceeded, and though they took the new name of Bishop upon them, for the reason [Page 24] assign'd, they bore the old Office of Apo­stles: what strange confidence then is it for Salmasius to infer from hence, that be­cause the division of the Names was made after the Apostles, so was that of the Of­fice too, when the passage so expresly a­vers that the Office was the same with that of the Apostles, and that those that were afterward stiled Bishops were their Successors. But this is Salmasius his stan­ding juggle, to make every passage in which either of these two words Bishop or Presbyter occur a demonstration of the Identity of Office, only by tacking munus & nomen together: And thus, when this Authour says, That the Name was the same under the Apostles, but not the Of­fice, he infers therefore both Name and Office. And if we bar him and his fel­lows but this one childish Sophism, they must in this controversie be dumb forever. It is the whole force of all that they have written upon it; all their Books are no­thing more then this one thing repeated so many thousand times over, though it is so weak a Bul-rush for a sinking Cause to catch at, as plainly shews that it has nothing to support it. But after all, see­ing Salmasius will insist upon the enquiry after the reason of the Identity of the Names in the time of the Apostles, I shall [Page 25] vouchsafe no other Answer to so childish a Question than this, That when I went to School I learn'd from my Lexicon, that the word [...] signifies any sort of Power, Trust, or Government, a Captain in an Army, an Overseer of Workmen, a Mayor of a Corporation, a Master of a Quire; and particularly I remember out of my Tully's Epistles, that he saith of him­self, Ad Attie. lib. 7. Ep. 11. that he was made Bishop of the Sea Ports, Vult enim me Pompeius esse quem to­ta haec maritima ora habeat [...], id est, Speculatorem & Custodem. And of the same nature and extent is the signification of the word [...], which at first imported Age, and because grave men were usually thought fittest for Govern­ment, it came at last to denote any man­ner of Power and Authority, Nam apud omnes utique gentes honorabilis est se­nectus: unde & Synagogae & postea Ecclesia Senio­res habuit, sine quo con­silio nihil nihil agebat in Ec­clesiâ. The Commen­taries under St. Ambro­ses Name, upon 1 Tim. 5. 1. and then no wonder if words of such a general signification be applicable to all kind of Of­fices how distant or different so ever. Especially in this Case, when there were two sorts of Ec­clesiastical Offices in the Chri­stian Church, the one Ministe­rial as that of Deacons, the other Autho­ritative as that of Bishops, and Presby­ters, and therefore when they are to be describ'd so as to distinguish them from the other Inferiour and Ministerial Offi­cers, [Page 26] it cannot be done otherwise than by Titles that signifie some Rule and Power. So that when we find sometimes Bishops and Deacons join'd in Scripture, sometimes Presbyters and Deacons; these words plain­ly signifie the whole ruling part of the Clergy, how much soever they may be distinguish'd among themselves. And therefore once for all, I will grant to Walo and his followers, that there might have been at that time a great variety of words comprehensive of both Orders, as distinct from Deacons, not onely that of Presbyter and Episcopus, but if he pleases to accept it, [...], Praepositus, Antistes, Pastor, [...], or any other that express any share of Government in the Church, be­cause it is certain that the Presbyters sha­red in it under the Bishops; and if from this community of Names they will infer an Equality of Power, I cannot help it. But then they must be oblig'd to conclude too, that there was then no difference be­tween an Apostle and an ordinary Presby­ter, because the very same Names were common to both. And yet what Vo­lumes hath this one lean and forc'd Con­clusion brought forth against the Aposto­lical Succession of Bishops? Nay 'tis the onely thing beside St. Jerom's rash expres­sions that supports the Controversie. O­therwise [Page 27] if they would but honestly appeal to the Evidence of matter of Fact it self Vide Blon­del, Apol. p. 135. (which is the onely proper Argument in this Cause) that alone would shamefully rebuke their follv, in that there is no in­stance of any Ancient Church, in which there were Presbyters without a Bishop, or an Apostle presiding over them. And that's an undeniable Evidence of the distin­ction of the Orders, notwithstanding that they then were, and still are comprehen­ded under the same general Titles, because they both in their several Stations preside over the Flock. And if men would be but so ingenuous as to take notice of such an obvious Truth, that alone would put an end to this shadow of a Controversie. But when they are so often put in mind of it, and yet without any regard to it, persist in their Clamour, as some Writers at second hand out of Walo and Blundel have done of late, all that they can gain by it, beside abusing their own seduced Rab­ble, is to satisfie all understanding men, that themselves have renounced not only common sense, but common honesty. This is the true State of the First and Apo­stolical Age, in which the Apostles kept the Supremacy in their own hands over the Inferiour Clergy, sometimes fixing their Residence, and exercising their Au­thority [Page 28] in a particular Church or City as St. James at Jerusalem, sometimes moving up and down to compleat Churches of their own Foundation; and so the profound Walo himself, after all his Expence of Glos­sary-ware hath stated the Case, that those Apostles who had no fixed Residence, but travell'd up and down to plant or confirm Churches, were stiled Apostles, but if any of them resided in any one City, he was call'd the Bishop of that City, as James of Jerusalem, who was placed there in Supe­riour Authority over the other Clergy. Haec enim Apostoli propria mis­sio ac voca­tio, ex ipso nomine munus ejus & officium significans, quo sedes uno in loco figere non debent, sed orbem peragrare & perlustrare ad dei verbum & Evangelium praedicandum Hinc factum ut qui fixam stabilemque sedem in aliquâ provinciâ vel civitate haberent, populoque ejus provinciae vel ci­vitatis docendo vacarent, nec alio vagarentur, Apostolorum nomine vix essent nuncupandi. Haec quippe appellatio missionem propriè significat, & profe­ctionem in alias atque alias regiones. Ideo Jacobus domini frater & Apostolus, quia Hierosolymis non abstitit, nec quoquam extra eam urbem pedem movit, Episcopus à veteribus appellatus est.

§. III.

But because the stress of all their pretences lies in this Dichotomy (as Blon­del calls it) or division of the Clergy into two Orders, I shall give a fuller account of it out of the Writings of the Ancients, whereby it will appear that those who first divided it into two, the Ministerial and Authoritative, afterward sub-divided the Authoritative into a first and second Or­der, and that will clear both the reason [Page 29] and the nature of the first division: which was nothing else but the great distance of the Ministerial Order from the other two, and their nearness to each other. And in the first place it is very observable that this gave the first occasion to this Contro­versie in St. Jerom's time, when the con­test between the Presbyters and Deacons at Rome run so high, that the Deacons claim'd not only equal dignity to, but su­periority over the Presbyters, as both St. Jerom and the Author of the Questions upon the Old and new Testament informs us, who both lived at the same time, and wrote upon the same occasion: This, I say, was the particular provocation that raised St. Jerom's choler so high against them, and the more effectually to beat them down, he lets them know that the Presbyters stand in the same Priesthood with the Bishop, whereas themselves were little more then Servants in the Church, and appointed to wait upon them in their several Offices. The State of the whole matter was this: That whereas the Dea­cons had under the Bishops the disposal of the Offerings, i. e. at that time the Re­venue of the Church, where the Church was wealthy, that gave them great digni­ty in the Opinion of the World, and false honour naturally swells it self into inso­lence; [Page 30] so that in the Records of the Church we find them at every turn justling with the Presbyters for Place and Authority. In the Eighteenth Canon of the Council of Nice, it was complained of to the holy Synod, ‘That in some Places and Cities the Deacons presumed to give the Eu­charist to the Presbyters, which neither the Law nor the Custom of the Church will allow of, that those who have not the Power of Consecration, should give our Saviour's Body to those that have. And withal it is inform'd, That some Deacons are so bold as to Officiate the Eucharist even before Bishops themselves. Therefore it is Enacted, That all these things be reformed, and that Deacons keep within their own bounds, remembring that they are the Bishops Servants, and the Presbyters Inseriours. Let them there­fore receive the Eucharist after the Pres­byters in their Order from the hands of a Bishop or a Presbyter, neither let them presume to sit among the Bench of Presbyters, it is both against Canon and Order. Whoever therefore obeys not this Constitution, let him be deposed.’ Whereby we see both the Sense and the Custom of the Ancient Church, concern­ing the distance between Deacons and the Orders of Bishop and Priest, resembling [Page 31] that, as they represent it between Servants and Masters, and so the Greek Scholiasts gloss upon it, [...], These wait, and these are waited upon. The Government of the Church was reserved so entirely to the Bishop and his Bench of Presbyters, that it was not so much as lawful for any Deacon to sit among them, and that is the known Cu­stom of the Primitive Church, that about the holy Altar the Bishop sat in his Throne, and his Presbyters on each hand upon lower Seats, into which it was not lawful for Lay-men, but only Consecrated Per­sons to enter, and though the Deacons were admitted into the place at Divine Service, yet were they obliged to stand in presence of the Sacred Bench in token of Subjection. But notwithstanding this we find them frequently forgetting their duty and good manners, and thrusting themselves into the Priestly Consistory, and as frequently Check't and repulsed for it, as by the Council of Nice in the fore­mentioned Canon, so of Laodicea Canon the 20th. of Carthage 6. C. 18. of Ar­les. 1 C. 18. 2 C. 15. And this pre­sumption of the Deacons, particularly at Rome lasted so long that Pope Gelasius, who succeeded in the Year 492, was constrained to Publish a Decree forbidding [Page 32] all Deacons to Sit in the presence of the Presbytery. But the Bickerings between them were highest about St. Jeroms time, insomuch that Pope Anastasius was forced to publish a Decree to Command the Pres­byters to stand up at the holy Gospels, for whereas it had ever been the custom for all present to stand at the reading of the Gospel by the Deacons, yet because the Deacons would presume to Sit among the Presbyters, before whom they were bound to stand, they combin'd not to rise up at the Gospel, that they might keep their Prerogative of Sitting, when the Deacons were forced to be standing by the nature of the Office it self, upon which Anastasius was fain to Issue forth his Mandate to pre­vent the Enormity. The two things that heightned the Pride of the Roman 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 Jerusalem, whereas the Pres­byters were much more numerous, Corne­lius reckons up no less then 46 in his time, which number could not but be much in­creased by the time of St. Jerom, who gives this reason for the advantage of the Deacons against the Presbyters. Quid paucitatem, de quâ ortum est supercilium in leges Ecclesiae vindicas? Omne quod tarum [Page 33] est, plus appetitur. Pulegium apud Indos pipare pretiosius est. Diaconos paucitas ho­norabiles, presbyteros turba contemptibiles facit. But the main thing that advanced their power and dignity was the disposal of the Revenue of the Church, especially from the time of Pope Fabian, who if we may believe the pontifical Book divided the 14 Regions of the City of Rome a­mong the Seven Deacons, allotting to each Deacon two Regions, from whence they were styled Diaconi Regionarii, and afterward by the pretended Council at Rome under Pope Silvester, Cardinales. Con­cil. Rom. 2. c. 7. Though long before that time they were arrived to a great height, especially the Arch-Deacon, that is the first of the Deacons, who was Master and Keeper of the Treasury, and from hence it was that they so frequently succeeded in the Papacy, and carried the Election from the Presbyters, Eleutherus the Arch Dea­con Euseb. l. 4. c. 22. succeeded Anicetus, and Soter, even in Hegesippus his time, but before and at St. Jeroms time they swept all away, the Popes and Anti-Popes were both of the Order of Deacons, as Liberius, and Felix, Damasus and Ʋrsicinus, no wonder then if when they carried the whole sway of the Church they lift their heads so high, and it was under Damasus that Falcidius [Page 43] their Chieftain made the publick demand of preheminence above the Presbyters, of which St. Jerom being inform'd by Let­ter from Rome, it drew from him in an­swer to it that warm and famous Epistle to Evagrius. Audio quendam (says he) in tantam erupisse vecordiam, ut Diaconos Presbyteris, i. e. Episcopis anteferret. I am informed of some body, that he is ar­rived to that degree of Confidence, as to prefer Deacons before Presbyters, i. e. be­fore Bishops. For when the Apostle tea­ches you to be the same, who can endure that the Servant of Tables and Widows should swell himself above those, at whose Prayers Christs Body and Bloud are made, and then reckons up the several Texts of Scripture, in which the words Bishop and Presbyter are promiscuously used. From whence it appears that all St. Jerom's real design (setting aside his heat and passion) was to shew, and in his way to prove, That Presbyters are reckoned together with Bishops, as partakers in the same Christian Priesthood, whereas Deacons are thrust down into a lower degree and capacity, and therefore always ranged apart from them in the Apostolical Writings. And this nearness of the Presbyters to the Bi­shops he shews in this instance, Quid enim facit exceptâ Ordinatione Episcopus quod non [Page 35] faciat Presbyter. For what does a Bishop do that a Presbyter cannot do except Ordinati­on? So that a Presbyter approaching so near a Bishop in the Authoritative exercise of all the Offices of the Church, excep­ting only that of Ordination, it is no wonder if they are joined and reckoned together, to distinguish them from the Of­fice of Deacons, that was at first meerly Ministerial, and erected only to relieve the higher Orders from attending upon the lower Offices of the Church. So that St. Jerom's real Opinion, as he intended it in Opposition to the Insolence of the Dea­cons, was apparently the same with St. Chrysostom's, and the Greek Fathers. For so St. Chrysostom in his second Homily upon the first of Timothy and the third Chapter, states [...]. it. Asking the question why the same Rules are prescribed by the Apostle to the Bishops and Presby­ters in common, and other distinct Rules to the Dea­cons apart, his answer is because the difference between them is not great, for Presbyters also take upon them both the Authority of teaching and go­verning the Church, so that whatever things the Apostle said concerning Bishops, [Page 36] the same agree to Presbyters. For the Bishops are only superiour to them in the power of Ordination, and in this one thing alone do they seem to have a peculiar, or paramount Power above the Presbyters. The very same account this with St. Je­rom's, and nothing more evident from the Records of the Primitive Church then this, that the Presbyters shared with the Bishop in all other acts of Authority, save only of Ordination. And it is the most common notion among all the Fathers, that though they constantly reckon up three Orders of the Clergy, yet distinguish the other two as something more Sacred, and of a distinct nature, and higher quali­ty then that of Deacons. But in the next place St. Jerom proceeds to object to him­self the Custom at Rome, where it seems the Deacons were wont to give their Te­stimonials at the Ordination of Presby­ters; and rejects it with great scorn and indignation, not without some severe re­flexion upon the pride of that City, as a thing absurd and singular. And at last fully and distinctly explains his meaning, when he concludes, that the Apostles in their Institutions had a regard to the forms under the Old Testament; so that what Aaron and his Sons, and the Levites were in the Temple, that let Bishops, Presby­ters, [Page 37] and Deacons know themselves to be in the Church. Whereby he expresly de­rives these three Orders in the Christian Church from the Apostles themselves, and only places the two highest apart from the third, as Aaron and his Sons were always join'd together in the Priesthood, as di­stinct and separate from the Levites. This is so apparently St. Jerom's meer design, that nothing but gross and wilful dis-in­genuity could pervert his meaning for one or two lavish and unwary expressions, not only against his argument but him­self, who more then once distinguisht be­tween the Sacerdotes primi & secundi.

And as for their other great Man, whom they value next to St. Jerom, the Author of the Questions upon the Old and New Testament in St. Austin (the same with the Counterfeit Ambrose upon St. Paul's Epistles, as Blondel not improbably con­jectures from the likeness of his Stile and Notion) his meaning is apparently the same with St. Jeroms, and from him we have a more exact account of the Contro­versy. For first he propounds the state of the question as it was managed at that time. ‘What is to be answer'd to those Roman Levites, that contend to equal Levites to Priests, and Deacons to Pres­byters.’ And in the next place after a [Page 22] Preface of the extravagance and novelty of the Opinion, he is the only man that informs us by whom it was started and maintain'd, one Falcidius, that (he says) was instigated to it by his own folly and the Pride of the City of Rome; And then overwhelms him with variety of weighty and pregnant Arguments. First he asks ‘by what Law, what Custom, what Ex­ample, those that had not so much as leave to sit in the Church, should be equall'd to those, that because they were the Priests of God, [Antistites Dei] sit with Dignity in the house of God. What boldness is it to level Presbyters with their Ministers? What rash Presumption to compare the Porters of the Taberna­cle, the Scourers of Vessels and Dishes, the Carriers of Water with the Priests themselves? For this was the Office of the Levites; and it is the same thing as if they should equal Officers to their Governors, and Servants to their Ma­sters: For so the Levites were appointed by Divine Command to be to their Priests, Numb. 8. 13. which Custom is still ob­served in the Church. And although the Deacons of the Church of Rome are less modest then others, yet they do not presume to take to themselves the honour of sitting in the Church. But because [Page 39] forsooth they are Officers of the Church of Rome, therefore would they be thought greater men than in other Churches, be­cause of the Grandeur of the City, that may indeed pass for the head of all Cities. But if it be so, then ought they to chal­lenge the same Pre-eminence to their Presbyters. For if those that are Inferi­ours are advanced by the greatness of the City, how much more ought their Bet­ters to rise? For whatsoever honour is confer'd upon the Under-Officers is an accession to the Government, as the ho­nour of a Servant redounds to the glory of his Master. And then to raise the Argument higher, he adds, That a Priest is a Bishop St. Paul proves,’ when he in­structs Timothy, whom he Ordain'd a Pres­byter, how to Ordain Bishops, for what is a Bishop but the first Presbyter, that is, the High-Priest? And lastly, he urges that the Apostle calls them his Fellow-Presbyters, and do you think he would call the Deacons his Fellow-Deacons? By no means, because they are of a much low­er rank, it is as absurd as to call a Register a Judge. And in Aegypt if there be no Bishop a Presbyter confirms. And so pro­ceeds to shew the dignity of the Sacerdo­tal Order above the Levitical, by divers passages out of the Old Testament. Now [Page 40] I pray what can be more evident from the Tenour of this whole discourse, then the Parallel between the Orders in the Christian Church, and the Priests and Le­vites in the Jewish? and though he places the Presbyters in the same Priesthood with the Bishop, it is after the same manner that the Priests were ranked with the High-Priest in opposition to the Levites; so that he levels the Bishop with the Pres­byters, no more then he does the High-Priest with the Common Priests, and that manifestly overthrows all Blondel's Pleas for Equality; and when that is done, we care not whether the distance between a Bishop and a Presbyter be gradual or spe­cifick, whether in kind or in order; for whatever the difference may be in Logick (which we leave to Children and School­men, and Mr. B. to dispute among them­selves,) it is enough to our purpose, and all that the Ancients regarded, that a Bi­shop differ'd so much from an ordinary Presbyter that the [...], as the Greeks express it, was so much in him that nothing could be done by the other Presbyters, without him or his consent, and that difference being once granted, our learned Adversaries may dispute as long as they please about Genus and Spe­cies. And as for the Argument whereby [Page 41] this ancient Author undertakes to prove a Presbyter so much Superiour to a Deacon, because the Apostles sometimes give them­selves the Title of Fellow-Presbyters, but never of Brother-Deacons, Blondel is so well satisfied with it, as from thence to in­fer the Superiority of a Presbyter to a Dea­con, as well he may, but when he proceeds to infer his Equality to a Bishop by being made equal to an Apostle, he cuts the throat of his own Argument, by over­throwing the Superiority of an Apostle to a Presbyter, so rash and inconsiderate are these men in the prosecution of their Cause, that they are ever running them­selves upon Precipices in its over eager pursuit; how else could Blondel after he had infer'd a thousand times over, that Bi­shops are call'd Presbyters in Scripture, and therefore they are of equal Authority; insist upon it that Apostles too are call'd Presbyters, and that by themselves, from whence what follows by his inference but the equality of every ordinary Presbyter with an Apostle? But if it does not fol­low (as no man dares to deny a Superiori­ty in the Apostolical Office) then there is an end of the Argument for ever, and of Presbytery with it, that has nothing else to subsist upon then this poor, forced, and precarious inference. However it is ma­nifest [Page 42] from this Ancient Writer, and the Confession of Blondel himself, that when the Ancients rankt Presbyters with Bi­shops and Apostles, it was in Opposition to the Deacons, whom they excluded out of the proper Christian Priesthood, as much as the Levites were shut out of the Jewish, though when they had done so, they made the same distinction in the Christian Priesthood between the Bishop and Presbyters, that was always observed in the Jewish Hierarchy between the High-Priest and the other ordinary Priests. And though the Deacons were afterward reckoned into the Munia Sacerdotalia, and placed in Superioribus Ordinibus Ecclesiae, as opposed to the Under-Officers of the Church, Readers, Singers, Sub Deacons, &c. Yet that was of later date, and the Priesthood was taken in a loose sense, as comprising all holy Orders; and those ve­ry Authors that admit them into it in this lax sense, shut them out of it when they discourse strictly and accurately about it; for the thing they unanimously made pro­per to the Priesthood, was the power of Consecrating and Offering the Sacrifice of the Cross, from which Office the Dea­cons were excluded. But to proceed with Blondel, it is pleasant to observe how he says all things backward or forward as [Page 43] they serve his own turn. When he has P. 7. observed at the beginning of his Book, that the Apostles call'd themselves Presby­ters but never Deacons, and from thence concludes the Supremacy of Presbyters in the Church, yet now in his notes upon the P. 62. same Argument, as it is managed by the Author of the Questions, he says, it will not hold, because there are Instances of Bishops, who writing to Deacons, some­time call them Fellow-Priests, and Fellow-Deacons. But the Instances he alledges are so far from being in or near the Apostles time, that they are of no earlier date, then S. Austin, St. Basil, Optatus and St. Jerom: Authors that sometimes take them in, and sometimes shut them out, according to the strict or lax acceptation of the Word. Sometime dividing the Clergy, into three Orders of Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon, stiled by Optatus Primum, Secundum, Ter­tium Sacerdotium, and sometimes into two, L. 1. Con­tra Parmen. the Sacerdotes and Ministri, [...] and [...], so Sozomen says, that Constantine carried Hist. l. 1. c. 8. along with him to his Wars, a Taberna­cle in form of a Church, and [...] to perform all Christian Offices. And as the Ancients frequently divide the Officers of the Church into Sacerdotes and Mini­stri, so do they as commonly subdivide the Sacerdotes into the higher and lower [Page 44] Stations, as St. Jerom calls the Presbyters, Com. in Je­rom. c. 13. Sacerdotes secundi in honore Ecclesiastico gradus, and so in his Book, Adversus Lu­cifer. Ecclesiae salus in summi Sacerdotis dignitate pendet, aliter tot Schismata essent quot Sacerdotes: by the Summus Sacerdos, meaning the Bishop, and by the Sacerdo­tes the Priests or Presbyters. And in his Epitaph upon Paula, aderant Hierosolymorum et aliarum Ʋrbium Episcopi, et Sacerdotum inferioris gradus, ac Levitarum innumerabi­lis multitudo. So Constantine writing to Euseb. hist. l. 10. c. 5. Chrestus Bishop of Syracuse, to repair to the Council of Arles, he bids him bring along with him two [...] of the second Order i. e. Presbyters. More Instances of this thing may be seen in Valesius his Notes upon the place. But in short there is no one notion more trite a­mong the Ancients, that held an inequali­ty between Bishops and Presbyters, then to join them together in the Priesthood in opposition to the Deacons or Ministry. As will appear from most of the following citations alledged by Blondel, that have no other force in them then this, that the Clergy are sometimes divided into two Orders, and that even by those very men, who subdivide them into three, and therefore (as Blondel all along inferrs) there are no more then two. St. Cyprian [Page 45] may serve as an Instance for all, for though none of the Ancients have more frequently recited the three Orders of Bi­shop, Priest and Deacon, yet notwith­standing that do we often find him (as Blondel speaks) dichotomising. Ep. 62. Cum omnes omnino disciplinam tenere opor­teat, multo magis Praepositos et Diaconos curare hoc fas est. Ep. 72. Oportet Sacer­dotes et Ministros integros esse. And in his Book, de Lapsis. Non in Sacerdotibus Re­ligio devota, non in Ministris fides integra, with divers other Instances of the same Nature, collected by Blondel, pag. 43. Now from hence to infer, that S. Cyprian knew but two Orders, though in every Page of his Writings he mentions three, is, as I take it, an Inference somewhat too bold, especially when in the chief passage here alledged by him, St. Cyprian expresly subdivides the Sacerdotal Order into Bi­shop and Presbyter. Nec hoc in Episcopo­rum tantum et Sacerdotum, sed in Diacono­rum Ordinationibus observasse Apostolos ani­madvertimus. Quod utique idcirco tam di­ligenter et cautè convocatâ plebe totâ gereba­tur, ne quis ad Altaris Ministerium vel ad Sacerdotalem locum obreperet. Where he expresly distinguishes the Ministerial from the Sacerdotal Office, and divides the Sa­cerdotal, between the Bishop and Presby­ter [Page 46] or Priest strictly so called. Let us but barr Blondel this litle Piece of disingenui­ty, to infer not only against all the Laws of Logick but of Arithmetick, and there is a full Answer to his Voluminous Apolo­gie.

§. IV.

This then being the State of the Church under the Apostles, the next thing to be inquir'd into is, in what condition they left it, whether they bequeath'd their Apostolical Authority to single Persons, or let it fall (like Gavel-kind Estates) to be equally divided among the whole Body of Presbyters, without any Superiority of one above another. For there we are wisely told, lies the Seat of the Contro­versy. Whether the Apostles upon their with-drawing from the Government of Chur­ches, did Substitute single Persons to succeed them; and if that could be made appear, all other things would speedily follow.

But what if it cannot? It is, they say, then evident that they left it to the whole Body of the Presbyters without any Supe­rior over them. But what is that Evi­dence? Do we find any Record that the Church was so govern'd after the Apo­stles? No, but it was so for some time: But who knows that time? It was that unknown interval of Time, next and im­mediately after the Apostles; Was it so? [Page 47] then no man living knows any such time, and then there was none, for what is to us utterly unknown is to us utterly no­thing. 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 Prescription. But how do we know that it lasted so long and no longer? Blondel and Salmasius say so. What proof have they of it? They have Arguments for it ex intimo Antiquitatis sinu. But what are they? That is as unknown as the unknown time it self. Why then do they so positively affirm it? Because they are Prebyterians of the right Stamp, and therefore sworn and implaca­ble Enemies to the true Primitive Christi­anity. But who alter'd this Form of Go­vernment, and where? If you ask who, that is as much in the Dark as the un­known time: If where, the Answer is rea­dy, 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 Universal Change? So that we are as much at a loss, Where all this World lyes, as When this unknown time was. But why did they abolish Presbyterian Parity, and set up Episcopal Superiority? to prevent Schisms. What then, could they not do it them­selves? [Page 48] No, saith St. Jerom, by the work­ing of the Devil among the Presbyters, they found it impossible. And so it is plain to common sense, that it was with­out the interposition of the Devil, if we only consider the Passions of Humane Na­ture, and if ever the Presbyters should fall out among themselves (a thing not to be avoided among Equals) every man might perpetuate the Quarrel for ever, by Ordaining as many Presbyters as he plea­sed to encrease his own Faction. From hence then it follows,

First, That it is impossible to govern the Christian Church without Bishops.

Secondly, That the Presbyterians them­selves were the first Authors of Episcopa­cy because they found themselves unable to preserve peace in the Church without it.

Thirdly, That the Apostles made no sufficient provision for it, but left it ex­posed to numberless Schisms and Divisions, as many as there are Presbyters in the World.

Fourthly, That though the Govern­ment of the Church was left by our Savi­our and his Apostles, to the Presbyters in common, yet it was never settled upon them by any Grant or Institution, and then beside that they have no Autho­rity because no Commission, what need [Page 49] of all this fury and clamour for the resti­tution of a form of Government, as if it stood upon Divine Right, when it is con­fessed, that it was meerly casual, and had no Authority either from our Saviour or his Apostles. And what if Episcopacy it self were not establisht by Divine Right, yet seeing no other Form was, to what purpose do men raise so many Tumults a­gainst it, as Antichristian, upon Blondel's own Principles? if there be no good in it, yet there is no harm; if we are not obli­ged to set it up, so neither are we to pull it down. And therefore why should he begin his Apology so Tragically, by com­paring the Introduction of Episcopacy with the Primitive Antichrists, and the Here­ticks that denyed our Saviour's very In­carnation, when if it was not a Divine Institution it self, it is yet confessed by the whole design of the Apology, that it did not thrust out any thing that was, and then at worst it is but an indifferent thing.

Fifthly, That the Presbyterian Govern­ment is so far from being grounded upon any Divine Institution, that it had its be­ginning meerly from Apostolical negli­gence and stupidity.

Sixthly, That it was quickly found so extremely absurd, that they that set it up [Page 50] were themselves forc'd by woful Experi­ence to lay it aside every where in less than Forty years Tryal. And now if they can satisfie themselves in this Apology Pro sententiâ Hieronymi (and it is all that ei­ther himself or Blondel makes) they are happy men, and long may they enjoy the pleasure of their opinion.

And yet after all these Surmises of an unknown Time, unknown Place, unknown Persons, they are all known to be noto­riously false. In that it is most certainly known that there was no such devolution as St. Jerom dreams of, but that they appointed single Persons to succeed them in the Government of all the known Churches in the World. As for the Su­periority of Timothy and Titus over the Presbyters in the Churches of Ephesus and Creet, upon St. Paul's leaving of those Eastern Parts of the World to plant new Churches in the West; it is so evident from the Scriptures themselves, that it is a shame to go about to prove it, but into­lerable impudence to deny it. For as it is certain that the Apostle appointed these single Persons to preside over those Chur­ches, so is it, that there were Presbyters already settled there, or to be settled by them. Now if the Churches were go­vern'd by a Common Council of meer [Page 51] Presbyters, to what purpose was it to give a particular Commission to a single Person for its Government, if he were no more than every ordinary Presbyter. And therefore such a Commission to one over a Church, in which were already a num­ber of Presbyters, is plainly to vest a pe­culiar Authority in him distinct from, and superiour to that of the Presbyters.

Thus for Example, when St. Paul left Timothy at Ephesus, where was already a number of Presbyters, as our Adversaries prove from the Apostle's Summoning them to Miletus, unless there were some Power in Timothy more than in a Presby­ter, to what purpose should St. Paul be­seech him so earnestly to abide in a Church, that was already furnished with such a number of Presbyters? To what purpose should he give him, and him alone so ma­ny instructions for the right exercise of his Government, when himself was but an Atom of the whole Body? To what purpose should he advise him in particular not to receive an Accusation against a Presbyter, unless attested by two or three Witnesses? For if himself were no more than a single Presbyter, what had he to do to judge his fellow Presbyter? Lastly, if the Power of the Church was in the Body of the Presbyters, why is all the Advice [Page 52] for its due management given to a single Person? and not to the Presbytery? So evident is it that there were Presbyteries setled by the Apostles themselves in those very Churches over which they appoin­ted single Governours. And so much do our zealous Adversaries gain in finding out so many Presbyteries in Scripture without a Bishop, when it is so clear that the Apostles not only presided over them themselves, but that they appointed others to do so after them, which is apparently to vest the Supreme Government in a sin­gle Person above the Common-Council of Presbyters: But what can be more clearly attested than the uninterrupted Succession of Bishops in the greatest Churches from the Apostles themselves? Do not all the Ancients by this undeniable Principle pre­scribe against Hereticks, and demonstrate the certain conveyance of the Orthodox Faith? Hath not Irenaeus for that very lib. 3. cap. 3. reason given us an exact Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome, down from the Apostles to his own time; and doth not he imme­diately after tell us that Polycarp, with whom he was acquainted, was made Bi­shop of Smyrna by the Apostles? And what was the Office of a Bishop, as distinct from that of a Presbyter, himself very well knew, who was first a Presbyter, and then [Page 53] a Bishop. Doth not Tertullian make the same Challenge for several Apostolical De praescrip. c. 32. & 36. Churches, and he too very well knew the difference, being himself a Presbyter, but never a Bishop? Hath not Hegesippus gi­ven Euseb. l. 4. cap. 22. us an account of several Successions; Who, as he was a very Ancient Writer, so he liv'd after the time in which the di­stinction of the Names of Bishop and Presbyter was made. The Succession at Jerusalem I have already prov'd. As for that of Antioch from St. Peter, beside the unanimous Testimony of the Ancients I hope I need not prove that Ignatius was no Presbyterian. The Succession of the Church of Alexandria from St. Mark is so clear that I do not know that it was ever question'd, and it is particularly asserted by St. Jerom Euseb. l. 4. cap. 23. himself. And lastly, Dionysius Bishop of Co­rinth, a learned and an early Writer of the same Age with Hegesippus, hath described the Succession at Athens from Dionysius the Aropagite. Now I would fain know what better Testimony men would have for a matter of Fact. The Witnesses are of unspotted Credit, they give their Evi­dence in the face of their Enemies. They appeal to the undoubted Records of the Churches themselves, they lived near e­nough to the time of the Apostles, to be sufficient Witnesses of their own know­ledge, [Page 54] and that which is most considerable of all is, that they liv'd after the distincti­on between the Names of Bishop and Pres­byter, and as often as they have Occasion to mention them, speak of them as distinct Offices, and therefore by their Succession of Bishops from the Apostles, they could mean nothing but true and proper Bi­shops.

§. V.

And it is very observable that the Community of the Names Bishop and Presbyter was proper to the Apostolical times, while the Apostles themselves kept the greatest part of the Episcopal Autho­rity in their own hands: but as soon as they were withdrawn, and so the Name of an Apostle began to be laid aside, the Name of Bishop was appropriated to their Successors in their Supremacy. So that we find not one Writer after the Apostles time (unless possibly St. Clement and St. Polycarp may be doubted, of which after­ward) that doth not very carefully distin­guish the Names of Bishop and Presbyter, the one as peculiarly appertaining to the Supreme Order, the other as to the In­feriour, so as never to give the Name of Bishop to a Presbyter, or of a Presbyter to a Bishop. And that's a clear demon­stration, that as there was an imparity in [Page 55] Ecclesiastical Officers during the Apostles time, so there was ever after, and that when their next Successors could not be properly stiled Apostles, the word Bishop was appropriated to them, to express their Order as distinct from, and superiour to the Presbyters. I know indeed that Blondel, Salmasius, and Daillè that Geneva Trium­virate or Confederacy for the Subversion of the Ancient State of the Christian Church, have after their usual manner rak'd together vast heaps of Instances out of the Writers of the two first Ages, in which the Name Presbyter is applied to Bishops, but they all depend upon one small Quibble, or Equivocal Sence of the word, as it sometime signifies Age, and sometime Office: For there is not one in­stance in which they give the Title of a Presbyter to a Bishop of their own time, and whenever they speak of them, appro­priate it to subordinate Presbyters, to ex­press their distinction from Bishops; but when they speak of Bishops of former times, they give them sometime the Ap­pellation of Presbyters, as it is equivalent with that of Ancients, and signifies not their Office, but their Antiquity in the Church, and so might be given not only to all Orders of the Clergy, but to the Laity, and the whole Body of Christians, [Page 56] by whom the Apostolical Tradition was any way conveyed down to After-ages. And it was upon that Occasion that they used this word, to shew the certainty of the Conveyance of the true Christian Do­ctrine from the Apostles, in that they re­ceived it from the Ancients that received it from them; in this Sence, and in this onely do they use the Word, as it denotes not their Office but their Age. This one short observation is a clear Answer to all their voluminous heaps of Collections, that though they make a great shew to the ignorant with the length of their Train, yet they all run upon this poor and dull mistake, as will appear more fully when we come to the particulars. In the mean time it is enough to our pre­sent purpose, that the Episcopal Succession to the Apostles is so unanswerably prov'd, and attested by the most Ancient Writers of the Church, and that without Ambi­guity or Equivocation in their words.

And indeed this is so plain, not only as to the Name but the Thing, that our fier­cest Adversaries cannot but often confess P. 7. it, even the mighty Walo himself states the Questi­on Rem esse Antiquissimam ut duo hi ordines in Ecclesiâ fuerint di­stincti, Episcoporum & Presbyte­rorum, si excipiantur Apostolica tempora. thus, That there was a real distinction between Bishops and Presbyters in [Page 57] the most ancient Ages of the Church, ex­cepting only the very time of the Apostles. And if so, then was it in all Ages of the Church, when it is undeniable that the Apostles challeng'd a Superiority them­selves during their own time, and Walo confesses that the Bishops exercised the same in all Ages after them. And that certainly is enough (if any proof can be so) against the Presbyterian Pari­ty.

And yet I would not make any Advan­tage of this Confession, for that were only to convince one man, who is long since past it, and to say truth was never capable of it, but for the undeniable Proof of the matter of Fact it self; in that the most in­quisitive Searchers in this Argument are forc'd to confess, that there is no instance in all Antiquity of any setled Church, without a Superiour and Subordinate Cler­gy, beside Deacons; and if that be evident, it is no matter what they plead beside, but especially as to St. Jerom's unknown time, for beside that there was no such time; that any man knows of, so is it a flat Contradiction to what all men know, and our Adversaries confess, that in all Ages of the Church there was a Superiority of some above others, i. e. of the Apostles, in their time, and of the Bishops in all [Page 58] times except the Apostles, and if so, then always.

And in this St. Jerom himself is as un­happy as any of his pretended followers, for when he hath, in haste, refer'd the Original of Episcopal Superiority to an unknown Interval, sometime after the A­postles, yet he derives the Custom at A­lexandria, where the Presbyters make their own Bishop, (but yet a proper Bi­shop) from the death of St. Mark, who yet according to his own account, dyed In Catal. Scriptorum. before almost all the Apostles, and near forty years before St. John, suffering in the Eighth year of Nero. Now though these are the two greatest passages alledged a­gainst Episcopacy, they are very recon­cileable with each other. And in his ve­ry Epistle to Evagrius, he expresly calls the three Orders of the Clergy Bishop, Priest, and Deacon an Apostolical Tradi­tion, as setled by the Apostles themselves, particularly at Rome, Jerusalem, and An­tioch. And yet notwithstanding that St. Jerom hath thus clearly demonstrated the falshood and vanity of his own surmise of an unknown Interval, by shewing that there could be no such time from the known Records of the Church, that attest the Succession of single Bishops from the Apostles themselves, yet for all that his [Page 59] pretended followers will keep to their dark and blind Age next after the Apo­stles, and though themselves agree that it lasted not above 40 years at most, about or before which time began the Instituti­on of Episcopal Superiority in all Christi­an Churches, yet are they so preposte­rous in their Zeal, as to go about to prove the Presbyterian Parity, for divers follow­ing Ages, from the Testimony of the Wri­ters that lived in them; which, beside that it is notoriously false, it is a gross af­front both to St. Jerom and themselves, when they have limited the Presbyterian Parity to the first Age after the Apostles, after that to derive it down thorough all following Ages. And yet this they have labour'd with vast pains, and with down­right violence haled in all the Fathers to the Patronage of their Cause, expresly a­gainst their own Sence. The Instances of this in Blondel, Walo, and Daillè are all a­long so scandalous that I once thought it a shame to encounter them, and for that rea­son passed them over in treating of this Argument, but because I find them urg'd with so much Confidence by our restless Smectymnuans at home, only to abuse their ignorant followers (who poor Creatures are no doubt very competent Judges of their Truth or Falshood) I shall let them [Page 60] see the integrity of their Leaders, in se­ducing them not onely into an open Schism, but an irreconcileable Apostacy from the State of the whole Christian Church in all Ages, with the most perverse and palpable falshoods. And I find they will never suffer us to enjoy Quiet and Peace at home, till we have rifled the Blon­dellian, Wallonian and Dailleán Magazins, out of whom they upon all Occasions of Disturbance, furnish themselves with all their Pretence and Shew of Learning a­gainst the Church; and that is all that they do in defence of their Cause, to tran­scribe Citations out of them, but chiefly Blondel, who indeed is the Father of them all, for Walo is such a confused, wandring and immethodical Writer, that few regard him, though, as to substance, his Writings are the same with Blondel's; and Daillè does little more than follow them both, unless that now and then he forrage to fetch in a new Quotation; and therefore I shall keep close to Blondel, to whom if we refer the several concurrent Passages of the other two, it will appear that all the Books against Episcopacy are but one, and that is Blondel's, and how wise an one that is, let the World farther judge from the ensuing Animadversions.

§. VI.

And first as for St. Clement of Rome, his Case is the same with that of the Apostles, and the same Account that hath been given of the Sence of their Wri­tings in this Controversie, is to be given of his; for being an Apostolical man, and conversant with the Apostles, no wonder if he express himself in their Language, and therefore he sometimes describes the whole Body of the Clergy by two Orders, one Ministerial, the other Sacerdotal, as it was in the Jewish Hierarchy; but whe­ther there were an equality of all in the Sacerdotal Order, or whether a Superiori­ty of some above others, cannot be col­lected from the signification of the word it self, because it signifies any kind or de­gree of Authority; and therefore how many degrees soever there might be of Ruling Clergy, it equally comprehends them all within its signification, though himself reckons up two Orders as superi­our to Deacons, and that is enough. And yet out of this small Epistle what heaps of Inferences hath Blondel rak'd for his P. 9. Daillè p. 394. Presbyterian Parity? And first he argues very shrewdly from its Inscription, The Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth. From whence it follows that seeing there is no mention of the Clergy of either [Page 62] Church as distinct from the People, that they were govern'd by a Common Coun­cil of Rulers. But if any thing could fol­low 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, so that it takes away his Common-Council, as well as our single Bishop. But what would these men con­clude that St. Clement was not Author of this Epistle? Of that we have the same certainty as of the Epistle it self. Or that because he drew it up in the name of his Church he was not their Bishop? If there were any Logick in the inference, as there is none, yet it will not do against Evi­dence of Fact, in that we have as much certainty that Clement was Bishop of Rome, as that there was then a Church of Rome. All the most Ancient Writers of the Church, Ignatius, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, sti­ling him particular Bishop of that place; Writers that distinguish'd a Bishop from a Presbyter, and never use the word, but of one as superior to Presbyters. Parti­cularly Irenaeus affirms in express words, That Clement was Bishop of Rome when lib. 3. cap. 3. he wrote this Epistle, and that he succeed­ed to the Apostles in his Bishoprick; and therefore he was a proper Bishop, as supe­riour to Priests and Deacons, for that was [Page 63] the only use of the word in Irenaeus's time, who himself was first Presbyter, and then Bishop of the Church of Lyons; and there­fore when he avers that St. Clement was appointed Bishop of Rome by the Apostles, he is to be understood in his own Sence, as superiour to Presbyters, such as himself was when advanc'd from the Presbytery into the Episcopal Throne. So clear an instance is this Epistle of the Succession of Bishops to the Apostolical Supremacy. But why did he write not in his own but his Churches Name? Though the Question be very impertinent, to demand the reason of another man's actions at so great a di­stance of time, yet there is an easie and an obvious Account to be given of it, viz: That addressing this Exhortation to the factious Party of the People against the Clergy, he might not think it so proper at first to make use of his own Episcopal Authority, but rather with all gentleness and Brotherly love to perswade them in the name of the whole Church to recon­cile themselves to their Pastors. For this coming from the People, it would more effectually move, and in a manner up­braid them to compliance and humility. And so it prov'd, for so Hegesippus informs Euseb. l. 4. c. 22. us, That from that time forward the Church of Corinth continued in the right [Page 64] Faith, till the time of Primus their Bishop, with whom in his Voyage to Rome he conversed many days at Corinth, and so from him understood the true state of that Church.

But the demonstrative Passage in this Epistle is this, That the Apostles Preaching the Word thorow divers Country's and Ci­ties, Ordained every where the first fruits of such as believ'd, having made Proof and Tryal of them by the Spirit, to be Overseers and Deacons to minister to them that should afterwards believe. And this (says he) they did, because they understood from our Lord, that Strife and Contention would arise about Episcopacy, and therefore having absolute knowledg before hand thereof, they appointed the Persons before-mention'd into that Office, with this instruction, That as some dyed, others well approv'd should be chosen into their Ministery. Very well! for if the Apostles foreseeing that there would arise Schisms and Dissentions in the Church about the Government or Episcopacy of it, took particular Care to settle Gover­nors over the Churches of their own Con­version for the prevention of that Mis­chief, and withal vested any of them with the same Power that themselves had exer­cised, to appoint their Successors, as the Apostles had appointed them, to all future [Page 65] Ages of the Church. In the first place, what could be more peremptorily ex­press'd to contradict St. Jerom's Dream, That the Government of the Church naturally fell into the Presbyters hands, because the Apostles had taken no Care for its Settlement after their own time? Whereas it is here positively averr'd by this Apostolical Man, that they were so far from being guilty of such a stupid negligence, that they took particular Care to settle its Government for all After-Ages, as foreseeing how impossible it would be to prevent everlasting Schisms and Factions about it, if it had bin left unde­termin'd and expos'd to every one that would challenge it. And the truth is, if they should not have had so much insight into the nature of things, as to foresee that there would have bin no End of Con­tention about Government, whilst it was left in common, all the World would have condemn'd them of unpardonable Stupi­dity; So that the Wisdom of the Church which St. Jerome imputes to the experi­ence of those that follow'd, is by this Apo­stolical Man plainly ascrib'd to the fore­sight of the Apostles, and those that went before; So clear a Barr is this Epistle to the Claim of Presbyterian Devolution, and so is it to the Peoples Right of electing [Page 66] their Officers, as the Independents plead, when it is evident that the Apostles left it not to their choice, but set such Officers over them as themselv's liked and ap­prov'd of.

Secondly, if the Apostles receiv'd their Power from Christ, as Christ did his from God, (for so St. Clement affirms) and in pursuance of his Divine Institution ap­pointed Officers in the Church with this Instruction, That they should appoint others to succeed them in their Office, and so downward thro all Ages of the Church, What can be more evident, than that they left the same Supreme Autho­rity, wherewith they were endued, ap­pointing Rulers in the Church to succeed themselv's, as they succeeded our Savior? For as Blondel observes, the form of Ec­clesiastical P. 11. Government was never altered by the Apostles; So that if they them­selv's were vested with a Supremacy of Power in the Church, they conveyed the same Power to their Successors, becaus the Power of Government wherewith they were immediately endued by our Sa­vior, was to continue for ever.

But Blondel never thinks he hath Infe­rence enough, and therefore after he hath drawn Presbytery out of this Epistle, he proceeds in the next place to bring forth [Page 67] Independency. Viz. That the Officers of the Church when ever there was any Competition, were appointed by the Peo­ple. That is becaus they were appointed by the Apostles themselv's, for so St. Cle­ment tells us they were, to prevent the Contentions that might arise about their Election, if they had not settled it by their own Authority. So that the Inference is this, That Clement affirms that the Apo­stles left not the Choice of Officers to the People, therefore sayes Blondel they left it to the Choice of the People. And that is a very fair Inference; but the most plea­sant of all is, that the Presbyters took Place according to Seniority, and so the Eldest Presbyter presided in all De­bates and Councils, because the Apostles appointed the first fruits of their Conver­sion to be Officers in the Church; as if every one that was first Converted had a Right to it, or as if all their first fruits had bin made Church-Officers, when St. Cle­ment tells us that they chose such out of them, as they judged fittest for the Work. And therefore Blondel himself cautiously Pag. 10. adds in a Parenthesis, Si modo probabiles essent, and that eats up the Assertion; for by that they were chose not for their Se­niority, but their other Qualifications. But tho there is no footstep of any Pres­byterian [Page 68] Seniority in all the Records of the Church, Yet Blondel is resolv'd to have it so, becaus without it he cannot avoid that Superiority that is given to Single Persons over Presbyteries in all Churches; And therefore there is not any one Passage that he hath alledg'd out of the Fathers to which he hath not tack'd this Conclusion, tho it sounds no more towards it, than that in the Beginning God Created the Heaven and Earth.

And yet this Story of Succession by meer Seniority, as ungrounded as it is, is the third Fundamental Article of the Pres­byterian Cause; for next to St. Jerom's un­known Interval, and the Equivalency of the words Bishop and Presbyter in the Apostolical Age, this Fable of succeeding in Presidency over the Colledg of Pres­byters only by right of Seniority, is most clamorously insisted upon by the French Brethren. Walo is very fierce and vehe­ment P. 206, 273. Praefat. p. 7. in its Pursuit; but Blondel lays it for the very Foundation of his whole dis­course, and declares at the beginning of his Undertaking, That without its Suppo­sition there is no understanding the State or Records of the Primitive Church; but that being once granted, it clears all diffi­culties that occur in Church History. And therefore he does not only lay down this [Page 69] Hypothesis fundamenti loco (as he expresses it) as a Foundation of his whole work, but he withal lays his Foundation incon­cussis firmamentis, upon everlasting Pillars. And therefore partly because of his great confidence, but chiefly because 'tis his main shift to elude the Argument of Suc­cession by single Persons; it having here fallen in my way, I shall once for all con­sider it, that I may avoid the tedious im­pertinency that he has fallen into, of repeating it afresh upon every Citati­on.

And in the first place this being the great Foundation, and standing upon the Pillars of the Earth, one would expect that the Man has at least some plausible grounds to support both that and the weight of his own confidence; yet when he comes to talk of nothing but Sun-shine and demonstration, his whole discourse is all dream and fiction, without so much as any shadow of Authority. So that he does not so much as attempt to bring one Precedent to warrant his Assertion, no­thing but wild and remote fetches that stand upon no Pillars but meer guess and empty Air. Though that which farther aggravates his confidence, is, That the Learned Jesuite Petavius had, to rebuke Walo's pertness, made a publick Challenge [Page 70] to all the World, to assign but any one instance of it in all the Records of the Christian Church, and yet Blondel should undertake to refute some passages in the very same Page, without concerning him­self in the least to take notice of so bold a Challenge, but much less to answer it. Though that which worst of all enhances his disingenuity is, that he is so far from producing any tolerable Precedent for his Conceit, that he begins his whole dis­course with two particular instances that overthrow it, viz. Timothy and Titus, in whom he confesses the Rule was not ob­served, and that is a very good begin­ning to lay an immoveable Foundation to prove it was. But he supplies his want P. 58. N. 10, &c. of History with strength of Argument, and in his tedious Notes upon the coun­terfeit Ambrose, has fortified it on all sides with Arguments fetcht from the very Bowels of Antiquity [Ex intimo remotis­simae Antiquitatis sinu repetitis] 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 stan­ding passage out of St. Clement, that the Apostles Ordain'd out of their First-fruits Governours of the Church. And so no doubt they did, because they had none o­ther [Page 71] to Ordain; but who could ever have believed that any man could hence con­clude that they always pitch't upon the Eldest Christian in every Church, because they chose out of their first Converts those that they judged fittest for the trust. But Blondel adds, That our Saviour chose his first Disciples to be his Apostles, and that St. Peter made a Qualification of an Apo­stle to be Elected into the place of Judas, that he had conversed with our Saviour from the beginning. And very good rea­son too, when the first point of his Office then was to be a witness of his Works and Miracles; And every Child has sense enough to understand that St. Peter had regard to that alone in his Qualification, and not meerly to any mans age that was uncapable in it self of being any reason at all. But in the next place, St. Paul, and after him several Councils forbid Neophytes or raw Converts to be made Bishops. From whence no doubt it fol­lows of its own Accord, that therefore the most ancient Convert had right to it by vertue of his Seniority. These are the wonderful Arguments rak't from the very Bowels of Antiquity to demonstrate the fix't and perpetual Observation of this Rule. Though who could think it pos­sible that any man of Learning or but [Page 72] natural Sense could be so bewitch't with his own folly, as to think of imposing upon the World with such intolerable trash and trifling.

Secondly, the time that he assigns for the continuance of this Custom, viz. to the 36 year of the Second Century, is al­together precarious, and without any other ground than that it suits with his own time of St. Jerom's Alteration of Government all the World over; for that he places in the very same Interval, and upon as good Authority, that is none at all but his own. Neither is he here con­tent with asserting this change in general, but fixes the same time in divers particu­lar Churches. As in the Church of Jeru­salem he begins the Custom of Elections at Mark the 16th Bishop of that See, and the first Gentile that sat in it, in the Year 135. after the rebuilding of the City by Adrian, and when it was Inhabited only by the Gentiles. This he insists upon with mighty zeal and importunity, but does not so much as attempt to prove it by any one Record, only one small argument he is very much transported with, viz. the short time of their sitting, which (as he fancy's) could come to pass from no other reason than their great Age, when they came to succeed. But as it happens very [Page 73] unluckily, the Succession of Bishops after Mark is altogether as quick upon one an­other as it was before. And yet the times were then much more secure and peace­able, whereas before Jerusalem had been for many years a publique Slaughter-house to the Romans; the Jews upon every little Opportunity breaking out into Rebellion, and by their perpetual disorders so highly provoked their Roman Masters, that they made havock of all that came in their way, without making any distinction be­tween Jew and Christian; all Christians at that time passing under the name of Jews. No wonder then if in such a time of Warr and Bloodshed (the most destru­ctive that ever was from the Creation) any that were members of the Jewish Commonwealth met with such speedy and untimely Deaths. And whereas Blondel observes, that during all that time there was no Persecution at Jerusalem as there was at Rome, from whence it came to pass that some of the Roman Bishops sat not many Months; he might withal have consider'd, That Warr, but especially Re­bellion, are as destructive as Persecution; but most of all such a War as this was against the Jews, that was carried on with all the keeness of Outrage and Inhuma­nity. Whilst they slaughter'd them, not [Page 74] as they conquer'd other Nations, but out of implacable hatred to the Nation it self, partly from their frequent Rebellions, and partly from their Opposition to the Esta­blish't Religion of the Empire.

His next instance of this Custom is in the Church of Alexandria, and this he proves out of Eutychius; but if his Testi­mony were of any Validity, as it is of none at all, it is expresly cross to his own design; for he affirms in peremptory terms, That the Patriarchs of Alexandria always succeeded by Election, [ut cum va­caret Patriarchatus, eligerent unum è duo­decim Presbyteris.] And yet this is the only Passage that Blondel produces for Succession by meer Seniority. His other proofs of this Custom in the Churches of Antioch, Athens and Rome, are nothing but frivolous Surmises, in that most of them are said to have been acquainted with the Apostles, from whence he con­cludes, that they therefore succeeded by right of Seniority. But such trifles are too contemptible to be answer'd, and it is in vain to argue with men that can satisfie themselves with such shadows of proof; for there is no cause in the World so absurd, but is capable of as wise Apolo­gies as these: So that in the result of all, Presbytery is not more exposed by any [Page 75] one thing than the meanness of its own Pleas; for if it had any thing tolerable to say in its own behalf, it would certain­ly scorn to condescend to such hungry and begging ways of Argumentation.

Thirdly, when he makes this unknown change of Custom to have been decreed & instituted by solemn Council, it will be as hard to find any such Council, as it is that oecumenical one of St. Jerom, in which toto Orbe decretum est, it was agreed all the World over to settle the Church in a wi­ser posture of Government than the Apo­stles had done. A Council that was ne­ver heard of by any man but himself, nor by himself till he had heard himself say so. And it was no doubt the very same Coun­cil (for they sat at the same time) that made Blondel's universal change of Suc­cession; and we find just as much evidence of it in the ancient Records. But Blon­del, because he will say something, it mat­ters not how awkerdly it serves his turn, lays this great alteration on the great Ni­cene Council, Canon the Fourth. But alass this time came much too late for the time of this universal Alteration, it met not till the Year 325, whereas the change, according to Blondel, was made in the Year 135, long before any of the Nicene Fathers or their great Grandfathers were [Page 76] born into the World. But then secondly, there is no such thing expressed or any way intimated in the Canon it self, where­by it is decreed, That every Bishop shall be elected by the Vote of all the Bishops of the Province, or their consent by Let­ter, and the Election to be confirm'd and approv'd of by the Metropolitan, and the Ordination to be solemnised by three Bi­shops at least. What appearance here of any change from Succession by Age to that of Election? Here is not a syllable of abrogating the former, nothing but a ratification of the Old Custom and Form both of Election and Consecration. For St. Clement tells us, That the first Bishops were chosen and appointed by the Apo­stles themselves; And St. Cyprian assures Ep. 68. us that the same Custom was observed in his time in his own and almost all other Provinces, and that too de Traditione di­vinâ & Apostolicâ observatione. So that this Canon was no new Institution, but only a Confirmation of the old Apostoli­cal Tradition. For whereas the same me­thod of Election and Ordination had been always and in all Churches observed, it was of late openly violated by Meletius, whose Irregular proceedings gave occa­sion to the Enacting not only this but the two following Canons. For he had taken [Page 77] upon him where ever he came to appoint and ordain Bishops, Priests and Deacons, by his own single Authority; of which Complaint being brought to the Council, they made this Canon, to stop so wild an Enormity. And now what does all this signifie towards proving the change of Succession by Age to that of Election?

Fourthly, the reason that he assigns of this Alteration, is a very foul reflection upon the Wisdom of the Apostles and Apo­stolical Church, Iniquum secundi seculi fi­deles P. 8. censebant, &c. ‘The Believers of the Second Age thought it unjust, that they who had less gifts should have greater honour and be preferr'd before the more worthy, but that men ought to be pre­ferr'd according to their merits and abi­lities, lest God should be defrauded of the use of those Talents that he had be­stowed upon them for the Service of his Church.’ This is so very good a reason, that it could be nothing but dulness and stupidity in the Apostles and Christians of the First Century not to observe it. But instead thereof to have no regard to use­ful qualifications for the disposal of the highest Authority in the Church, and annex it meerly to old age howsoever unfit and unable to manage it, is such a gross­ness of folly as cannot be equall'd. And [Page 78] Blondel himself has pretty well set it off P. 17. in his foremention'd Account of the quick Successions of Bishops at Jerusalem, Quis tam crasso sub Aëre natos, &c. ‘Who can believe that the Sons of Sion breathed such dull Air, and were so stupidly neg­ligent of the common Edification of the Church, that passing by the more able and vigorous, they should make choice of dotards half dead, [animam mox acturos, capulares senes & silicernia] men altoge­ther uncapable to discharge the Office of the Episcopal Chair. But we shall admit no absurdity, and proceed upon just and good grounds, if (the Custom of preferring by Seniority being in force) the ancient Church of Jerusalem 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 soever the second was, when the first departed this life, if he were but compos mentis, he was not to be desrauded one moment of the Prerogative due to his Age, but was to be placed in his turn in the Chair of Presidency.’ Now has not Blondel here made a very fair Apology for the Wisdom of the Apostles, to lay the Institution or at least the Prescription of so absurd and sottish a Custom at their Doors, and ex­cuse [Page 79] the Christians that followed after them from the worst of folly, only be­cause they were forced to comply with a Custom, that the Apostles had by their practice made a right in the Christian Church? So unhappy are these men in their Apologies, as still to leave the Wis­dom of the Apostles in the Lurch. The Sententia Hieronymi supposes them so weak in their Understandings as to have lest the Church in such a posture, in which it must have been fatally destroyed by Schisms; which gross defect was after­ward made up by Men that were wiser than themselves, and were made so by the Experience of their folly. And this defence here supposes them so void of common sense, as to appoint for the Su­preme Government of the Church such Persons as in the ordinary course of Na­ture, were of all men unfittest to under­take it, and least able to manage it.

But lastly, granting all that Blondel contends for, I cannot understand what he gains by it; for it gives his President by Seniority all that Power that we make proper to a Bishop by Election, viz. That nothing be done without him, or as Blon­del himself expresses it, Ʋt omnem Ecclesiae Pref. p. 6. actum prae non sine aliis gubernaret. In short, that which the Greek Canons call [Page 82] the [...], that Authority that was necessary to give validity to every action, and after that it is not at all material to this dispute to enquire after the manner of Succession; for whether they received it by Seniority or by Ele­ction, yet so long as it was a Superior Power, and derived to them from the Apostles, that is all that we do or can de­mand for Episcopal Superiority. Blondel indeed would intimate as if they succeeded without any shadow of Precedent or Re­cord then only of Eutychius, who says that it was so done at Alexandria; but he writes at random, and if he did not, is not of age enough to speak for himself in a matter of so great Antiquity. St. Jerom and the Counterfeit Ambrose say that the Bishop was always taken out of the Colledge of Presbyters, but they no where affirm that he entred upon his Office without any farther Consecration. And yet because they express themselves only in general terms, and do not make particular mention of his Ordination, our Adversaries conclude that he had none. So hardly do they deal with the Ancients when they would draw them to them to their side, as to conclude, that what­ever they do not affirm, they deny. But once for all, if they had in express terms averr'd [Page 81] That from the time of the Apostles the Senior Presbyter succeeded a Bishop without any new Ordination, their Te­stimony would have been of as little Authority as the Tale of Eutychius. For they lived at too great a distance from the Apostolical Age, to know any thing of it but from more ancient Records, and there­fore their own bare Testimony is here of as little weight as Blondel's or Walo's own affirmation upon their own Authority. For a man that lives three or four hun­dred years after a matter of fact, is as in­competent a witness of it, as he that lives fourteen, unless he can vouch it by some more ancient Testimony; and then it is believed not upon his own but his Au­thor's Authority. And therefore neither St. Jerom nor the Counterfeit Ambrose, nor any other that lived in the Fourth Century, ought to be regarded or trusted for any thing they say concerning things done in the First, when they bring no­thing to prove it but their own Assertion. So that if Blondel had their Testimony, it would do him no service; but when he has it not, he talks altogether without book and without authority. All these Considerations I hope are enough to shew the vanity of Blondel's Dream of Succession by Seniority; and so I return [Page 82] to St. Clement, from whom Blondel has drawn me into this Digression.

And here the only advantagious Cir­cumstance that our Innovators can have from this Epistle, is, that there was no Bishop at that time at Corinth; as from the Nature of the Schisme 'tis probable there was not; for that seems to have bin the bottom of it, it being made by some of the People against the Presbyters, who not having the Supreme Authority in the Church, had not sufficient Power to sup­press their Insolence. And it seems to be the very same Case that hapned in St. Paul's time, when as the Counterfeit Am­brose (the Presbyterians Darling Author) affirms that Schisms were so easily made in the Church, by the Presbyters or the People, Quia adhuc Rectores Ecclesiis non omnibus locis fuerant constituti; Becaus the Governors of Churches were not as yet setled in all places. The Apostles and Evangelists not thinking fit to appoint them, till they had brought the Work to some perfection. And therefore (as I have already observ'd) we find but few setled Bishops in their own time, that Office chiefly resting in themselv's, unless in the Church of Jeru­salem. Which being the Mother Church of all, must needs be brought to its due Settlement before any of its Colonies and [Page 83] Plantations. And whether as yet there had been any particular Bishop set over the Church of Corinth is not to be known from History. And whether there had been any, and the See were now vacant, or as yet there had been none, the state of that Church was no other then it was under St. Paul; subject to some Evange­list or Apostolical man, who took the same Episcopal overfight of it, as the Apostle himself did. As Dionysius at Athens, Ti­tus in Creet, Timothy at Ephesus; and as we find by this Epistle Clement at Rome, who tell the Schismaticks that those very Priests, that they had presum'd to depose from their Ministry, were placed over them either by the Apostles themselves, or by some other eminent Persons, such as were the Evangelists or Secondary Apo­stles; so that it is evident enough, that they were still under the Care of some Apostolical men. Now because perhaps there was not a setled Bishop at that time at Corinth, from thence to infer that there was then no such Order of men in the World, and that though we know the very Names of several Bishops in several Churches, shews how bold men are forc'd to be with their own understandings when they will be fe'd or brib'd into the defence of a bad Cause. In short, when it is evident that [Page 84] the Apostles exercised a Supremacy over their own Churches; when they vested divers single Persons with the same Pow­er, as Titus not onely over all the Chur­ches, but all the Presbyters and Deacons in the several Towns and Cites in Creet; when in the most eminent Churches a personal Succession of Bishops from the very Apostles is Recorded; when this E­pistle is written by one who is a proper Bishop, and succeeded to an Apostle in his Bishoprick; when in his Description of the Hierarchy in the Christian Church, he specifies three, in allusion to the three Orders of High-Priest, Priest, and Levite in the Jewish, a thing very usual with the first Writers of the Church, even St. Jerom himself, and that in his Epistle to Evagrius, Et ut Sciamus Traditiones Apo­stolicas sumptas de veteri Testamento, quod Aaron & filii ejus & Levitae in Templo fu­erunt, hoc sibi Episcopi & Presbyteri & Diaconi vendicent in Ecclesiâ. What the High-Priest, Priests, and Levites were in the Temple, that the Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons ought by Apostolical Con­stitution, following the Jewish Polity, to be in the Church. Now when after all this we do not find that there was a set­led Bishop at Corinth at the time of this Schism, if men will conclude that there [Page 85] were then no Bishops in the Christian World, they may do so for their own pleasure, but then I would humbly move, that they would be pleased not to impose their Conclusion upon other mens under­standings.

§. VII.

The next in order is Ignatius, but our forreign Brethren pass him by as an irreclaimable Prelate, though at home of late one makes him a rigid Presbyte­rian, another a nice Independent, a third nothing; with such modesty and integri­ty do some men deal with their Authors: For who could think it, that when St. Ig­natius doth every where so expresly di­stinguish the three Orders of the Clergy, any man could be so confident as to force him to vouch his Opinion, that allows only two: For that's the first point of the Episcopal Controversie. But the most pleasant observation that they scratch out of him is, that the extent of Churches then reach'd not beyond Personal Communion; so that every Church was no more then a single Parish or Congregation, in which all the members of the Church might As­semble together; that is to say, they would have every particular Parish or Congregation in England provided with a Bishop, one Company of Presbyters, and [Page 86] another of Deacons, for that's the Church state that Ignatius describes in all the Churches that he writes to; and there­fore having so many Officers in them, it is evident that their Communion exten­ded beyond a single Congregation: For it would have been a very superfluous thing to provide such a multitude of Of­ficers for so small a company of Men. So grosly do these careless Writers, that con­tend not for truth but faction, impose both upon their Authors, and their followers, and themselves. But men that have a Rabble to abuse may and will say any thing.

As for the Authority of the Epistles themselves I have nothing more to say, having prov'd that they are so clear from any suspicion of being suppositicious that it is no way possible they should be so. And that there is not any one Writing of all the Ancients that hath been preserv'd and deliver'd down to us, by a more cer­tain and uninterrupted Tradition than these Epistles. And if so, they are an un­answerable Demonstration of the Divine Right and Apostolical Practice of Episco­pal Superiority. Onely there remains one weighty Argument of Monsieur Da­illè's, De lib. sup­pos. lib. 2. c. 26. that he calls his Argumentum Palma­rium, which I have not as yet consider'd, [Page 87] and that is the constant distinct use of the names Bishop and Presbyter in these Epistles, which, says he, was never obser­ved by the Apostles, nor any Writers for the first two hundred years. As for the Writers after the Apostles, we shall shew that they did as Religiously as Ignatius himself observe the Distinction of the Names, and then if there be any Crime in that, they are all as guilty as Ignatius. As for the Apostolical Age, it is confessed, that whilst the Apostolical Order conti­nued, the distinct signification of these words was not setled, but was afterward introduc'd to avoid the confusion of Of­fices. Now I pray what absurdity is there in this; O yes, saith Daillè, it is intole­rable, and an affront to the Apostles them­selves, such a rudeness as is not to be sup­posed in any Apostolical man, and there­fore sums up his tedious Argument in this Tragical Declamation. Nunc ergo à vobis Latini, à te Hammonde quaero cur hanc Apostolici Sermonis Lucae, Pauli, Petri, Johannis & Jacobi, imo Sancti Spiritús per eos scribentis usu consignatam ac Consecra­tam consuetudinem carissimus atque excellen­tissimus eorum (ut vos vultis) Discipulus, Suc­cessor, ac Filius Ignatius ita planè penitus{que} aversatus sit, &c. ‘And therefore now I demand of you Latines, (and so he stiles [Page 88] all Churches that are not of the Geneva cut) and particularly of you Hammond, why this dear, this excellent (as you sup­pose) Disciple, Successor, Son of the Apostles should dare so avowedly to re­ject a form of Apostolical Speech, a Speech sign'd and consecrated by Luke, Paul, Peter, John and James;’ yes and the Holy Ghost himself writing by them. This sorrowful Exclamation breaks out in every Page, and is the very Spirit and Life of the Argument. And I must con­fess it is a very Tragical thing to slight Apostolical Institutions, because they are really and indeed Consecrated, for the per­petual use of the Church, but as for Apo­stolical words I never heard that they Consecrated any, and then 'tis no such enor­mous contempt of their Authority, if in the signification of Words we follow the Custom of the time rather than theirs. For the Apostles never took upon them the Authority of Grammarians; their bu­siness was to setle Churches, not Schools; and if men would but follow them in the institution of things, they would freely al­low them their own liberty in the use of words. And therefore our learned man is too Tragical in loading Ignatius his de­parting from such a signification of a word that had been Consecrated by the Apostles, [Page 89] and he would do well to comfort himself with this Philosophick Consideration, as many great men have done in like Cases, that words have their Fate as well as King­doms, all things are subject to change in this World, and therefore as great Empires have their sudden falls, so may the grea­test Words, they are exposed to time as well as Pyramids, and have one peculiar disadvantage that makes them more short liv'd than other Monuments, and that is that they are subject to Custom, and the casual usage of the People, Quem penes Arbitrium est, & vis & norma loquendi (as Daillè very well observes) that are the Sovereign Lords of Speech, and exercise an Arbitrary Power over all Parts of it: And therefore it is no such great wonder that any thing govern'd by such an in­constant thing as the People, should be as variable as themselves. And this may serve to appease Daillè's fears of losing a Word Consecrated by the Apostles. But as for his Argumentum Palmarium, that is yet more surpizing, when to load Igna­tius with this appropriated signification of these words, he hath taken vast pains to prove not only that the Apostles them­selves, but all the Writers of the first two hundred years used them both promiscu­ously of both Orders, sometime applying [Page 90] the word Presbyter to the higher Order, and sometime the word Bishop to the lower. And thus through his over eager pursuit of Ignatius hath he betray'd the whole Cause of Presbyterian Parity. For if there were an higher and a lower Or­der in the Church, then for ever farewell Presbytery; and yet that's the very thing that Daillè so earnestly contends for, be­cause he thinks it may do him great Ser­vice against Ignatius, and so for the pre­sent let it, for if that be granted, we will resign up Ignatius into his hands; for what need we stand so much upon a particular Author, to prove a thing that Daillè him­self hath demonstrated out of all the Wri­ters of the Christian Church? So that the result of this great Argumentum Palmari­um is no more than this, that indeed it is true that there ever were distinct Orders in the Church, but then they were not exprest by distinct words, as they always are in these Epistles. But if there were distinct Orders, it is enough, and as for the distinct use of words, that was not pe­culiar to Ignatius, but common to all the Writers after the Apostles, and that they should be so bold as to depart from their Language is not I hope so dangerous as the Learned Man would seem to make it. So unfortunate are Men that will be de­fending [Page 91] a Cause that will not be defen­ded.

But though Blondel and his Associates Pag. 14. Apol. Daille de lib. supp. lib. 21. 26. p. 394. durst not venture upon Ignatius, yet have they pressed his friend Polycarp into the Geneva Service, though the truth is, his Case is the same with that of Clemens, for it is plain that through the whole Epistle he followed the same stile and forms of Expression, and sometimes imitates him word for word, and therefore might af­ter him use the word Presbyter in the promiscuous and Apostolical Sence; for though they were before distinguish'd, as is plain from Ignatius's Epistles; yet the newly appropriated signification of a word is not setled in a moment, but hovers for some time before it is universally enter­tain'd. And therefore though Ignatius used the words in the Sence of the pre­sent time, Policarp for all that might use them in the sence that they had lately born. And yet of this there is no cer­tainty at all, for it is more than probable that there was no Bishop at Philippi at that time, and for that reason they had sent to Polycarp for his advice in a cer­tain business, for so himself informs us, that he wrote in Answer to their Appeal. And that was an usual Custom in the Pri­mitive Church, if any thing of moment [Page 92] happen'd in the time of vacancy, to re­fer it to the judgment of some neighbour Bishop. But granting that Polycarp used the word in the Apostolical Sence (though if he did, he was the last that ever did so) What follows? Nothing but what I have shewn to follow from the same Ob­servation, both in Scriptures and St. Cle­ment, that when there was an Inequality of Power, there might be an Identity of Names. But Blondel would seem to ar­gue from the Inscription of the Epistle: Polycarp and the Presbyters with him, to the Church of Philippi: And then imme­diately excuseth the Argument, and in­stead of urging it as a Proof, answers it as an Objection. This, says he, seems some­what singular in this Epistle, that the ho­ly Martyr should write in his own Name apart, and then of all his Presbyters in Common, whereby he seems to reserve a Preheminence to himself over his Presby­ters, from whence it seems to follow that he was plac'd in a higher Order, and ex­ercised a superiour Power over them. Truly this doth more than seem to fol­low, how then does Blondel avoid it? Why he saith there may be divers other Reasons assign'd for it, and to this pur­pose he hath Coin'd a great many Con­jectures out of his own Fancy: And if he [Page 93] pleases I will allow him as many more, when it was certain that this was the on­ly Reason, in that it is certain from the Testimony of Irenaeus, his Cotemporary, that Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna in the proper Sence and acceptation of the word, as himself was Bishop of the Church of Lyons in which he had been Presbyter; so that in this Epistle we plainly find a Bishop with his Presbyters in the Church of Smyrna. But to say no more in so clear a Case, this single Epistle is as full a Testi­mony for Episcopal Supremacy, as all those of Ignatius, in that it particularly re­commends them to the Church of Phi­lippi, and therefore it both proves and ap­proves that Ecclesiastical Order that is every where there described. So that if Blondel will allow Polycarp's Epistle to be genuine (and it was never question'd) it proves all that is asserted by Ignatius, and we will ask no more. If he will not, to what purpose doth he produce a Testi­mony of no Authority? for if it be false it can do him no good, if it be true (as he owns it to be) he must admit Ignatius Epistles.

§. VIII.

His next Testimony is out Vid. Daille p. 397. of Hermas. But to what purpose is it to appeal to the Testimony, when he rejects [Page 94] the Witness? He condemns the Book as Counterfeit, Apocryphal, and of no Au­thority; and then appeals to it as if it were of that Antiquity that it pretends to. How strangely can Learned Men trifle when they will serve an ill Cause, to stuff up large Books with such Trash as themselv's cannot but confess to be useless: and therefore though the Allegations out of this Author be as much beside the pur­pose as any of the rest, I need not trouble my self to disprove them, because Blondel hath done that for me, by rejecting the Author himself; for the Testimony 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 Testimony. The onely Pas­sage in him to any purpose is this: Ii sunt Apostoli, et Episcopi, et Doctores, et Mini­stri, qui ingressi sunt in Clementiâ Dei, et Episcopatum gesserunt, et docuerunt, et mi­nistraverunt, sanctè et modestè Electis Dei. Where saith Blondel he reckons onely two Orders after the Apostles, Bishops and Deacons; for the Doctors plac'd between them are to be reduc'd to the Bishops, be­cause he says of them, that they manag'd the Episcopacy. That ever men should think to impose upon the World with such grossness as this! when here are so [Page 95] expressly three distinct Orders reckon'd up, and three distinct Offices, Bishops that govern'd, Doctors that taught, and Dea­cons that ministred. So that he is so far from ascribing the Government to the Doctors, as Blondel affirms, that he limits their Office to the Work of Teaching, and appropriates that of Ruling to the Bishops; and it was an usual thing in the ancient Vid. Pear­son vind. Ignat. p. 2. c. 13. p. 171. Writers of the Church, to stile Presbyters by the Name of Doctors, because Teaching was their Employment.

Our next man is Pope Pius, where we have another Cast of Blondel's Ingenuity, to make use of Pius his Epistles when he thinks they may serve his Cause; whereas he believ'd before-hand that they were counterfeit, for that he hath endeavour'd to prove in his Pseudo-Isodorus; but what says Pope Pius? Why he calls the ancient Vid. Daille p. 397. Bishops that were acquainted with the Apostles, Presbyters. He doth so for their Age, not their Office. Those old men that were Educated under the Apostles liv'd to our very time. This he alledges to prove the certainty of the Apostolical Tradition. But the Case is very hard, that an ancient Bishop cannot be call'd an old man, but he must be immediately degraded into an ordinary Presbyter. And that this is Pope Pius his meaning, is evident from the [Page 96] Other Passage insisted upon by Blondel, in that Writing to Justus Bishop of Vienna, he saith, Let the Presbyters and Deacons observe Thee, Non ut Majorem sed ut Mi­nistrum Christi. Where tho he carefully distinguishes the three Orders, yet not­withstanding that, Blondel will make his advantage of it: For though, says he, he Commands the respect of the Presbyters and Deacons to their Bishop, yet it is not as to their Superiour by Divine Right, but their Equal. What dealing is here with Antiquity, that one good Bishop cannot admonish another to exercise his Power with modesty and humility, but these men must presently strip him of it? Our Saviour Commands his Disciples that he that would be the greatest among them should be as he that ministers; does it therefore follow that there ought to be no Officers in the Christian Church greater than Others; or rather that the lowest Officer in it is the highest? Poor Presbytery, that after all this tugging hast nothing better to plead for thy self!

Our next Argument is, That the Church of Rome was govern'd by the Presbyters, when Marcion came thither in the Vacan­cy of the See, between the Death of Pius, and the Consecration of Anicetus. I will [Page 97] not contend about the Chronology. But if the See were vacant when there were so many Presbyters, then it was both something higher than the Presbytery, and possest by a single Person. So that here is another ancient Instance of a Church govern'd by a Bishop with his Presbyters; and after his Death by the Presbyters till the choice of another Bi­shop. But though the Presbyters of old kept up the Discipline of the Church in the time of the Vacancy, and were ac­comptable for it to the succeeding Bishops, yet they never pretended to Ordination, because that might be delayed for a time without any material Damage to the Church, whereas Discipline could not cease without subverting all Or­der. Cum incumbat nobis qui videmur Praepositi esse, & vi­ce Pastoris custodire gregem, as the Clergy of Rome very well express their Duty in this case in their Epistle to the Clergy of Carthage, when their own Bishop was Mar­tyr'd, and the Bishop of Carthage absent: Cyp. Ep. 3. Edit. Pam. So that they had, as it were, no more then the Sequestration of the E­piscopal Cure in the time of Vacancy. But from hence to infer that the Supreme Pow­er of the Church is constant­ly and entirely in the Pres­byters, is like all the rest of the Blondellian Argumen­tations, in which the Con­clusion always contradicts the Premisses, for by the Premisses the Supreme Pow­er is in the Bishop, and in the time of Vacancy part of it in the Presbyters, and from hence [Page 98] the conclusion is, that therefore it is all and always in them: Or because there is no Bishop when he is dead, that therefore there is none when he is alive. Happy is the Cause that is defended by such Champions, it can never be yielded up whilst there is any such thing as Confi­dence in the World.

The next man is Justin Martyr, who reckons up but two sorts of Officers in the Christian Church, the [...], and the Deacons. But the disparity between Bishop and Presbyter was brought in be­fore the time of Justin Martyr's writing, so that if there were any ground for Ju­stin Martyr's inference of Parity, yet it is expresly against his own declaration, namely that for some years before, the disparity had prevail'd in all Christian Churches. But it is a very bold inference from the Description of Divine Worship in a Christian Congregation, to conclude any thing certain of the Form of Govern­ment over it. For whether there were a Parity or Imparity of Ecclesiastical Of­ficers, it is certain that in every particu­lar Church there must be one to preside and officiate, which might either be a Bi­shop or a Presbyter, for any thing that Justin Martyr intimates, who speaks only of their Form of Worship, and not of Go­vernment. [Page 99] Unless from the word [...] may be infer'd Episcopal Superiority, because (as Dr. Hammond hath very well Dissert. 4. c. 17. § 10, 11, 12. observed) they are Synonymous in the Writers about that time, of which he hath alledged three remarkable Instances from Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, Marcellus Bi­shop of Ancyra, and the Council of Ephe­sus. But this, though it is much more than our Adversaries are able to make for themselves out of this Father; yet I shall not insist upon it, but stand to this, that he is to be understood according to the Practice of his own time, and therefore there having always been an uninterrup­ted Succession of Bishops in the Church, or at least as Blondel confesses before his time, whatever he means by his [...] in a particular Congregation, he cannot be supposed ignorant of the Form of Go­vernment in the whole Church, though he had no Occasion to mention it in his Apology, which was addrest to Heathen Emperours to vindicate the Innocence of their meetings against false Informations, and that concerns onely their Forms of Worship in particular Congregations, and whether it were a Bishop or a Presbyter that presided, it was all one to the Empe­ror, if that were all.

But in the next place Papias calls all Bishops, Presbyters. No, they are the Apostles he calls so. If I met with any of the Followers of the Apostles I enquired of him after the sayings of the Ancients, What Andrew, what Peter, what Philip, what Thomas, or James, or John, or Matthew, or any of the Lord's Disciples were wont to say. So that it is the Apostles themselves that he calls Presbyters, and for that Rea­son he calls them so, viz. because of their Antiquity, is so evident from the words themselves, that I cannot but stand ama­zed to see it so often repeated, and so long insisted on.

The next Testimonies are the Gallican Church, and Irenaeus, in which Blondel seems most of all to insult, as his manner is, to be most confident when his Argu­ment is weakest. For all the Proof he hath from the Gallican Church, is, that they stile Irenaeus Presbyter, after he had been their Bishop many years: Be it so, yet however it is confessed, that upon the death of Pothinus, he that was before a Presbyter succeeded in the Bishoprick, and then a Bishop is a higher state than a Presbyter. But that they stile him Pres­byter after he was a Bishop is a gross mi­stake in Chronology, in that Blondel would have him to have succeeded in the [Page 101] seventh year of M. Antoninus, 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 strange that this Argument which is founded upon such an evident mistake should be so ve­hemently insisted on, when they so accu­rately distinguish in their Epistle between a Bishop and his Presbyter, always stiling Pothinus their Bishop, and Irenaeus his Presbyter, who was not Bishop till after­wards. But it is stranger yet that Irenae­us himself should be drawn into the Con­federacy. What cannot a man prove the certainty of the Tradition of the Church, as Irenaeus often doth, by the undoubted Vid. Daille p. 395, 6, Testimony of the Ancients, but they must all be immediately transform'd into Pres­byters? And that he so frequently gives them that Title in respect of their Anti­quity, not their Office, is so evident from the Passages themselves, that it is a bur­ning shame for learned men to persist so stubbornly in so thick a mistake. Other­wise it is certain that he never confounds either the Name or the Office of Presby­ter and Bishop, and derives the Succession of proper Bishops from the Apostles, such as the Bishops of Rome, and Polycarp who had their Presbyters under them, as is e­vident from the Inscription of Polycarp's [Page 102] own Epistle, and the proceedings of the Presbytery at Rome against Marcion; nei­ther indeed could he confound the Names, who so well knew the Distinction of Of­fices, as having been first a Presbyter him­self, and then a Bishop. What an endless out-cry do these men keep up with Irenae­us his Presbyters, as if they alone had been the immediate Successors to the Apo­stles, and he had known no higher Order of men call'd Bishops, when himself was advanced from the lower Order of Pres­byter to that of a Bishop, when he has so often expresly distinguisht them, so that if he had expressed himself carelesly, and sometime called a Bishop a Presbyter, it were nothing but wilful perversness from thence to conclude that he knew no dif­ference between them, and plainly to give the lye to his own Declaration of his own Sence; but when there is not one passage in all his Writings, in which he ever stiles a meer Presbyter a Bishop; and when e­very passage in which a Bishop is stil'd a Presbyter, so apparently explains it self to be understood of their Age, not their Office; after this to interpret it of their Office, plainly shews that Presbytery has no other way to preserve it self, then by putting tricks upon Antiquity. Thus when in his Epistle to Victor he calls his [Page 103] Predecessors, Bishops of Rome, Presbyters that succeeded in the Government from the Apostles, what can be more evident then that he means thereby the Antiqui­ty of their Succession? for he is proving the Apostolical Tradition about Easter; and this is demonstrated by its being de­rived from the Apostles themselves, by the most Ancient Bishops that presided in that Church after them. And the same is his meaning when he calls Polycarp an Apostolical Presbyter, (whom he else­where proves to be an Apostolical Bishop) and when he tells Florius that he never received his Opinions from any Presby­ters, that were Disciples to the Apostles; and so when he speaks of an Apostolical Presbyter that was his own particular in­structer in the Traditions of the Apostles, it is plain to common Sence that he re­fers himself meerly to their Antiquity, without any the least regard to their Of­fice; thereby to prove the Truth of his Doctrine as derived down by the most Ancient Doctors in the Church from the Apostles themselves: And so he defines his Presbyters, Qui cum Episcopatûs Succes­sione charisma veritatis certum accepêre: So that the Ancients who succeeded the Apostles, and delivered down the Tra­dition of the Church from them to after­times [Page 104] were undeniably the Ancient Bishops. Now if after all this the good old Bishop Irenaeus, the great Assertor of the Epis­copal Succession from the Apostles, must be made an old Presbyterian, and the very Father of the Smectymnuans, the time may come, when for writing this very Discourse, if it should happen to sur­vive my self, I may (which God forbid) pass for a Presbyterian.

And why not? when by the same Quibble they draw in Pope Victor him­self, because in his Epistle to Dionysius Bi­shop of Vienna, he tells him that the Cu­stom of keeping Easter was deriv'd from the Ancients, (Presbyters if you please) that had seen the Apostles in the flesh, and had govern'd the Church successively down to his time, and therefore desires him to enjoyn its observation to the Pres­byters of France; and then salutes him and his Colledge at Vienna, in the name of the Colledge at Rome, from whence Blondel infers;

First, That the Church was govern'd by Presbyters from the time of the Apo­stles to Victor, only because the Ancients that govern'd it, succeeded the Apostles in their Bishopricks.

Secondly, That the French Church was govern'd by Presbyters, because their [Page 105] Presbyters were govern'd by their Bishop, how else could he lay any injunction up­on them?

Thirdly, That there were Colledges of Presbyters at Rome and Vienna, with Victor and Dionysius. Then there were Bishops with the Colledge of Presby­ters.

The last Witness of the second Century is Clemens Alexandrinus, partly because he Vide Daillé p. 396. once call'd an Ancient Bishop that liv'd in St. John's time an old man, partly be­cause he once speaks of Presbyters and Deacons without naming of Bishops, not­withstanding that in that very Passage he saith, that there was yet an higher Digni­ty: [...]. Strom. l. 6. p. 667. and more than once reckons up three distinct Orders in the Church, foun­ded by the Apostles in imitation of the Celestial Hierarchy.

Thus far my Patience hath held out, for though such abusive trifling, is far from being worthy of any serious Con­futation, yet because it is thought much more considerable than it is from the Au­thority and Reputation of the men who impose it upon the World, I thought good to let the People see after what a [Page 106] weak rate the most learned men have op­pos'd our Episcopal Constitution, that they may be no more abused with confi­dence and bold assertions. I have de­scended to the end of the second Century, because we are told of late, that there was no such thing as a Bishop in the Christi­an World for the first two hundred years. But with what Truth and Modesty suf­ficiently appears from the Premisses. But some men make as little Conscience of falshood, as they do of faction, and care not with what forgeries they abuse the ignorant People, so they can but keep up the Zeal and Confidence of their Par­ty.

§. IX.

Here I thought I had done e­nough, and so once resolved to have con­cluded this Argument, because I supposed it correction more than enough to have taken down the presumption and confi­dence of our present Schismaticks, and after that I was willing to spare all further Severity; but I find them so hardy in their own conceits that they scorn to ac­cept of any Civilties. But instead of be­ing thankful when their best friends are spared after sufficient correction, inter­pret it for cowardise and tergiversation. And Mr. B. is so vain as to set up this Treat. of E­pisc. p. 112. [Page 107] Wonder of the World, Blondel, (as he calls him) for the single and unconquerable Champion of the Cause, and to upbraid us with the poverty and defectiveness of our Answers to his large Collections. And both himself and their other Leading Wri­ters are at this time so confident in tran­scribing and translating the Blondellian Quotations, as if they believed every thing in him of Canonical Credit and Authority. And in truth they follow him with such an implicit credulity, that they do not more impose upon the Peo­ples Ignorance, than he does upon theirs. Therefore though I have sufficiently de­molisht the whole Work, yet seeing they will not yield up the Cause, whilst there is one stone left upon another, I will bat­ter down all their pretences for two Cen­turies more; and when that is done, there will appear nothing at the bottom but Sand and Confidence. And this task is so very easie, that it requires no labour but patience, and but little of that too, so fast shall we turn off his Authours. Tertullian is his first man of the third Cen­tury, De Presc. c. 41. De Bapt. c. 17. De Monag. c. 11. De Fugâ. c. 11. who though (as Blondel himself ob­serves) he has often and expresly own'd the three Orders of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon in the Church, and the Su­preme Authority of the Bishop over the [Page 108] whole Hierarchy, so that they are all obliged to be perpetually accountable to him for the legal discharge of their Office, and not to do any thing of moment in the Church, but by his leave and Com­mission: And though he has run up the De Praesc. c. 3 [...]. Succession of single Bishops in the most eminent Churches to the Apostles them­selves: And though he asserts the distin­ction of the several Orders in the Apo­stles own time, as when he affirms that St. Paul's precept for monogamy equally De Monag. c. 2. concern'd all Orders in the Church, Bi­shops, Presbyters and Deacons; yet after all this must he be made a Patron of Presbyterian Parity for no other fault of his own, then because he affirms in his Apology, that at their Religious Assem­blies the Elders of most reputation among them presided, being prefer'd to that dig­nity, not by bribes but worth. Now be­cause there was a Bench of Elders admit­ted to the Government of the Church, from thence to infer after the above-men­tion'd premisses that there was no single Person presiding over this Bench, is no less than to give the broad Lye to Ter­tullian himself. When he has so often and so expresly told us, that there was one in every Church, endued with so much power over the Presbyterate, that they [Page 109] could act nothing in the Church, but in subordination to his Authority. The Ar­gument then from Tertullian runs thus, That as often as he has occasion to enume­rate the several Orders in the Church, he reckons up three, and those too as distinct in the Apostolical Age; but yet because he once speaks of the Officers of the Church in general, and does not enume­rate the distinct Orders, and that for no other reason then because it would have been impertinent to his present Argu­ment, therefore they were all equals, and there was no Order of Bishops distinct from and above that of Presbyters.

The next man is Origen, a man that has been used hardly through all Ages of the Church, and therefore 'tis no great won­der if he meet with hard usage from these men, who treat none of the Ancients with any great tenderness. So that though no man has more expresly own'd the distin­ction of Ecclesiastical Orders, and the Su­premacy of Bishops, and that too in the Apostolical times, expounding St. Paul's precept of single Marriage, as then given to the several Orders of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, yet because he once makes mention of only two Orders, viz. Sacerdo­tum & Diaconum, therefore it is concluded, that he knew no more, notwithstanding [Page 110] that in the very same Passage, that is al­ledged by Blondel, he distinguishes be­tween the Bishop and Presbyter in the Sacerdotal Order: For exhorting the Cler­gy both Sacerdotal and Ministerial to be­have themselves as became their place and dignity in the Church, he thus speci­fies his general Exhortation, Give not men occasion to blaspheme, saying, Behold what a Bishop, or what a Presbyter, or what a Dea­con. And then immediately adds, Is not this objected when the Sacerdos or Mini­ster Dei do not act as becomes their Sa­cerdotal or Levitical Order. Where it is evident, that in the Sacerdotal Order he distinguishes the Bishop and Priest, and only distinguishes the Order it self, that includes both from the Ministerial Office of Deacons, according to the common Al­lusion among the Ancients to the Mosa­ick Hierarchy, in which only the High-Priest and Priests were reckoned into the Priesthood, and not the Levites, with whom he here parallels the Deacons. But poor Origen, has had the hardest fate of any honest and learned man upon Record, that when he has been charged with all the Heresies in the World, that were in being in his time, he should at last be loa­ded with one, that was never started till long after his death. For Aerius that was [Page 111] the only Presbyterian among the Ancients lived not till towards the latter end of the fourth Century. And 'tis pretty odd in Blondel, that when all the Ancients but only one were against Presbytery, he has alledged all except that one for it, though the truth of it is he had very good reason to take no notice of him in his Catalogue, because he was branded for an Heretick by all the rest for his Opinion. It is (I know) pleaded by Blondel and some wiser Praef. p. 59. men, that though St. Jerom and Aerius held the same Opinion concerning the Identi­ty of Bishops and Presbyters, yet St. Je­rom did not separate from the Church, but professed Canonical obedience to the Bi­shops, as lawfully establisht by Ecclesiasti­cal Constitution; whereas the other tur­ned Schismatick, and set up a Faction in the Church against his own Bishop, and that brought him into the Catalogue of Hereticks. But if this Apology were true, then all our separatists from the Epis­copal Communion of the Church of Eng­land fall under the Aërian Heresie, whilst they do not only separate from it, but think themselves obliged to abolish it as utterly unlawful and destructive of Christs own Institution. For which enormity they have no countenance from Blondel's Arguments, and therefore when they [Page 112] plunder them, they drive them farther then they will go. For all that can be drawn out of the Sententia Hieronymi, is only the Lawfulness of Presbyterian Pa­rity, because it is not contrary to any Di­vine Institution, but from thence to con­clude the unlawfulness of Episcopal Supe­riority, shews abundance of spight, but neither wit, logick, nor honesty. But then as for the Apology it self, it is true that Aerius his Separation made him a Schismatick, but it was his Opinion that branded him for an Heretick, and for that he is so esteemed by all the Ancients. And it is not a little observable that this was one of the latest Heresies in the Chri­stian Church, when there was not an Ar­ticle of the Christian Faith, that had not long before been the subject of variety of wild and odd Opinions. But it seems this form of Government in the Church from the Beginning, was thought so clear and unquestionable, that it never entred into any mans head to make any disturbance about it, till Aerius upon his repulse from a Bishoprick, to be revenged of his ill for­tune, started it at the end of the fourth Century; neither do we find that it sur­vived its Author, so little entertainment did it find in the Christian Church. And that St. Jerom was not reckoned an Here­tick [Page 113] for this Opinion, the reason of it is because he never held it, and if he had, he could never have escaped the Charge. For though he once or twice expresses himself loosly in this Argument, yet is it evident to any common ingenuity that he never in the least asserted an Equality between a Bishop and his Presbyters, but only a community of their Offices in the Priesthood, as distinct from the Ministe­rial or Levitical Office of the Deacons. Which as it is highly true in it self, so does it clear St. Jerom from all manner of suspicion of the Aërian Heresie.

As for the several Passages produced out of the Writings of St. Cyprian, and his correspondents, they are all no less then so many express proofs of the distinction of the three Orders, all which it was the custom of that Age to Assemble at all con­sults about the Affairs of the Church. That Presbyters were and ought to be As­sessours to the Bishop in the Government of the Church from the beginning, is so evident from all the most Ancient Records of it, that it will be as hard to find a setled Church govern'd by a Bishop without his Presbyters, as by Presbyters without a Bishop. And it seems the Deacons were by St. Cyprian's time taken into some kind of share in the Government (probably by [Page 114] the interest of the Arch-Deacons who car­ried the bagg.) But when this Custom began I know not, neither do I remem­ber any instance of it before St. Cyprian's own time, and it is likely that it was his own great modesty and civility that first began it. Though otherwise there is no man among all the Ancients, that has more expresly or strictly distinguisht be­tween the Authoritative and Ministerial Orders in the Church, and sub distinguisht the Authoritative into Episcopal and Pres­byterial, as I have already shewn from Blondel's own Quotations out of his Wri­tings. And the distinction of the three Orders occurrs so perpetually in every page of St. Cyprian, that to go about to prove from him that there were only two, this is not only to beg the conclusi­on, but (what is much worse) to steal it, and that with open force and violence against his own reiterated Protestations. This may suffice here for a general An­swer to all his Citations from St. Cyprian and his friends, though I if would descend to the heap of particulars, they are but so many instances of the most shameless disingenuity and falsification, as indeed the management of the whole Cause is from first to last. But I must not be too tedious, take therefore one instance for [Page 115] all, and that is the first of all out of the Epistle of the Clergy of Rome to the Cler­gy of Carthage: Who thus bespeak their Brethren, Et cum incumbat nobis qui vide­mur praepositi esse, & vice Pastoris custodire gregem: Seeing it lyes upon us, who seem to be the Rulers, and instead of the Pastor to keep the flock. That is, says Blondel, in Christs stead; as if they had affirmed, that the Presbyters of each Church had acted next and immediately under Christ, with­out any subjection to their Bishop; where­as this Letter is written upon supposition of his Superiority, for both Sees were at that time vacant, the See of Rome by the death of Fabian, and of Carthage by the flight of St. Cyprian; upon which Occa­sion the Clergy of Rome write to their Brethren of Carthage, We now seem to pre­side, and instead of the Pastor to take care of the flock. That is in the absence of our Bishops, the care of the Charge lyes upon us, and in great modesty they avoid to express it positively, and only say that it seems to be so, and that too in the Pastor's stead, i. e. the Bishop's, who was then absent. And therefore for Blondel to drop in a Parenthesis after the word Pastor with our Saviour's name in it, is not to find but to forge a quotation. And if we strike it out, there is scarce a [Page 116] more remarkable instance in all the Re­cords of the Church of the Episcopal Su­premacy, then in this Affair, as they ex­plain themselves. For the same Clergy of Rome writing to St. Cyprian for his ad­vice about the Lapsi, they tell him, That they cannot proceed to a full and peremptory determination of the matter, for want of a Bishop to do it with Authority. Quan­quam Ep. 31. nobis differendae hujus rei necessitas major incumbat, quibus, post excessum nobi­lissimae memoriae viri Fabiani, nondum est Episcopus propter rerum & temporum dif­ficultates constitutus, qui omnia ista modere­tur, & eorum, qui lapsi sunt, possit cum aucto­ritate & concilio habere rationem. And to conclude, St. Cyprian himself challenges his own Episcopal Authority as founded upon nothing less then Divine Institution. Dominus noster cujus praecepta metuere & Ep. 27. observare debemus, Episcopi honorem & Ec­clesiae suae rationem disponens, in Evangelio loquitur & dicit Petro, Ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus & supra istam Petram, &c. in­de per temporum & successionum vices Epis­coporum Ordinatio & Ecclesiae ratio decur­rit, ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur, & omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem praepo­sitos gubernetur. Cum hoc itaque divinâ lege fundatum sit, miror quosdam audaci te­meritate sic mihi scribere voluisse: ‘Our [Page 117] Lord, whose Commands we ought to reverence and obey, establishing the ho­nour of a Bishop, and the model of his Church, says to Peter in the Gospel, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church, I give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, &c. From that time forward the Succession of Bishops, and the frame of the Church was deri­ved down through all periods of times and seasons, so as that the Church should be founded upon the Bishops, and every Act of the Church should be govern'd by the same, seeing this Authority is esta­blisht by Divine Law, I wonder with what rashness and presumption some men should write to me, &c. An ad­mirable Patron this of Blondel's Pari­ty.’

But when he has made St. Cyprian a Presbyterian, he can never after that de­spair of bringing over any man to his party, and therefore next to him he Sum­mons in Eusebius himself, who of all the Ancients, next to St. Cyprian, not to say beyond him, is the strongest witness a­gainst the Presbyterian Cause. And yet even this man, that they have taken so much pains to prove the founder, or at least first Patron of Ignatius's Epistles, that has given us exact Catalogues of the [Page 118] Successions of Bishops in the most emi­nent Churches down from the Apostles themselves; That has placed by the A­postles own hands, St. James at Jerusalem, Erodius at Antioch, Clement at Rome, Ani­anus at Alexandria, Timothy at Ephesus, Titus at Creet, Polycarp at Smyrna, Diony­sius at Athens, Epaphroditus at Philippi, Gaius at Thessalonica, Crescens in Galatia, &c. And lastly that has preserved the most memorable passages in the first and most Ancient Writers, attesting the Go­vernment of the Church, by a Succession of single Bishops; And yet this very man Blondel is not ashamed to produce both as a Witness and an Advocate for his Cause. But certainly one would expect very full and express assertions to con­vince us of so strange a Paradox; for o­therwise it will be very hard to induce men to a belief that ever Eusebius was a Presbyterian. And yet the strongest proof out of him is the old poor quibble of mistaking Office for Age. For quoting a Tradition concerning the Order, in which the Gospels were written, out of Clemens Alexandrinus, which (he says) he received from Old Men of former times, i. e. says Blondel, Presbyters: It may be so, and very likely most of them were so, but Clemens says no such thing, all that [Page 119] he affirms of them is, that they were Old Men of what quality or condition soever, whether Clergy or Laity. The next pre­tence out of Eusebius is from the Ordi­nation of Origen, whom the two eminent Bishops Theoctistus of Caesarea, and Alex­ander of Jerusalem judging worthy of the highest honour in the Church, they Or­dain'd him Presbyter, therefore says Blon­del, the Presbytery was the highest ho­nour in the Church. What when he was placed in it by those that were in an higher, for they were Bishops that Or­dain'd him? But what miserable trifling is here with the Records of the Church, that when the Records report that though he were worthy of the Supreme, and Episcopal dignity, yet they only Ordai­ned 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 slender piece of perverseness is this great Herald of the Episcopal Genealogies turn'd into a Presbyterian Leveller. The last passage out of Eusebius is misquoted, so that I know not where to find it, neither need I, when it is a peremptory Testimony of the distinction of the three Orders in the Church: The words are these, ‘There [Page 120] are three Orders in every Church, one of Governours, two that are inferiour and subject to them; and the People are divided into two Classes, the Faithful and the Catechumens.’ Now with what design Blondel should quote these words is beyond my imagination to conceive; he has not, as his usual custom is, tack't any Inference to them, and therefore what he dream't of when he alledged them, is now forever past discovery; for I dare say no man beside himself will ever be able to find out which way they can be brought to serve his purpose. And the truth is, these are such wild and rambling conceits, that I am very apt to suspect that the man was not in his right mind, and that he had out of his furious zeal to Presbytery overwatcht and overhea­ted his head into some kind of phrensie, for I cannot believe that any man in his right Senses could have talk'd, much less written at such a roving and inconsistent rate.

The next evidence is St. Hilary of Po­ictiers, because he distinguishes in the Aaronical Hierarchy two Orders; the Sa­cerdotal, of which Aaron was head, and the Ministerial, which were Levites, and then applies this to the Christian Hierar­chy. I shall not put my self to the trou­ble [Page 121] of proving St. Hilary to be of the same mind with all the foregoing Fathers concerning the Episcopal superiority, I fear I have done too much of that already in a Case so clear; this passage alone is e­nough to do it, in which St. Hilary di­stinguishes the Priests from the Levites, and then divides the Priests into the High-Priest Aaron [Sacerdos enim in lege primus fuit Aaron] and the Priests that were comprehended under his name, and then adds, that so it is in the Christian Church; and then there is no parity in the Priest-hood, but an High-Priest over the rest. His two next Witnesses, the Counterfeit Ambrose, and the Author of the Questions upon the Old and New Te­stament in St. Austin, we have examin'd already, and find that they only raise a Presbyter much above a Deacon, and place him next the Bishop, but upon a lower Bench, and that we see was a notion that run among all the Fathers, even when they divided the Clergy into three Or­ders, they still made something common to Bishop and Presbyter, that distinguisht them from Deacons.

Thus far have I spur'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 first two hundred years, yet have [Page 122] I forced it through two hundred more, with a resolution to have gone with him to his Journeys end; but the way and work that I have already past is so infi­nitely dull and tedious, that I cannot pre­vail with my self to go any farther; nei­ther can I satisfie my self to what purpose I should, for when I have cleared the Re­cords 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 reason evident that it was no Apo­stolical Practice or Constitution. Besides, his Citations out of Authors of later date are of the same nature, and depend upon the same mistakes, and false reasonings that I have observed and discovered, in those that we have already consider'd. And I suppose I have by this time done enough to Caution our English Smectym­nuans, for the time to come, not to swal­low Blondel's Citations, and Authorities too greedily, when they are inform'd how enormously he imposes upon their Igno­rance. And then I hope we may for the time to come enjoy peace and quiet from their disturbances, for I cannot think so ill of them, as that they will after full in­formation go on to abuse themselves with such rank forgery, as they have hitherto done by their implicite faith in the ho­nesty [Page 123] and ingenuity of Blondel and the forreign Brethren.

§. X.

And now having thus far and fully proved the Divine Institution, and Apostolical prescription of Episcopal su­periority, our next enquiry is, after what manner this Institution was reduced to practice. For seeing that Government is a Practical thing, its institution is no other way to be so clearly understood, as by comparing it with its Practice: So that it is certain that the same way of Govern­ment, that was always practis'd in the Christian Church was most agreeable to our Saviour's Institution. And by it we may not only trace the method of their Proceedings, but discern the reasons upon which they proceeded. And then if the establish'd Constitution of the Church of England not only agree with the most Ancient practice, but be founded upon the same Reasons, that, I hope, is enough to place it above all Opposition. And as by this method I shall make good mine own Cause, so I shall prescribe against all other claims, for 'tis certain that was ne­ver appointed that was never practised. And therefore though it is no hard matter for false pretenders to make some seem­ing Pleas to a Divine Institution, yet if [Page 124] they can shew no example of their Claim in the Ancient Practice of the Christian Church, that is an insuperable Bar to all their pretences.

Thus for Example, when the Romanists pretend that the whole Government of the Christian Church was founded in the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, and plead Scripture for it, though I must con­fess they do it so wretchedly, that their own Arguments are the greatest shame to their own pretence. But supposing that they had any seeming Foundation for it in the Scriptures, yet because there is not the least Foot-step of any such pra­ctice in the Ancient Church for some hundred years, that's an undeniable de­monstration that there never was any such Divine Institution, for if any such there had been, the Apostles would not have fail'd of conforming to it, and there­fore when they do not, that shews that they had no such Command. Especially when if there were any such Institution, the whole Government of the Christian Church was bottom'd upon it, and there­fore must have been setled in the first place; so that when we find nothing of it for so many Ages, it is evident that there never was any such thing, and therefore never ought to be. And as this prescribes [Page 125] against Roman Tyranny, so it does a­gainst all sorts of Phanatick Anarchy, who all agree in this one Principle, that they will have no Order of Bishops superiour to that of Presbyters. But if they can give no certain instance of any Church since the Apostles, that was ordinarily govern'd by Presbyters without a Bi­shop, it is in vain for them to load their Margins with Texts of Scripture, or ra­ther, as their Custom is, with figures of Chapter and Verse, (and indeed the meer figures for the most part signifie as much to the purpose as the words themselves.) For if the Supreme Government of the Church had been setled, as they say it was, by Christ and his Apostles, in a Com­mon-Council of Presbyters, it is impos­sible but that most, if not all the Chur­ches had at first conform'd to it. And therefore the Universal Practice of Epis­copal Superiority in all known Churches, does as clearly demonstrate that there was no Divine Institution of Presbyterian or Independent Parity, as of Papal Tyran­ny. But when we first lay the Instituti­ons of our Saviour and his Apostles 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 state of Christianity. For there [Page 126] were few Churches brought to any kind of perfection in the Apostles time, per­haps none at all beside the Mother Church of Jerusalem, and therefore that state in which we find Churches when they were compleatly finished, we have reason to conclude most agreeable to the Apostles design, especially when we find all the known Churches in the World setled in the same form of Government, in which they left the Church of Jerusalem.

And in the first place there is nothing more evident in all the Records of the Primitive Church, than that the Apostles, and first Doctors of the Christian Faith endeavour'd as far as they were able, to model the first setlement of Churches ac­cording to the present State and Division of the Roman Empire. For though our Blessed Saviour setled the Supreme Go­vernment of his Church upon the Apo­stles, and their Successors; yet he no where prescrib'd the Bounds and Limits of every man's Jurisdiction, but left it, as indeed the Nature of the thing required, to their own Prudence to divide their Provinces among themselves. And ac­cordingly we find from the very begin­ning, that they form'd the Jurisdiction of Churches according to the Civil Judica­tures of the Empire. And this they did [Page 127] with special regard to the Interest of Civil Government, that they might not be any occasion of making Alterations or Distur­bances in the State, which could scarce have been avoided, had they not cut them out by the same Pattern and Model. For if the Jurisdiction 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 please, and if they please destroy it. For if their Juris­diction extend beyond its bounds, then it could exercise 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 must have some) it might cite all, or any of his Sub­jects out of its Dominions, and then they are no longer Subjects than as themselves please. So that the very nature of Civil Government limits the extent of Chur­ches; and when our Saviour Comman­ded his Apostles so 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 li­mit the bounds of Churches to the bounds of the Civil Government. And so we find all Christendom model'd before any Civil Power concern'd it self in its setle­ment; and Constantine found it so well [Page 128] order'd, for compliance with the Civil State of the Empire, that he made no Al­teration in that, till he did in this; and then indeed it follow'd too fast of its own accord, as we shall see hereafter. So as the Soul is conveigh'd into the Body, so as to conform it self to the same shape and bulk, without any other change, but giving it Life and Activity, Christianity was brought into the Civil Government, so as to give it new strength and vigour by all those precepts of Obedience and Loyalty, that it binds upon the Conscien­ces of all Subjects; but as for the Body of the State, it was punctually to con­form it Self and its Discipline to the very same mold. And this we shall find pra­ctised in the Primitive Church according to all the Divisions and Sub-divisions of Government in the Empire.

§. IX.

The first and lowest Church-Society is a Bishop with his Presbyters presiding over a City and its adjacent Territories; for that was the first Divi­sion of Power in the Roman Empire, as it was in the Jewish State, and as in most Nations a Judge with his Officers, and their Assistants residing in every City, and extending their Jurisdiction over the adjoining Country. And that is the de­finition [Page 129] of a Territory in the Civil Law. Territorium est Ʋniversitas agrorum infra Pandect. § 8. lib. 239. F. de verb. sign. fines cujus{que} Civitatis: quod ab eo dictum quidam aiunt, quod magistratus ejus loci intra eos fines terrendi, id est, summo­vendi jus habet. In Conformity to which the Apostles every where planted Chur­ches in Cities, which sooner or later, as they succeeded in their works, took in all the Country about, appertaining to the Circuit of the City. This is both the narrowest and the largest acceptation of the word Church, excepting the Catholick Church, that we meet with in Antiquity; * And this is confest by Blondel himself. Apol. Praefat. p. 76. Ne cui in mentem veniat fideles cu­juscunque civitatis incolas pro titulo­rum in quibus eos convenire mos est, numero plures ecclesias constituere, sed unius membra censeri debere, altâ mente reponendum est Apostolos sive Hierosolymis, sive Antiochiae, sive Corinthi, ubi plura degebant Chri­stianorum millia, & numerosi e­rant ordinis consessus plures nec ec­clesias nec consessus constituisse, sed [...] unicum, nec alium po­stea fuisse aut esse debuisse (Christo ipso judice) piorum morem, cum Christianorum per singulas Asiae civitates frequentiores coetus nus­quam in plures ecclesias et presbyteria dispertiti sint, sed unicam uniuscujus­que loci ecclesiam unicum consessum constituerint, Ephesi Ephesinum, Smyrnae Smyrnensem. Which utterly over­throws the grand Plea of our present Non Conformists that would confine the extent of Churches to personal Communion (as they call it) or single Congregations. for we never find any other mention of a Church in Scripture, as the Church of Rome, the Church of Ephesus, the Church of Antioch, the Church of Jerusalem; in which Churches though there were divers Offi­cers, and therefore se­veral Congregations (for if there had been but one, as some have the Confi­dence [Page 130] to affirm, to what purpose such a number of Officers?) yet but one Church. So that the bare mention of so many Of­ficers in one Church is an undeniable prescription against all the pretences of Independent Congregations. For if there were distinct Congregations, as it is evi­dent there was, both from the number of Christians, and of Church Officers; yet the Title of Church is never given to any of them, but only to the whole Bo­dy appertaining to the City; and there­fore it is observable that they are Syno­nymous in Scripture, Ordaining Elders in every Church, Act. 14 23. is the same with Ordaining Elders in every City, Titus 1. 5. So little do the Enemies of Episcopacy gain by finding out Presbyteries in Scrip­ture; for that plainly demonstrates the larger extent of Churches, unless we will be so absurd as to affirm that every single Congregation was taught and govern'd by an Assembly of Divines. And as we do find no Church of one Denomination of less extent than a City, and its Terri­tories, so neither do we find any of a grea­ter, excepting the Church Catholick; for when the Scripture speaks of any larger Society of Christians, as of a Province, or a Nation, it is always (as has often been observed by Learned men) in the Plural [Page 131] Number, as the Churches of Judaea, the Churches of Syria, the Churches of Ci­licia, the Churches of Galatia, the Chur­ches of Asia, in that those Provincial Churches were made up, as I shall shew anon, of a Combination of Diocesan Churches. And agreeable to these plain intimations of Scripture is the whole pra­ctice of Antiquity, for there is not one Instance of any one Church upon Record, either of a narrower or a wider extent. 'Tis true, that the beginnings of Churches were for the most part laid in Cities, as every thing must begin some where; but we find not the mention of any Church as fix'd and finish'd in any Ancient Re­cord, but of the same extent with the Civil Government over a City and its Territories. Some learned men I know distinguish between the two Periods of the Christian Church, the first when Churches and Cities were of the same extent; the second when Churches took in the adjoining Villages belonging to the Cities. But this is a meer Metaphy­sical distinction of their own Creating, without any Foundation in the History of the Church. For no man can assign 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 [Page 132] the Inhabitants of adjoining Villages. For though the Gospel was for the most part first preached in Cities, because of the greater number of people there, and the easie way of propagating it thence into the Country, by reason of its Natural and Civil dependence upon them; yet that there was ever any design of limi­ting Churches to the People of a City; nay, that there ever was any such time that they were actually so limited, there is not any the least intimation in all the Records of the Church. So that if it ever happen'd to be so in any place, as it was meerly accidental, so was it of very short duration. For it is possible that at the first preaching of the Gospel in any City, none but the inhabitants of it might be present, and so the Converts of that time might make up the Church of that City; and so it is possible that some of the A­postles, or first Preachers of Christianity might have first preached in a Village, (and St. Clement says so they did) and so 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 short time, especially in Cities, whither People continually resor­ted out of the neighbour Villages, and therefore were as likely to be present at [Page 133] the Apostles first Sermons as the Inhabi­tants themselves, 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 Justin Martyr, who expresly informs us, that in his time on Sundays all the Christians that dwelt [...] in City and Country Assembled together for Religious Wor­ship. But how small soever the begin­nings of Churches might chance to be ei­ther in City or Country, it is evident that no Church stop'd the bounds of its Juris­diction till it had taken in the City, and all its Territories. For that was the ex­tent of all the Churches that we find set­led in the Christian World, when they were brought to their lasting State and full Perfection. And that's a clear Argu­ment that this was the State of the Church that was design'd from the Beginning, and that for this Reason, that when the Powers of the World should come in to own Christianity, a regular and uninter­fering correspondence might be main­tain'd between both States, Civil and Ec­clesiastical, for by this means when any man became Christian he remain'd in the same Capacity toward the Civil Go­vernment, [Page 134] in which he stood before, which otherwise he could not have done.

This being the first Model of a Church, a Bishop with his Presbyters in a City and its Territories; the fundamental Rule of their Government was this, That no­thing was to be done without the Bishop: This we all know was the main injuncti­on in all Ignatius his Epistles, and this was the universal Practice of the Catho­lick Church. And hence in the 31 Apo­stolical Canon it is decreed, That if any Presbyter shall separate from the Com­munion of his Bishop, and erect another Altar, he shall after three Admonitions be deposed for his Ambition and Affecta­tion of Tyranny, and that very properly, because 'tis certain that all Rebels would be Tyrants too. And the same is decreed by the Council of Antioch, Canon 5; with this addition of Severity, That he shall be for ever deposed without capacity of Re­stitution; and that the Secular Power shall be called in to punish him as a mo­ver of Sedition. And in the 39 Aposto­lical Canon, Presbyters and Deacons are commanded to do nothing in the Church without the Bishop's consent; and Igna­tius reckons up in his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna the several Particulars that they ought not to do without him, [Page 135] not Baptize, nor Offer, &c. [...]. And this was the Custom of the Primitive Church: Especially as to Baptisme Tertullian is a positive Witness, Bap­tismum dandi habet jus summus Sacerdos, qui est Episcopus, dehinc Presby­teri & Diaconi, non ta­men sine Episcopi Autho­ritate, The Chief Priest, that is the Bishop, hath the Power of granting Baptism, and after him the Pres­byters and Deacons, but not without the Bishop's Authority. This fundamental rule of Episcopal superiority being esta­blished, it is not much material to enquire after what manner the Bishop and the Clergy exercised their Authority among themselves; whether they setled distinct Congregations under their proper Pastors, or whether they govern'd the whole Church in Common. Because these things depend principally upon Chance and ac­cidental Convenience, and they might do either as was most suitable to the Present State of the Church: In the Church of Jerusalem there must have been several Congregations from the beginning, be­cause the great Number of Converts ex­ceeded [Page 136] the bounds of a single Congrega­tion. And therefore at first they took a common care over the whole Body of the People, dividing the work among them­selves, but assembling principally in the City Church, whither the Inhabitants of the Country repair'd for Divine Wor­ship. For while the Number of Christi­ans was but small in Country Villages, some few perhaps in every Village, it was proper for them to resort to the Commu­nion of the City Church: But when that Christianity prevail'd over the World, and that there were Christians enough in every Village to make up a sufficient Con­gregation, then was it proper to set up fixed Pastors in particular Parishes: But when ever that was done, for the time is very uncertain, it is certain that they were form'd and instituted in subordination to the Ancient state of the Church; and therefore were not independent in them­selves, but subject to the Bishop and his Presbytery as they had been from the be­ginning. So that the late beginning of Parishes and distinct Congregations, espe­cially in the Country (for as it hath been often observed by learned men, we find no mention of Country Presbyters till about St. Cyprian's time) is another evi­dent prescription against Independency.

In that before that time all the Churches in the Diocess were immediately dependent on the Bishop and his Presbyters, and that they were so then and ever after is a thing so well known, that the Man that should begin the Proof of this as an inviolable Rule of the Church at St. Cyprian, without a­scending higher, might as well spare his Ink and Paper, and does but a needless and a thankless Office to the Cause of Episcopacy: Thankless because if he be not able or willing from thence to rise higher to the first Age of the Church, he gives up its Title from Divine Right: Needless because its possession by humane Right before and at that time is so no­toriously evident, that if any man should desire to have it proved, he would more deserve to be hissed at, than confuted. But if any man desire to consult the se­veral passages in the Ancients, especially St. Cyprian, relating to this Rule of ha­ving but one Bishop in a City and his Ter­ritories, he may find them amass'd toge­ther by Blondel himself, p. 188. 189.

§. X.

And therefore I shall rather choose 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 Cases of Necessity, it cannot be help'd if [Page 138] men cannot have what they would have done. And therefore no such Examples ought to be any prejudice to a standing Rule. So that whereas learned men dis­pute whether in the Apostles time there were two distinct Churches of Jews and Gentiles; and by consequence two Bi­shops, is very little if at all material to the Controversie. For if the Apostles ever set 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 some time would not be wrought off from their old deep rivited conceit, that it was not lawful to join in any Worship with a Gentile. This I find the greatest difficulty that the Apostles encountred in founding Churches; so that it is not to be much wondred at if they suffer'd them­selves to yield to it for some time, till they could perswade them out of it. And that I am sure was not long, for we hear nothing of any such thing after the Apo­stles themselves. Though for my own Part I am apt to think, that there was never any such form'd and settled Com­munions. For though the Apostles were at first forc'd somewhat to condescend to the niceness of the Jews, yet it is very probable that they overcame the fondness [Page 139] of their conceit, before they proceeded to the final setlement of Churches. But that they any where fixed any distinct Com­munions I know no sufficient ground to induce any man's belief, but much against it; for this controversie between the Jew­ish and Gentile Believers was chiefly agi­tated in the Church of Antioch; and when it was refer'd to the determination of the Apostles, Act. 15. they were so far from any compliance with the Waywardness of the Jews, in forcing the Gentils to a Sub­mission to the whole Law, that they in­joyn'd but three or four particulars, viz. That they abstain from Meats offer'd to Idols, from Blood, from things Strangled, and from Fornication: And upon these terms require the Church of Antioch to receive them to Communion; so far were they from instituting two distinct Com­munions, as Baronius, and after him others Martyrol. not. ad Feb. 1. conceive, that they required all to enter into one Communion upon these terms, which was joyfully received, and by con­sequence obeyed by the whole Church, v. 31. And when they here Condemn'd the Jews that would make the observation of the Law of Moses necessary, as distur­bers of the Peace of the Church, and sub­verters of Mens Souls, v. 27. It is by no means probable that they would in any [Page 140] other Churches so much gratifie men of the same Principles, as out of compliance with them to neglect or indanger the Unity of the Church: When according to the Sentence they had passed upon them at Antioch, they could be no better then Schismaticks all the World over. The only seeming difficulty that I know of, and once thought a real one, is the duplicates of the first Bishops after the Apostles, and in particular Linus and Cle­mens at Rome: But the Case of those Apo­stolical men was the same with that of the Apostles themselves, they were not setled Bishops of any particular See, but of the Catholick Church, and so where­ever they fix'd for any time, they were accounted of as the first Bishops of that See. And thus might Linus and Clemens be both esteem'd Bishops of Rome, as St. Peter and Paul were, in that both of them some time or other presided in that Church, and that perhaps either together, or at various times, as they happen'd to move in the discharge of their Evangeli­cal Office. And thus any Church might happen to have many Bishops without distinct Communions, because the Bi­shops at that time were not fix'd, so that when two Evangelists chanced to meet together in one City, they were both [Page 141] reckon'd Bishops of it, because they had both Apostolical Authority. But when Churches came to be setled upon their lasting foundation, then the standing Rule was one Bishop over a City and its Ter­ritories.

Thus in the 12th. Apostolical Canon, when provision is made that a Person Ex­communicated in his own Diocess may not be received in another, it is decreed that he shall not be received in another City, as Synonymous with Diocess; and so by his being kept out of Communion with the Church, appertaining to every City, he was effectually and entirely Excommunicate out of the whole Christian Church. And so in the 8th. Canon of the first general Council at Nice it is provided, That if any Novatian Bishop return to the Com­munion of the Catholick Church, he may be allow'd the Title and Honour of a Bi­shop, but nothing of the Power and Ju­risdiction [...] that there may not be two Bishops in the samc City. And accordingly they proceeded in their Synodical Epistle against Meletius, who had presum'd to ordain after his Deposition by a Synod of Bishops, allowing him the bare Title of Bishop in Soc. l. 1. c. 19. Soc. l. 1. c. 24. his own City, but charging him to exer­cise no Authority, especially of Ordinati­on [Page 142] [...], either in City or Country. And the same was done by the Council at Ephesus in a Synodical Epistle to a Synod of the Province of Pam­philia upon this occasion. Eustathius having been Elected into the Metropolitan Bi­shoprick of the Province, and being tir'd out with many Vexatious Suits and Trou­bles in it, resign'd it; upon which the Provincial Synod chose Theodorus in his place. Now when the See was full Eu­stathius, that had depos'd himself, makes his application to the Council, who ob­serving the Meekness and the Modesty of the Man, pitied his Case, as much as the Canons, and Constitutions of the Church would permit, and therefore Wrote to the Bishops of the Province to give him all that Respect that was due to his Order, but reserving the whole Jurisdiction to Theodorus.

Another remarkable Instance of this was Liberius Bishop of Rome, who had been banish'd his See by Constantius for his Zeal against Arianism, and Felix chosen in his Place; but addresses being made to the Emperour in his behalf, either by the Court Ladies, as Theodoret, or by the We­stern Lib. 1. c. 17. Lib. 4. c. 15. Bishops, as Sozomen, he was prevail'd upon to command his Restitution, enjoyn­ing him to govern it joyntly with Felix. [Page 143] But the People (say the Historians) laugh­ed at the Emperours Letters; and tho' the several Parties divided in adhering to the several Bishops, yet they both agreed in this common Outcry, [...], one God, one Christ, one Bishop. And so upon Liberius his Return Felix (says Theodoret) remov'd from Rome to some other City; but Sozomen says, He immediately departed this Life by the spe­cial Providence of God, to preserve the Honour of St. Peters See, and the Con­stitution of the Antient Church, that two Bishops might not sit in the same Throne; So that it is probable from both, that at Li­berius his Return Felix withdrew and soon after Died. And so in the 13th. Canon of the Council of Calcedon, it is Enacted, That no Clergy-man Officiate in another City without commendatory Letters from his own Bishop, where it is evident that Di­ocesses were Synonymous with Cities, and that the prohibiting them to Officiate in any other City, was the same thing as pro­hibiting them to Officiate at all. And much the same provision is made by the Council of Antioch, That if a Bishop could not repair to his own Episcopal See, be­ing hindred either by the Factiousness of Can. 18. the People, or the Incursions of the Bar­barians, that in that Case he might be al­low'd [Page 144] the Title of a Bishop, and have the liberty of Officiating in the Church in another Bishops Diocess till further order, but by no means to meddle with any thing of the Jurisdiction. And so in the Council Can. 94. of Carthage, the Bishops are enjoyn'd to endeavour the Conversion of their own City i. e. Diocess. And so in all the Ca­nons of the ancient Councils, that forbid the Translation of Bishops from a lesser Diocess to a greater; it is express'd by removing from one City to another. I might add numberless Instances, more especially those several ancient Canons, that enjoyn the Bishop to reside in his City Church, and not in any other Part of his Diocess. But these are more than enough to demonstrate the Primitive ground and Apostolical Constitution of Diocesan Churches; that as they made Cities the Seats of Bishopricks, so they design'd to extend their Jurisdiction over the adja­cent Country, when Cities and Churches were made Synonymous in the Apostles time, and when in the time of their earli­est Successors Churches were compleatly settled, the Territories adjacent to the Cities were always involv'd in the Chur­ches planted in them.

§ XI.

The only difficulty that remains is, the Case of the Chorepiscopi, of whom it is much disputed among learned Men, whether they were true and proper Bi­shops, or only Presbyters, authoriz'd not by Ordination but Deputation from the Bishop. Though the Controversie about them is very little material to the Cause of Apostolical Episcopacy, because of their late beginning in the Christian Church, and therefore because our Enquiry is after the first Constitution of this, I have con­fin'd my search to the three first Centu­ries, and what Ecclesiastical Practise soe­ver is not to be found in them; I conclude it to be no Apostolical Constitution: So that seeing we hear nothing of these Cho­repiscopi till the fourth Century: It is from thence evident, that they were not known to the Primitive Church, though Blondel and Walo are pleas'd to make them an Apostolical Constitution, according to Page 33. Page 302. their constant custom of perverting, and indeed flatly belying the plain sence of all Antiquity. For it is not only without any Foundation in the Records of the an­cient Church, but it's Notoriously con­trary to it's whole Practice: For the first time we meet with any such Office, (as Blondel himself hath confess'd, because he Page 35. [Page 146] could not deny it) is in the Council of Ancyra, in the year 314, or 315. And as they were brought in at first by Hu­mane Can. 13. Authority, so were they at last abo­lish'd by the same. But beside their late standing in the Church, there is another thing that makes their Cause scarce worth the enquiring into, and that's the Imper­fection of the first Record concerning them, that is the Canon of Ancyra, that hath suffer'd such a mutilation, as destroys it's Sense; however I will endeavour to State their Case as well as I can, because now I am in, I would give at least a full Historical Account of the Practice of that which we now call Diocesan Episcopacy.

Now here the Papists and Presbyterians agree, as they do in every thing else against the right Constitution of the Primitive Church; that they were not proper Bi­shops but Presbyters, deputed by the Bishop to exercise all Parts of his Episcopal Authority; by which the Papists gain this, that any Presbyter may take upon him the Office of a Bishop, by Delegation from our Sovereign Lord the Pope, and then it is in his Holinesses Power, to turn all the Bishops in the World out of Office when ever he pleases to send out his Dele­gates into all their Diocesses; And that is the true Bottom of Popery to make the Bishop [Page 147] of Rome the only Bishop, or rather all the Bishops in the World. And therefore we do not find any one Tenet more unani­mously asserted by the Divines of that Church. Here the very Schoolmen, that wrangle about all things else, are one and all, Thomists and Scotists, Nominals and Realls agree that Episcopal Consecration does not give any new Order, but is only an extension of the old. Though here they abuse themselves, 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 distinct Order of Men entrusted 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 Scho­lastic Cobweb. The Presbyterians on the on the other side think they gain this, that a Bishop and a Presbyter are the same Or­der, as having both the same Essential Power, but that the exercise of it in Pres­byters hath been sometimes restrain'd by Canonical and Ecclesiastical Constitutions, and sometimes allow'd as in the Chorepis­copi, tho' granting that they were no more than Presbyters; besides that they are a Novelty in comparison of the Apo­stolical Church, I cannot see how it af­fects the Cause of Episcopal Superiority. [Page 148] For tho' they were Presbyters, yet it is evident, that they did not pretend to the Episcopal Function, by virtue of their own Order but their Bishops Authority; And therefore this very custom were e­nough to prove the distinction of the Or­ders by it self: But whether a Bishop may lawfully depute a Presbyter by his Com­mission to execute his Office is another Question; 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 those two great Men, Mr. Thorndike and the Arch Bishop of Spalato, if com­par'd together: For says Mr. Thorndike, Suppose Presbyters were ordain'd by Pres­byters upon Commission from the Bishop, is The right of the Church, C. 3 p. 146. this any Prejudice to the Rule that nothing be done without the Bishop? or is it any Advantage to them, that would have no Bishops, and so do all against the Bishop? To my Reason it seems necessary to distin­guish between the Solemnity which an Act is executed with, and the Power and Autho­rity by which it is done. And that it can­not be prejudicial to any Power to do that by another, which it seems fit (i. e. thinketh not convenient) to be Immediatly and Per­sonally Executed by it self. The dependence [Page 149] of the Church being Safe by the Commission acknowledg'd, and the Ʋnity of the Church by that Dependence. And it is certain, that the Efficacy of the Solemnity, i. e. the promise and the Conveyance of the Divine Grace, is not annex'd to the Act, but the Authority; For it is not the Bi­shops hand that conveighs any thing into the Person ordain'd, but the immediate Grace of God, which he hath promis'd to the performance of the outward Solem­nity. So that tho' it be not executed by him in Person, yet so it be by his Autho­rity; Our Saviours design for the Unity of his Church, in the Institution of Epis­copal Superiority is preserv'd. But be­cause when he Vested his Apostles with this Power, he hath no where given any licence to trust it's Execution with others that have it not, and the Apostles accor­dingly attended it in their own Person; no Bishop hath any clear Warrant to en­trust his Episcopal Authority in any other hands, notwithstanding that perhaps it may be lawfully done.

And therefore the Arch Bishop of Spa­lato allowing its lawfulness Subjoyns, quamvis talis delegatio, mihi plurimum sit suspecta; non enim puto Episcopum posse or­dinationes De Rep. Ec. lib. 2. c. 9▪ § 18. per alium exercere, qui non sit Episcopus. And yet I must confess, that I [Page 150] cannot but very much suspect such delega­tions, for I cannot understand how a Bishop can Exercise his Power of Ordination by one that is no Bishop. And therefore tho' it may be lawful, yet because it is not war­ranted either by Law or Prescription; it is much more safe and adviseable to for­bear it. For I never find it designedly put in practice any where in the Christian Church, till of late in the Church of Rome. But as for the Chorepiscopi in the earlier Ages of the Church, I cannot see that they were any thing less than true and proper Bishops, that were plac'd as Coad­jutors to the City Bishop, in the remote parts of the Territories of great Diocesses, where they were empowr'd to Execute the Episcopal Office, as he should Order and Advise, so that tho' they had an in­trinsick power of giving Priestly Ordi­nation, yet this was restrain'd by Canoni­cal Constitution. And that is the best proof of their Episcopal Character, their Power of Ordination: For in those days when we first read of them, and when Canons were first made concerning them, no man ever so-much as dream't of Ordi­nations by Presbyters and Delegations, that was a late trick of the School-men to beat down all other Bishops, and ad­vance the Bishop of Rome; but in the [Page 151] earlier Ages of Christianity, in which the Chorepiscopi were settled, there is no foot­step of any such thought as Ordaining by Delegations, and therefore those ancient Canons that own this Power in them, but restrain it's exercise within Subordination to the City Diocesan, suppose them true and proper Bishops. That which makes confusion in this matter is the Corruption of the 13th. Canon of Ancyra, in which we first meet with the Chorepiscopi, and of which the most correct Greek Copies run thus. That it shall not be lawful for Countrey Bishops to Ordain Presbyters or Deacons, nor yet for City Presbyters with­out the permission of their Bishop. Which reading being apparently absurd and a­gainst the whole Practice of the Church at that time, that even Presbyters might Ordain, with leave from the Bishop; it is unanimously rejected by almost all Learned Men, and the true reading is fetch'd from some of the old Latin Trans­lations, that run thus. It shall not be law­ful for the Country Bishop, to Ordain Priests or Deacons, nor for City Presbyters to do any thing in the Diocess, without Authority from the Bishop by Commission in Writing. And so the whole Canon runs clear, the Countrey Bishops being thereby restrain'd from Ordaining Priests and Deacons with­out [Page 152] the Bishops leave, and City Presbyters from doing any thing else without his con­sent. And the same is provided for by the 65 Canon of Laodicea, which was made in pursuance of this, That the Priests should not so much as begin Divine Service in the Church till the Bishop came, without his leave. And it is the same that is in­join'd by all Ignatius his Epistles, and the Canons of the Ancient Church, that no­thing be done without the Bishop; and therefore this Canon must be reduc'd to that sence, else we can never reconcile it to it self, and the universal Practice of the Church. And so it was read in the time of Charles the Great, who in his Capitular at Aix la Chapelle thus expresses the sense of it. Ancyronense (as he calls the Coun­cil) Vicariis Episcoporum, quos Graeci Cho­repiscopos vocant, non licere Presbyteros vel Diaconos ordinare. Sed nec Presbyteris Civitatis sine Episcopi praecepto amplius aliquid jubere: vel sine Auctoritate litera­rum ejus in unaquâque parochiâ aliquid age­re. So that when Walo will from this maim'd Canon infer, that before that time it was lawful for City Presbyters to Or­dain; methinks a man of his endless rea­ding would have done well to have given one instance of it in all the Records of the Church. But when the whole pra­ctice [Page 153] of the Church was so apparently contrary, he would have done much bet­ter, and more like an able Critick to have corrected his Copy by it, (especially when its true meaning was so clearly poin­ted out by the most Ancient versions) than to stick to an evident mistake be­cause he would not part with his Opini­on, though it is still greater stubornness to hold it fast in spight of himself; for is it not pleasant to see him so eager to prove the power of Ordination in Presbyters till the Council of Ancyra? When his leading assertion all along is, that indeed it was in them at the beginning, but was taken away before the middle of the second Century. What work is here, they lost it in the second Century, and yet retain'd in the fourth, till it was first taken away by the Council of Ancyra. Both Propo­sitions are enormously false, and yet both contradictory, so unhappy was this proud man, that he would always contradict himself to be in the wrong. Now this little mutilation of one word, as [...], suppos'd, as it reconciles the Canon to the Custom of that Age, so does it to all the other Ancient Canons that were about these Country Bishops, that they had an Episcopal Authority, but so as to be subordinate to the City Bishop, who [Page 154] might restrain or extend the exercise of it, as he judged most convenient; and so by this means they thought that they at once made provision for the Government of those parts that were more remote from the City Bishop's inspection, and withal preserv'd the Ancient Constitution of the Church, of one Sovereign Bishop in a Dio­cess. And that these Chorepiscopi had the Character of proper Bishops appears plain­ly from the Tenth Canon of the Synod of Antioch, that allows them to Ordain the inferiour Officers of the Church, Readers, Sub-Deacons, and Exorcists, but not Priests and Deacons without the Bishop's con­sent; and that, saith the Council, [...], notwith­standing his having had Episcopal Ordi­nation, or as Rabanus Maurus Translates it in his little Tract De Chorepiscopis at the End of Petrus de Marcas Fourth Book, de Concordiâ: Quamvis manus impositionem Episcoporum perceperint, & ut Episcopi con­secrati sint. And that it is to be under­stood not of his being Ordain'd by a Bi­shop, but Ordain'd a Bishop, is evident from the words themselves, for it had been ridiculous to say that a Presbyter shall not Ordain though he be a Presby­ter; so that its meaning can be no other than this, That notwithstanding Country [Page 155] Bishops had Episcopal Consecration, yet they were to be limited in the exercise of it by the City Bishop. And therefore in the 57 Canon of Laodicea it is Decreed, That no more Country Bishops for the time to come be Ordain'd, but that in their stead [...] or Visitors be ap­pointed. And these were meer Presby­ters delegated by the Bishop to visit his Country Churches, and therefore are reckon'd as a distinct Order of men from the Chorepiscopi in the Civil Law; and Just. s. 9. l. 4. c. de Epis. & Cl. this was probably at first thought upon to prevent the danger of Schism, that might, and sometimes did arise from the Country Bishops going beyond their Com­mission: which if they did, they might the better justifie it by their Episcopal Character, and that these Visiters could not so much as pretend to, because they were meer Presbyters, and so not capable of conveying Holy Orders. But these were most of them Topical Councils, and concern'd only particular Provinces; and therefore we find the Church afterwards variously govern'd, in some places by Country Bishops, in others by visiting Presbyters. And yet this is made an Ar­gument by some Learned Men, that the Chorepiscopi were no more than Presby­ters, because the [...] that were [Page 156] meer Presbyters, were qualified to suc­ceed in, and supply their Office. But be­sides that they were distinguished in An­cient Writers; if they were the same, to what purpose was one abrogated, and the other instituted in its stead? so that the meer Succession of the one to the other, is an undeniable note of their distinction. Especially when this Canon of Laodicea was made in pursuance of the Sardican Canon, that forbids the erecting Episco­pal Sees in Country Villages or small Ci­ties, and therefore to avoid that inconve­nience, this Canon of Laodicea supplies their place by visiting Presbyters. But there are two Arguments that have en­clined the two great Arch-bishops of Spa­lato De Rep. Ec­cles. l. 2. c. 9. N. 17. and Paris to conclude them Presby­ters. First, That the Synod of Neocaesa­rea says, that they were appointed in imi­tation De Concord. l. c. 2. 13, 14 of the 70, who were a distinct Or­der from the Apostles to whom Bishops succeed. It doth so, and perhaps may be mistaken in its Argument, but though it useth a wrong Topick, yet that does not at all prove that they thought the Chorepiscopi no more than the 70, especial­ly when the comparison is so loose, for they affirm not that they succeeded the 70, but only as the 70 were instituted to be assistants to the Apostles, so were these [Page 157] Chorepiscopi to their Bishops. And that this very Council esteem'd them proper Bishops is evident from their Eighth Ca­non, that allows them, but not Presby­ters to grant Letters dimissory; and the truth is, that Power was never permitted to any but Bishops. But, say they, in the next place the Canon of Antioch com­mands that every Chorepiscopus be Ordai­ned by his own Bishop, whereas it is well known that the Canon of Nice, and all the Ancient Canons strictly require that every Bishop be Consecrated by at least three Bishops. But why may not those Canons be fairly understood of City Bi­shops, for whom the Ordainers were ac­countable to the whole Province, but a Country Bishop is only for the Use and Service of his own Diocesan, and there­fore may as safely be Ordain'd by him alone, as his own Presbyters. Though the true meaning of the Canon is this, not that his own Bishop is sufficient to his Consecration, but that he is necessary, so that he ought not to be Consecrated with­out him; as no Bishop of the Province may without the Metropolitan, not that the Metropolitan can do it alone, but that he must be one of the Ordainers. But the Canon of Antioch is so express for the Episcopal Consecration of the Chor­episcopi, [Page 158] that the Learned Arch-bishop of Paris hath no other way to avoid it, but De Cler. l. 1. c. 17. by distinguishing, as Bellarmine had done before him, the Office from the Person, that might sometime be a Bishop, and sometime a Presbyter, and that he saith is the meaning of those words, although he have receiv'd Episcopal Ordination; that is, though the Chorepiscopus be a Bi­shop himself, and not as sometime he may be, a meer Presbyter. But this is preca­riously said without any shadow of Pre­tence for it, but meerly to salve his own Hypothesis. But that they could be no­thing less than true and proper Bishops, cannot but be evident to a man of his learning from their intrinsick power of Ordination, that is suppos'd in them by this and all the other Canons, but onely limited and restrained to a subordination to their chief Bishop. But whatever they were they continued some Ages in the Christian Church, but not without great bickerings, being sometime put down, and sometime getting up again, according to the temper of the Diocesan Bishops, till the time of Charles the Great, when though they were not utterly laid aside, yet they had their last and fatal Sentence.

For their Cause being then hotly agita­ted in France and Germany, as appears not [Page 159] only from the Capitulars, but from Hinc­marus and Rabanus Maurus, who tho' both honest men, were of different Factions in this Contest. Rabanus Maurus pleads the cause of the Chorepiscopi against the Pride of the City Bishops, who would endure no Partisans in their Authority; and there­fore he imputes their Zeal against the Countrey Bishops to their own designs of Ambition. Hincmarus on the contrary objects it to the Bishops that appeared for them, that it was for their own Ease and Laziness, that they desir'd their Continu­ance, that whilst their Deputees under­took the Care of the Diocess, they might give themselves up to their own Pleasures. The Arguments on both sides were but Popular, and indeed Personal, and might both be true or both false: But the Em­peror it seems approving the Reasons a­gainst them, as appears by his Capitulars, referrs the matter to Pope Damasus, who immediately Condemns the whole Order, and Abrogates them for ever, as a sort of Amphibious Creatures between Bishops and Presbyters, that had no Foundation from any Divine Authority. Nam non amplius quam duos Ordines inter Discipulos Distinc 68. Cap. 5. Domini cognovimus, i. e. duodecim Aposto­lorum & 70. Discipulorum, Ʋnde iste terti­us processerit funditus Ignoramus; Et quod [Page 160] ratione caret extirpari necesse est. And the same was decreed by several Councils, but yet for all that they struggl'd for a long time after, and were not totally abroga­ted, as Petrus de Marca observes out of Sigebert, till the end of the eleventh Cen­tury. Though this at last prov'd the over­throw of the Power of the Bishops them­selves, for whilst they, to be rid of their Competitors, degraded those who had ex­ercised all the Parts of the Episcopal Office to the Order of Presbyters, the Pope and his Parasites, as Mr. Dodwell hath very Seperation of Churches Cap. 23. acutely observ'd, take Advantage of it to depress the Episcopal Office it self, mak­ing it of the same Order with the Priestly, and differing only in Degree, which might be given, as it had been before to the Chorepiscopi, to simple Presbyters by Pa­pal Delegations, and by this Artifice he rais'd himself to his absolute Sovereignty over all Bishops and Councils, in that he effected what he pleased every where by his own immediate Delegates, the Bishops not being able to withstand the greatness of his Power. But of the Steps of the Pa­pal Ambition I shall discourse afterwards, though from this sligh Accident it may ap­pear how they ever sat at Watch to make their Advantage of every thing that hap­pen'd in the Christian Church.

§. XII.

The next great division of Go­vernment above that of a City, and it's Territories in the Roman Empire was into Provinces, which comprehended several Cities within the circuit of their Jurisdi­ction. These were at first nothing else, but the Nations that were conquer'd by the Roman People. Provinciae appellantur (says Festus) quod populus Romanus eas provicit, i. e. ante vicit. But when the Common­wealth came to it's greatness, it's Govern­ment was divided into several parcels or Provinces, which the great Men shar'd a­mong themselves, either by Lot, or Vote, or Office. And when that was afterward turn'd into a Monarchy under Augustus, he took an Account of the whole Empire, and new settled it's Government, as he judg'd most expedient to the Interest of the State; Of all which himself compos'd a little Book call'd the Breviary of the Em­pire, which he offer'd to deliver up to the Senate in his mock-Complement, when he pretended to resign up the Imperial Power into their hands, but left it as a Legacy to his Successors for their Guide in the Government of their Empire. And this was the standing Model of the State with some Alterations that were after­wards made by several Emperours, especi­ally [Page 162] Adrian, as to the Bounds of Jurisdicti­on, but without any change of the form of Provincial Government. Now in these Provinces the head City, in which the Roman Governors resided, and kept their Courts of Judicature was call'd the Metro­polis; whither Men resorted out of the lesser Cities for appeals of Justice, as they did to them out of the adjacent Countrey for the Tryal of original Causes. And the Governor that kept his Residence there, had a Supreme Authority over the Ma­gistrates of the inferior Cities, so as that they were Accountable to him for the ex­ecution of their Office, and oblig'd to at­tend his Summons to Provincial Assem­blies, in which he presided to propose matters of Debate, to declare the results of Council, and to determine the last Re­solution of things; for without him no­thing could be concluded or Executed. Now in conformity to this civil mold of the Empire, the Constitution of the Church was cast, that as Bishopricks were erected in Cities, so were Metropolitans in Provinces, who presided over the Bi­shops of inferior Cities, as the Provinci­al Governors did over the City Magi­strates. And thereby they not only setled the most expedit correspondence with the civil Government, but by making the [Page 163] head City of every Province the Metro­polis of the Church within that Province; upon which the Inferior Cities depended as the Centre of Communion, they ad­mirably secur'd the unity of the whole Body, whilst every Episcopal Church ex­ercised ordinary Jurisdiction within it self, but was bound in cases of great difficulty, or such as concern'd the common Christia­nity, or the peace of the particular Pro­vince, or upon any Summons from the Metropolitan to have recourse to the Mo­ther Church, where the Bishop of it pre­sided in a Synod of the Bishops of the Pro­vince, by whom all the Affairs of the Church within the Province were Go­vern'd. Into this frame of Government did Christianity work and setle it self as it prevail'd in the World; and we find the Institution of Metropolitans so antient, that we can discover no beginning of them, unless we derive them from the Apostles own times. But here learned Men run themselves into a great Variety of Dis­putes: Whether Metropolitical Govern­ment were instituted by the Apostles, or whether it came in of its own accord? And if instituted by the Apostles, whe­ther they did it by Divine direction or upon humane prudence? And whether several Cities mention'd in the Scriptures, [Page 164] particularly the seven Churches of Asia, were true and proper Metropoles? But as those things have not sufficient certainty in themselves, so are they of no great weight to the Cause of Metropolitans: for which soever proves true, it proves both their prime Antiquity and great usefulness. If they were instituted by the Apostles, then it is plain that they thought this form of Government most proper and suit­able to the State of the Christian Church. And if in it they were directed immediate­ly by the Holy Ghost, that gives them Divine Authority: If they were guided to it by their own Wisdom, then it is a gross folly to forsake an Establishment that was contriv'd, and setled by the Wis­dom of the Apostles. But to divide be­tween the Divine Guidance and humane Wisdom in their Actions is a very Phan­tastick Curiosity; for whatever the Spirit of God directed them to, it was agreeable to the Rules of humane Prudence, other­wise to be sure it would never have di­rected them to it, and what ever they did according to the Rules of humane Pru­dence, it was no doubt agreeable to the mind of God, otherwise he would never have suffer'd them to do it and setle it for ever. So that their Practice in every thing, that is of moment enough to be [Page 165] observ'd, is warrantable both ways, by Divine approbation, and the Wisdom of the thing it self. And the same is the case, if it came not in by any Apostolical design, but by vertue of its own Expedi­ency, for then it warrants it self by the great reasonableness and necessity of the thing. So that upon whatever account it came in, it is sufficiently recommended to our imitation, in that it was found so ex­pedient for the right Administration 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 Apostolical Practice as to all places, yet there is as to several, and of their Design as to all. There are so many intimations of it, in the Apostles writings, agreeable to the Practice of the Primitive Church, as cer­tainly prove that the practice of it came down from their prescription. Thus St. Peter directs his Epistle to the several Churches of the Christian Jews, with re­spect to so many several Provinces, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, which as they were distinct Provinces in the Civil division of the Empire, so were they ever so many distinct Provincial Sees in the Communion of the Church, and nothing js more obvious in the Epistles of [Page 166] St. Paul, than the direction of his Letters 2 Cor. C. 1. To the Church of God which is at Co­rinth, with all the Saints that are in all A'chaia. Corinth was the Metroplis of Achaia. Florus l. 2. Cap. 16. Acts 15. 23. to the Metropolitical Church, to be com­municated to the whole Province. The same thing that is sufficiently intimated in their practice, as in that known case of the Apostles making a Decree for Anti­och, by which all the Churches of Syria were concluded; Antioch being their Me­tropolitan See, and as it happen'd Cilicia too. That it was a civil Metropolis is out of question, and that it was so upon an Ecclesiastical score very early, is evi­dent from Ignatius, who because he was Bishop of Antioch, stiles himself Bishop of Epist. ad Roman. Syria, the Province, of which Antioch was the Metropolis. And therefore it is but reasonable to think that the Apostles look­ed upon the Church of Antioch, as com­prehending the whole Province of Syria. But to this it is reply'd: In good earnest, doth the Church of Syria and Cilicia, (be­ing bound by this decree) prove their Su­bordination to Antioch or the Apostles? Why in good earnest (for jesting in these matters is not to be endur'd) I think it proves both; the Churches of Syria were bound by the Apostles decree that was made for Antioch, because they were un­der its Jurisdiction, and the Church of the Province of Cilicia by reason of their Neighbourhood and equal concernment in [Page 167] the same Controversie. But it is still ob­jected that they delivered the Decree to the Churches of Phrygia and Galatia. Yes so they did, not as to Subject but Sister Churches, and upon the same Account that they did it to the Churches of Cilicia, because those four Provinces seem to have been particularly infested at that time with that Controversie. But still we are ask'd: (with trifling enough) What do the Decrees of the Apostles concern, only those, to whom they are inscrib'd? Whoever said they did or did not, how does it follow from hence that because all the Churches of a Province are particularly concern'd in a Decree, directed to their Metropolis, therefore none other are? but because the question is ask'd, though how pertinently I cannot understand, yet because it is de­manded in another case not altogether be­side the purpose; I shall once for all an­swer it. That I cannot find but as this Decree was temporary, so was it local, made for some particular Churches, who then stood in need of it, and not Univer­sal, so as to oblige all Churches to its ob­servation. Otherwise how could there have been that controversie in the Church of Corinth, about things offer'd to Idols, if this Decree had ever been in force there; or at least how should St. Paul have advis'd [Page 168] the Corinthians to eat them as Gods Crea­tures, but not as things offer'd to Idols, as he doth the 1st. to the Corinth. 8. 7. when the whole Body of the Apostles had by this Decree so absolutely forbidden the eating of them at all.

But to proceed, it is sufficiently known that Ephesus was the Metropolis of the Proconsular Asia, and therefore it was that St. Paul summon'd the Governours of that Church to him at Miletus as the head Church, and by consequence the Representatives of all the Churches of that Province. And so was Corinth the known Metropolis of Achaia, and for that reason St. Paul inscrib'd his Epistle to the Corinthians, so as to take in all the Chri­stians of Achaia. And so was Thessaloni­ca of Macedonia, for which reason St. Paul in his Epistles to them bespeaks all the Christians of the Province of Macedonia. But though many and indeed most of the Churches, to whom the Apostles directed their Epistles, were Metropolitical, yet I cannot see what ground there is to con­clude that they were all such. I will not determine whether Philippi were a Me­tropolis, or all the seven Churches of Asia; Philadelphia and Thiatyra for any thing I know might be but Bishopricks, under the Metropolis of Sardis and Perga­mus. [Page 169] And I pray why might not the Apostles write either to Bishops or Metro­politans, as they had occasion, or as cir­cumstances determin'd them? So though the City of Colossae were no Metropolis but an eminent City in the Province of Lydia, under the Metropolis of Laodicea; yet because St. Paul had been very suc­cessful there in his Ministry, and that not only in the great Numbers of his Con­verts, but in their extraordinary Zeal for the Christian Faith, which he so highly commends in them in the beginning of his Epistle, for that reason he might direct his Letter to them, though with particu­lar order to have it Communicated to the Laodiceans. So that though Laodicea were the chief City in Dignity, yet Col­lossae being then the most eminent Church, what wonder is it if the Apostle shewed it the more particular respect? But that there was a dependence of these Chur­ches upon one another, appears from St. Ch. 4. 13. 15. 16. Paul's order to have his Epistle to the Colossians communicated to the Church of Laodicea; and his Epistle to the Laodi­ceans (which the Learned say, from the Authority of Tertullian and Epiphanius, was the same with that he sent to the E­phesians) communicated to the Church of Collossae, being both of the same Province. [Page 170] Though otherwise the Apostle generally directed his Epistles either to the Church of the whole Province, as to the Romans and Galatians: or to the Metropolis of the Province, as Corinth, Ephesus and Thessa­lonica: or to the Metropolitan himself, as Timothy and Titus. In short, though this were their ordinary Rule, by which they setled Churches, yet it is probable that they might sometimes vary from it in ex­traordinary Cases, and for particular rea­sons, of which we can have no know­ledge or certainty. Though indeed the most insuperable 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 ca­sual passages. Strabo and Pliny have left a pretty good account of its Geography, but have given very slight touches upon its Political Government. And whereas Strabo hath in the conclusion of his work drawn up a general Description of the Pre­sent State of the Empire under Augustus, if he had descended to a particular Ac­count of all the Provinces and Limits of Government, we should have had a much better insight into the state of things at that time, then we are ever likely to re­trieve. However it is enough that there were Metropoles in the Apostles time, [Page 171] that themselves had special regard to their Preheminence, both in their Writings and Actions, and that the first Churches that we meet with next after their times were setled in the same form: So that as this design of Conforming the Ecclesiastical state to the Civil, was first set on foot by the Apostles, so was it carefully pro­secuted by their immediate Successors, and by them delivered from the Apostles down to After-ages. For this was appa­rently the Constitution of the Christian Church in all places of the Empire for the first three hundred years, or the whole Interval of time from our Saviour to Con­stantine, that as every City was govern'd by its own Bishop with his Consistory of Presbyters, so was every Province by its own Metropolitan with his Synod of Bi­shops.

§. XIII.

Of this there are numberless instances in the Records of the Church, and the truth of it is, we have the same Proof of their Preheminence over Bishops from the time of the Apostles, as we have of the Superiority of Bishops over Presby­ters; nay the clearest proof of this de­pends not a little upon that, because we have no perfect List of the Succession of the Bishops of any See, but such as were [Page 172] Metropolitans, who were therefore most taken notice of, because of their Supreme Eminence in the Christian Church. Thus the Catalogues of the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were preserved entire, whereas the memory of the Bishops of any other inferiour Sees is for the most part personal, and depends upon the worth of the man, either for his Learning or his Zeal, or his Suffering. Though whilst the Records of those four Great and Ancient Sees were carefully preserved, they contain the main History and chief Transactions of the Christian Church. And as we find Metropolitans in possession from the Apostles, and their immediate Successours; so we find no al­teration till the time of Constantine, of which afterwards. At the present it is clear that Metropolitans were not insti­tuted by any Council for the first 300 years, and that too is a proof of their A­postolical Descent. For what we find al­ways practis'd, and find no later begin­ning of its practice, must be refer'd to the first beginning of all. The most Ancient Canons that we have are the Apostolical, which though they were not compil'd by the Apostles themselves, yet they were by Apostolical men, and such as immediatly succeeded them, and that too from the [Page 173] most antient traditions of the Church, so that they were not so much new Laws as Ratifications of the old Customs. Now in this Collection it is requir'd in the 34th. Canon, That the Bishops of every Nation acknowledge their Primate or first Bishop, and honour him as their head, and do no­thing of moment without his Consent, nor he without theirs. Which Canon doth not appoint the Primate, but supposes him al­ready known in every place, and only commands the Bishops to behave them­selves with that Duty and Reverence towards him, that they were bound to pay to their head Bishop. So that the very making of this Canon, supposes him already known, for otherwise it had been very absur'd to command all Bishops to reverence their Primate; if there had been no such thing known in the World as a Primate. But though there are numberless Instances of this Practice in the Records of the Church; yet one of the earliest and most eminent of all appears in those seve­ral Synods, that were call'd about the Paschal Controversie, in the very next Cen­tury to that of the Apostles; which as it was canvassed all the world over, so was it debated in so many several Provincial Synods, in each whereof the Head Bishop or Metropolitan presided. In Palestine [Page 175] Theophilus of Caesarea, and Narcissus of Je­rusalem; for after the destruction of Je­rusalem, Caesarea was made the Civil Me­tropolis of Judea; but because Jerusalem had once been Metropolis (not only of Palestine, but of the whole Christian Church) it was ever after allow'd the ho­nour and dignity of a Metropolitan, re­serving the Power to Caesarea, which was confirm'd by the Synod of Nice, as an antient Custom. And that's the Reason why Narcissus of Jerusalem, is here joyn'd to Theophilus of Caesarea. But as for the other Councils, the Metropolitan alone is named, as Victor at Rome, Jrenaeus in France, and Palmas Bishop of Amastris in Pontus; but because Heraclea and not A­mastris, was the Metropolis of that Pro­vince; Eusebius adds the particular rea­son of his presiding in that Council, [...] because of his Age and Se­niority. Heraclea might at that time be destitute of a Bishop, or the Bishop not be able to attend in Person, and there­fore old Palmas was, (according to the Custom of those times) chosen out of re­verence to his Age. But as for all the other Metropolitans presiding, Eusebius gives no Reason, because they did it by vertue of their Office. Besides these there was a­nother Council in the Province of Osdro­ena, [Page 174] of which Edessa was Metropolis, but who was President in it is not recorded. Only this reflects some little Evidence up­on the History of Agbarus, and the early Plantation of Christianity in those remote Parts, when we find a Church form'd, and setled there with the first of the most antient Churches; so that in all the Re­cords of the Church downward we still find this one of the most forward and flou­rishing Churches in the World. And thus in the time of the Council of Calcedon, there were above two hundred Clergy ap­pertaining to that City alone. In the Synod of the Proconsular Asia, Policrates, Bishop of Ephesus presided, who says he had under him [...] a great multi­tude of Bishops; the Notitiae reckon up no less then 37. These he summon'd to Council at Victors request. He had Power then to Summon them, else Victor could never have ask'd it, nor he have done it. And the same was the Constitution of the Churches in Africa. St. Cyprian says, he had in his Province Afric strictly so call'd, Numidia, and both the Mauritania's; And mentions in his Epistle to Jubianus, one of his Predecessors, Agrippinus that sum­mon'd a Council of a great many Bishops, and yet he himself was Bishop, before the middle of the second Century after the [Page 176] Apostles, and summon'd a Council at Carthage, in the fifty eighth year of that Century. And therefore those multi anni and that longa aetas, that he speaks of be­fore his time, when Agrippinus call'd his Council, in which were very many Bi­shops, could not be many years after the Apostles. So evident is this Apostolical, either Institution or practice of Metropo­litans, in the most antient Records of the Church, that it must be a strange kind of willful obstinacy that will not perceive it. And it becomes only Salmasius his confi­dence to deny it, who is very earnest in De prim. Pap. c. 3. it, that Metropolitans of old had only a Primacy of Honour, but nothing of pe­culiar Jurisdiction; and this he thinks is sufficiently prov'd from the Reason that the Council of Antioch assigns for their Institution, viz. That because of the great Concourse of People to the Metropolis, it was but fit to give the Honour of pre­siding over the whole Province to the Bi­shop of that City. As if the very name of Honour excluded all Power, or as if Power were not the greatest Honour. But doth not the Council give the same Power to Metropolitans within their Province. that is given to Bishops within their Di­ocess, which is in express terms, that no­thing be done without them or their con­sent. [Page 177] Now if this Power be no Power be­cause it is an Honour, then I confess Sal­masius Cap. 4. Primatus autem eo­rum privile­gium in his fermè qua­tuor positum diximus fuisse, in E­piscoporum ordinando­rum confir­matione, conciliorum indictione, appellation­ibus, ac cen­surâ mo­rum, &c. is a Logician. But when he de­scribes the several parts of this Honour that he would have to be without Autho­rity he very much exceeds himself, for he places it only in these four trifles: First a Power of allowing or refusing the Ordi­nation of Bishops: Secondly of Summon­ing Councils: Thirdly of receiving Ap­peals: Fourthly of censuring Bishops them­selves as they do their inferior Clergy, all which saith the Grammarian, being rather Onus than Honos, he conceives to have in it no Supremacy of Power. See what Pride and Prejudice will bring men to: But he is a man so fatally injudicious, that if ever he happen to stumble upon the Right, it always happens to be in the pur­suit of a wrong Cause, and whenever he had a Right one, he was always sure to loose or leave it by pursuing it the wrong way. And thus his Zeal (through out this Voluminous Book) against Popery, is spent meerly in the Cause of Presbytery, as he tells us in his Preface, that there can be no reconciliation between Papists and Protestants, because Popery is founded upon the Supposition of the Divine Right of Episcopacy, and this he saith was the de­sign of writing his Book, in answer to a­nother [Page 178] that was written to perswade a Re­conciliation, which upon this Account he shews to be Impossible. And so here when he is to prove that there was no Power Superior to Metropolitans, he goes about to do it by endeavouring to shew that there was no Metropolitan Power at all, which beside its apparent falshood, destroys the very being of the Question. But there is one thing peculiar in the Power of Metropolitans, that perhaps was too nice and subtile for his Grammatical head to comprehend, and that is, that it was not a single or a personal Power residing in himself alone, but in conjunction with his Provincial Synod. For without them he had no Authority but in his own Dio­cess, so that Salmasius, (who stumbles eve­ry step he takes) gives him two much, when he allows him as Metropolitan, the power of receiving Appeals, and censuring other Bishops, whereas it was never heard of in the Primitive Church, that any Me­tropolitan should take an Appeal from, or pass Sentence upon another Bishop by his own single Authority: Such things were transacted no where but in the Pro­vincial Synod; and if the Metropolitan had presum'd to attempt any such thing without them, the Canons of the Church depos'd him for his Presumption upon the [Page 179] Rights of the Episcopal Colledge. But though he had no single Authority as Me­tropolitan; yet the Authority he had in conjunction with his Synod was Superior to that of any other single Bishop; and therefore was not a meer Honorary Dig­nity, but an effectual Power, for the Power of Summoning Councils, and pre­siding in them, is an high Degree of Au­thority, his casting Voice in all Debates is still an higher, but whether he had a ne­gative Voice I cannot possibly determine; for though the Canons sometimes seem to give it him, yet they seem more expresly to restrain him from it, and the allowed practice of the Church doth frequently contradict it. [...] is the word by which it is expressed in the Antient Canons, but its certain signification is not agreed on among learned men, and it may signifie either consent, or only Advice or Consul­tation: Thus whereas in the 34th. Apo­stolical Canon it is commanded, that the Bishops of the Province do nothing [...], so in the same Canon is it injoyn'd the Metropolitan, that he do nothing too, [...], now if [...] signify consent, then no business can be done unless all the Bishops of the Province agree in Opinion, and if one dissent, it shall hinder all Pro­ceedings, [Page 180] which is too absur'd to be here supposed; for instead of securing the Go­vernment of the Church, it utterly con­founds it; for it ought not to be expect­ed that a Multitude of Men of equal Pow­er should agree in any one Act of Pru­dence, and such are most Acts of Disci­pline, and therefore in such a constitution the standing rule is that the Votes of the greater number conclude the Rest. And so it must be in this Canon, for otherwise if it allow the Metropolitan, a negative Vote, it must allow the same to every Bishop, because the [...] of all is as much requir'd as his own, so that the plain meaning of it can be nothing else than this, that all affairs of weight and mo­ment, ought to be debated and determi­ned in a free Council of the Metropolitan and his Bishops; so that no Council ought to be conven'd without his knowledge and approbation; and that to every Council he ought to Summon every Bishop. This Canon we find frequently repeated in fol­lowing Synods in the same words, and therefore in the same sence, only there is something peculiar suggested in the Fa­mous sixth Canon of Nice, where after it hath made a peremptory Decree, That no Bishop be Ordain'd without the [...] of the Metropolitan; It immediately adds, [Page 181] but if any one be duly and canonically E­lected by a common Suffrage, tho' two or three dissent for love of Contradiction, yet the Major vote carries it. And this being set down without Exception, if the Metropolitan himself (without whose knowledge nothing is to be done) be one of the peevish Dissenters; the sense of the body of the Council is by this Rule to prevail. And if it were not so, there would have been then no Jurisdiction in the Church to reach the miscarriages of Metropolitans, because at that time there was no higher standing Authority, than the Provincial Synod; and if he was not lyable to their Censure, He must be ex­empt from all Ecclesiastical Judgement; a thing contrary to the sence and practice of the whole Church, and never challeng'd but by the Popes, when they had swal­low'd up all the Jurisdiction of the Church into St. Peter and themselves. However no Bishop ever challeng'd Power of Ap­peals from or censure against another Bi­shop, by his own single Authority, till the Bishops of Rome set their Legates up­on so daring a presumption; so that how high soever the dignity and Power of Me­tropolitans might be, yet whilst it could only exert it self in Synod, as it was a necessary preservative of Order and good [Page 182] Government, so was it as much as is pos­sible, curb'd from swelling into Tyranny. And this is the ground of that excellent saying of St. Cyprian in his Carthaginian Synod: Neque enim quisquam nostrum E­piscopum se esse Episcoporum constituit, aut Tyrannico terrore ad obsequendi necessitatem Collegas suos adigit, quando habeat omnis Episcopus pro licentiâ libertatis & potestatis suae arbitrium proprium, tanquam judicari ab alio non possit, cum nec ipse possit alterum judicare. ‘Let not any of us make himself a Bishop of Bishops, or force his Colle­gues by Tyrannous threatnings to a necessi­ty of Obedience, when every Bishop hath a Freedom and Power of his own Actions, neither subject to the Judgement of ano­ther, nor to be the Judge of another.’ From whence Salmasius will infer, That in St. Cyprians time there were no Metropoli­tans, as if a Metropolitan were equivalent De Prim. [...]. 4. p. 56. with a Bishop of Bishops, which is a gross defyance to St. Cyprians own meaning; for in these words he exhorts the Bishops to freedom of Speech in Council, as Equals and Collegues in Synodical Authority; and though it is evident that he was their Metropolitan by his Summoning the Council, yet he declares to them, that neither himself nor any man else, hath any Power of over-ruling in it; and that [Page 183] it were Tyranny to pretend to it; and so it were; and Folly too, to Summon Councils, when they were absolutely to be determined by the sense of one Man; So that as St. Cyprian always disclaim'd any single Authority, even out of Synod, as in the Case of receiving the Leepsi to Communion, he Writes to his Clergy: Quae res cum omnium nostrum sententiam & Lib. 3. Ep. 19. Ed. pam. consilium spectet, praejudicare Ego, & solus mihi rem Communem vindicare non audeo, &c. ‘This thing concerns the Judgement of us all, and therefore I dare not pass my single Judgement upon it, and arrogate to my self a Power that lyes in Common.’ So now he declares against any such Autho­rity in Synod, for though he were presi­dent, he was but part of it, and had only a share of the common Power, according to his standing Maxim, Episcopatus unus est Episcoporum multorum concordi numerosi­tate diffusus. But because St. Cyprian dis­owns any single Supremacy in himself as Metropolitan; from thence to infer in good earnest that he was no Metropoli­tan, is but another Cast of the Grammari­ans Logique; but his fetch to avoid St. Cyprians provincia nostra is surprizingly subtile, (viz) That when St. Cyprian says of his Province or Provincia nostra, that it was extended over Numidia, and both the [Page 184] Mauritania's, that is as men call their na­tive Country Patria nostra, though they do not Govern it. But I pray who Sum­mon'd the Synod to Carthage? Did not Cyprian? Was he not then Metropolitan, that being the chief branch of Metropoli­tical jurisdiction. And when he speaks of his own Province; Was not that a distinct Province from others? and does not that alone require a Metropolitan presiding o­ver the Synod of the Bishops of that Pro­vince? For a distinct Province makes a di­stinct Synod, and a Synod there cannot be unless there be some body, who hath power to call it, and preside in it. So that when St. Cyprian calls Numidia and both the Mauritania's, our Province, it is the same thing as if a Prince should call his Kingdom our Country; for tho the words themselves do not imply his Soveraignty over it, yet out of his mouth they ex­presly declare it; So when St. Cyprian (who was President of the Synod of his Province) owns his Province, he thereby calls himself its Metropolitan.

But though this man hath scarce one true syllable in all his Writings of the anti­ent State of the Church, yet in the Cause of Metropolitans, he exceeds himself in boldness and self-contradiction. Thus when he hath so peremptorily disclaim'd [Page 185] all Metropolitical Authority in the Bishop of Carthage or any other; he as frankly restores it all back again: Facilè quidem omnibus earum provinciarum Episcopis Auctoritate antecellebat Episcopus Cartha­giniensis propter Ʋrbis magnitudinem ac De Prim. c. 15. p. 239. dignitatem, non ita tamen ut caeteris Epis­copis pro libito imperaret, aut ullam in eos potestatem sibi arrogaret, aut jurisdictionem exerceret,

‘The Bishop of Carthage exceeded all the other Bishops of those Provinces in Au­thority, by reason of the greatness of his City, but so as not to have any Arbitrary Power; or to assume to himself Sovereign Jurisdiction over them.’ Here the Case is fairly stated, he had more Authority than other Bishops, and yet himself alone had not, and the reason of it that he Assigns is very clear. Nihil enim illis facere, aut decernere licitum erat, absque Episcoporum provincialium Auctoritate ac sententia. ‘Be­cause it is not lawful for Metropolitans to do or to determine any thing without the Judgement and Authority of the Provinci­al Bishops.’ Then a Metropolitan it seems was no Bishop of Bishops, and then what becomes of all his Puther against them, from St. Cyprians disowning any such Authority in himself, because it was of no force, but in conjunction with his [Page 186] provincial Synod; and yet this very man hath the Confidence a few Pages after to tell us that the Metropolitical Power as such, was nothing else but the Usurpation of one single Bishop over his Brethren. Page 257. Quod mutatum est invectâ Metropolitanorum potestate, quâ unus pluribus impositus est Episcopis, ad eos Judicandos & ad obsequen­di etiam necessitatem adigendos, qui Metro­politanus revera Episcopus Episcoporum to­tius alicujus Provinciae cui praesidet dici potest. Discoursing of the Equality of Bi­shops he says, That was destroyed when the Power of Metropolitans was brought in: by which one Bishop was set over others to Go­vern them, and compel them to obedience; such a Metropolitan is indeed a Bishop of Bishops over his whole Province. What staring is here against undenyable Truth? He will allow no Metropolitans because the Cause of Presbytery requires it, and yet because it cannot be deny'd that there were Metropolitans, he gives us his own Arbitrary Definition of them, that as such they were Tyrants and Usurpers. What when we are just now told that they had a regular Authority, that was confin'd to the Synod of the Province? This I call staring, when a man is forc'd by the Evi­dence of a Thing to confess it,; yet be­cause his Cause requires it, will confi­dently [Page 187] deny it. But the noblest Case of his Confidence is his Introduction to his Discourse against Metropolitans, for be­ing resolv'd to prove that there never was, nor ever ought to be any such thing, he begins this great Undertaking with a Proof of their absolute Necessity to the Peace and Government of the Church. This is hardly credible, and yet it is one of the clearest and most pregnant passages in the whole Book: Having stated the Equality of Bishops, he thus proceeds, Hitherto all things are clear, no man is to excced his bounds, or invade C. 4. p. 34. anothers Jurisdiction; 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 Bishop accuses his Presbyter, or himself be accused by his Cler­gy? Who shall be Judge, or before whom shall the Guilty party be presented? You will say by all the Bishops of the Province. Very good and true! But I pray who shall Sum­mon them? to whom will you give this Pow­er? If all challenge it, that can breed no­thing but discord and contention. The only remedy found against such Inconveniences is that by the consent of all, the Primacy should be Deposited with the Bishop of the Metro­polis or Head City of the Province, to pro­vide for such cases as concern all in Common. Excellently well argued, for a man that [Page 188] is Summoning all his Forces, to prove that there were no Metropolitans, (viz.) be­cause Metropolitans there must be. But this I hope is enough, I doubt too much to shew the vanity of this learned mans attempt upon this argument, at least it may suffice to state the just 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 assigning it a proper superi­ority, but so as to be exerted only in Council. This that I have hitherto de­scribed was the true Primitive and Apo­stolical Constitution of the Christian Church, which lasted the same without any materi­al Alteration, till the time of Constantine the Great.

§. XIV.

But now behold new Heavens and a new Earth, the whole World is mol­ded as it were into another Creation, and not only the Religion, but the Civil Go­vernment of that vast Empire is wrought into a new frame, and setled upon new Foundations by this mighty Prince. It had (it seems) been the Custome of the greatest Emperors, and such as were most ambitious of leaving Monuments of their Wisdom and Ability, to contrive new Models and Platforms for the Government of the Empire; whereby they shew'd how [Page 189] well they understood the Interests of State and the Advantages of Government. This was done by Augustus, by Adrian, by Vespasian; But Constantine endeavour­ing to out-do them all, was not content as his Predecessors were to make conside­rable Alterations in several parts of the Empire; and therefore casts the whole into a new Model of Government. All Offices Civil, Military, Courtly were of a new Institution, in-so-much that he al­most made a new Language in the Roman Empire. And perhaps this new form of Government that he erected, was not so much the effect of his Ambition as his Wisdom. For as for the Praefecti Praetorio the Generalls of the Praetorian Bands which were instituted by Augustus; it was evi­dent from long Experience that their Power was too great for the Safety of the Empire; so that they might (as they had often done) make themselves Emperours when they pleas'd. And though Augustus appointed two, that they might give Check to each others Ambition; yet for all that he made himself but one of the Triumvirate, and if they fell out, he stood not upon much better terms with the Conqueror than he did with Mark Anto­ny, when they had cashier'd Lepidus. It was a great Authority that such a Com­mander [Page 190] must have to be the Darling of ten thousand of the choicest Souldiers of the Empire, who indeed Commanded all the Rest; So that to seduce them from their Allegiance, was to carry off the whole Army; and therefore though Au­gustus found no disturbance from them, by reason of his exactness in Government, yet his Successors soon felt their Power. Tibe­rius was forc'd to Murder Sejanus, whom he had made sole Prefect, to secure himself. But though this Military Power were of it self dangerous enough, yet in process of time through the sloath and Luxury of some of the Emperours, they got the Su­preme Government of all Civil Affairs in­to their own hands, and so had the whole Power of the Empire entirely at their own disposal. And therefore Constantine was wiser than to trust such an exorbitant Power in a Subjects hand; and first di­vides the Military Power from the Civil; setled the former upon his new Officers call'd Magistri Militum, divides the latter among four, and to humor them allows them large Jurisdiction, dividing the whole Empire between them: Saving, That Rome and the Country lying about it for an Hundred miles was Govern'd by a Praefect of its own. Now the Empire be­ing thus divided into four districts, under [Page 171] these four Praefects, (viz.) The Praefect of the East, of Illyricum, of Italy and of Gaul; each of them were again subdivided into Subordinate Jurisdictions, call'd Di­ocesses: In all thirteen, each Diocess con­taining many Provinces, in all an hundred and twenty, and being govern'd by an Officer of its own call'd Vicarius; and as by thus dividing the Power of the Praefects among so many Vicarii, he broke its great­ness, so by placing them above the Pro­vinces of their Diocess, he setled a more exact Correspondence through the Em­pire. Under the Praefect of the East were five Diocesses; Aegypt, the East strictly so call'd, Pontus, Afia, and Thrace. The Diocess of Aegypt containing six Provinces, the East fifteen, Asia ten, Pontus ten, and Thrace six. Under the Praefect of Illyricum were two Diocesses, Macedonia and Dacia, Macedonia containing six Provinces, and Dacia five. Under the Praefect of Italy were three Diocesses, Italy, Africk, and Illyricum; Italy containing seventeen Provinces, Africk six, and Illyricum six. Under the Praefect of Gaul were three Di­ocesses, France, Spain and Brittain; France containing seventeen Provinces, Spain seven, Brittain five. This is a true and short description of the new State of the Empire, and it is generally supposed by [Page 192] Learned Men to have given Occasion to the Church, to add to the old Ecclesiasti­cal Hierarchy of Bishops and Metropoli­tans, a Superior Order call'd the Exarch's of the Diocess, and afterwards Patriar­ches. This I do not question 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 footsteps left of their Institution by any Council, no true Record of their first beginning by any Historian; and if we throughly examine the Buisiness, we shall find that they thrust themselves upon the Church, and gain'd Authority in it purely by vertue of their own Usurpation. In that when the chief Metropolitan Cities were advanc'd above the other Metropo­les, by being made the Seats of the Vi­carii, or Lieutenants of the Diocess, the Metropolitan Bishops of those great Sees, took upon themselves greater State than the ordinary Metropolitans; and though at first 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 Jurisdiction, as at length they did. But then the Church was all along so far from owning, encouraging or instituting any [Page 193] Power above Metropolitans, that it did constantly from time to time beat down all the Attempts of any such Ambition. So that all Pretences to any higher Au­thority have not so much foundation as meer Ecclesiastical Institution, but were brought into the Church by irregular U­surpation, and afterwards receiv'd and confirm'd by sordid flattery. This I know cannot but look like a strange Paradox, for though it hath been much disputed, whether the Patriarchal dignity were founded upon Divine or Ecclesiastical Right, yet no man ever question'd but that they had at least the Rights of Ecclesi­astical Institution. But when we come thoroughly to examin the true State of things, we shall find that they were so far from that, that they forc'd their way into the Church, in spite of that great and long opposition that it made against them. And for a clear Demonstration of this, I shall consider all the Laws of the Church that relate to this matter; And first I shall begin with that famous Canon of the great Council of Nice, that is thought the very Magna Charta of all Patriarchal Jurisdi­ction: The words of it run thus; Let antient Customs prevail, let the Churches in Aegypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis be subject to the Bishop of Alexandria, as is the Custom [Page 194] at Rome, in like manner at Antioch, and the rest of the Provinces; let every Church enjoy its own Priviledges. But this is de­clared as absolutely certain by the great Sy­nod, That if any man be made a Bishop without the consent of his Metropolitan, he is no Bishop. And if to the legal Election of a Bishop by the Major Vote of the Bishops of the Province, two or three shall oppose themselves, the Vote of the greater Num­ber shall prevail. Here are a great many things confirm'd, all Immemorial customs, but especially the antient bounds of Metro­political Jurisdiction, so that the Canon is not to be understood of meer Metropoli­tical Power, but all other particular Pri­viledges, that any Metropolitans enjoy'd by ancient use and Custom; and what they enjoy'd by Custom was meerly acci­dental to that Power that was properly Me­tropolitical and descended from Apostoli­cal Prescription. For though by that every Metropolitan was vested with Su­preme Power in his own Province; yet some particular Churches had in process of time gain'd, by use and Custom particular Priviledges, especially the Churches planted in those great Cities, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch; Rome the Seat of the Proud Em­pire; Alexandria the head City of Africk, and Seat of the great Ptolomies; Antiochia [Page 195] Queen of the East, and Seat of the great Se­leucus, and his Successors: So that having such great Splendor and Authority above all other Cities, that must naturally give them some 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 Jurisdi­ction. But though this is apparently all that is express'd by that Canon, yet the greatest part of the Learned men of the Church of Rome clearly spy in it, an ac­knowledgement of the Popes Supremacy, by Prescription from the Apostles; but with these high-flyers we shall treat apart, and by paralelling their Proofs for their universal Supremacy in all Ages, with the certain Records, and undoubted pra­ctice of the Church in every Age, make all their Pretences look very ridiculous, for they are no better than gross and per­verse Falsifications of, nay ungrounded contradictions to all the Records of the Church. At present I shall treat with men more modest and more moderate, and here the least that most Learned men of all Professions make of this Canon, is the Institution or Ratification of the three great Patriarchates. And this is thought so evident, that the greatest part do not [Page 196] dispute but suppose it; even M. Antonius De Rep. Ec. lib. 4. c. 10. de Dominis himself takes it for granted, and he was none of your following Wri­ters, but usually examin'd and consider'd things throughly himself before he deter­min'd. Petrus de Marca, Carolusa Sto. Paulo and others think themselves Cock­sure of the Popes Supremacy over the Western Churches, by the unquestionable evidence of it, and till of late it was never so much as controverted. The Learned La noy was the first of that Church, that made it a Question in his Treatise de rectâ interpretatione Canonis Nicaeni; and Dr. Beveridge hath been his only second 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 Valesius hath oppos'd himself to his Learned Friend La noy, with unusual heat and Confidence, boldly challenging him to produce one Author, antient or modern, Greek or Latin, that ever under­stood the Canon any other way, than of the Institution or Confirmation of Apo­stolical Patriarchates. But tho' it is no matter how other men understand the Canon, when it is plain enough to make it self to be rightly understood; yet be­cause Valesius is so confident in his Asser­tion, we will close with him in it, and cast [Page 197] the issue of the Debate upon it, and by his own Argument prove that there is no such thing as Patriarchs, or any Superior order to Metropolitans, till many years after the Council of Nice. And this will evi­dently appear if we divide the Records of the Church into two Periods, those that were Written before the Council of Calce­don, that first own'd and gave Counte­nance to this new Order, and those that were Written after it; For as for the Wri­ters after, it must be confess'd that they unanimously agree in the Primitive Anti­quity of Patriarchates, which only shews that when one man falls into a mistake, how apt all that follow, are to stumble upon him. For finding this Order in Possession, and no Record of its Instituti­on, it was easie for some careless men, to conclude its being from the Beginning; and this conceit being once started, it was ever after pursued without Examination. But if on the contrary the best Writers be­fore the time of the Council of Calcedon, or thereabouts, acknowledged no such Order in the Church; nay if they suppose that there was not, then the case is plain, that there never was any such thing till about that time.

§. XV.

And is it not strange, that men so wise and Learned as Petrus de Marca, [Page 198] and Valesius should so far Impose upon themselves as seriously to believe that they find the Preeminence of Patriarch's above Metropolitans in this Canon, when it speaks so plainly of only Metropolitical Preeminences, and when it is so Notori­ously evident, that there is not the least mention of any such Office in all the Re­cords of the Christian Church till near an hundred years after this Council? and yet this Nicene Canon only confirms the old and accustom'd Rights of Churches, which could not be Patriarchal, because we can find none such at that time. And the truth is this Canon seems to have been made in pursuance of the 34th. Apostoli­cal Canon, that requires the adherence of all other Inferior Bishops, to the first Bi­shop of their Nation or Province, and therefore it provides not only for the Pri­viledges of those three great Sees, but of all other Metropolitans whatsoever; for so the Canon expresly runs, that not only at Alexandria and Antiochia, as well as Rome, but that in all other [...] or Pro­vinces (for [...] is never us'd to signifie any thing else in Church-Writers) their antient Priviledges should be preserv'd. So that indeed this is so far from any De­sign of erecting Patriarchates, or confirm­ing their Prerogatives, that it supposes no [Page 199] such Office in the Church, and declares those three great Cities to be but Metro­politan Churches, because it joyns them with the [...], i. e. The other Provinces, and therefore they themselves could be nothing, but Provincial Churches, as well as these other [...] with which they were coupl'd. And besides the signi­fication of the words, it is plain from the whole sence and design of the Canon, that it only provides for the Supreme Rights of Metropolitans; for so after its provisi­on for the Rights of particular Churches, it sets down one general Rule, That no­thing be done without the Metropolitan. That is the whole business of the Council in this Canon, to secure this old Rule that had been of late violated, as will further appear by the Occasion of it, which was this, That Meletius Bishop of Lycopolis within the Province of Alexandria having been depos'd by his Metropolitan in a Sy­nod of Bishops, as for divers other crimes, so particularly for Sacrificing to Idols, he notwithstanding takes upon himself to or­dain new Bishops within the Jurisdiction of Alexandria, and so violates all the Pre­eminences of his Metropolitan, both by slighting his Censure and invading his Power. Now complaint hereof being brought to the Council, they thereupon [Page 200] Decree that the Ancient Prerogatives of the Church of Alexandria over the Churches that had been of ancient time under its Jurisdiction, should be kept as inviolable as those of Rome, so as no ordi­nation should be valid without the con­sent of the Metropolitan; and upon this particular occasion ratifie the Jurisdictions of all the other Metropolitans in the world over the Bishops of their own Province. But here it is pleasant to observe, with what confidence Learned men run away with a palpable mistake, either through prejudice or Interest: The Scholiasts, Bal­samon and Zonaras, and all other Writers of later Ages, what they found practis'd in their own time, apply'd it to the pri­mitive Church, and therefore Patriarch­ates having been of long standing, they take it for granted, without enquiry that they had always been, and so both Balsa­mon and Zonaras positively aver, That not only the Patriarchates of Rome, Alex­andria and Antiochia, but that of Jerusa­lem it self was own'd by this Council over the Provinces of Palestine, Arabia, and Phenice, because so it seems, it had been before their time; but certainly if these men had not been stone-blind with pre­judice, they could not but have seen that Jerusalem was then so far from any Patri­archal [Page 201] dignity or Jurisdiction over those three Provinces, that it self was Subject to the Metropolitan of Caesarea, whose Jurisdiction extended not beyond the Province of Palestine. Nay notwithstand­ing that its Subjection to the Metropolis of Caesarea is expresly declared in the very next Canon, they are so bewitch'd with the Conceit of its being a Patriarchate, that when they read of its being a Subject Bishoprick, they believe it the very grant and Patent of its Patriarchal Institution. But then as for Petrus de Marca, a man who is scarce ever in the wrong, but when he dares not be in the Right, to be so peremptory in this mistake of the Pri­mitive Antiquity of Patriarchates, that is so apparently inconsistent with all the Re­cords of the Church, in which he was so accurately vers'd; it plainly shews what men are forc'd to do, that have business depending at Rome: And yet upon the Assurance of the unquestionable Truth of this Supposition, he thinks he demon­strates the Popes Supremacy, at least by Ecclesiastical Constitution, over the We­stern Churches. It is true he often asserts his Universal Jurisdiction over the Church Catholick, but that seems to be done for form sake, lest his Holiness should once more stop the Pall at his next Translati­on. [Page 202] But the Fundamental Principle upon which he builds his whole work is the Popes being Patriarch of the West, and that as proved from the sixth Canon of Nice, and that is the very Argument of his whole first Book, which is the founda­tion of all that follow; I shall consider the whole discourse distinctly, and there­by it will appear, that all the Wit and all the Learning in the World (and he had a very great share of both) can do nothing without Truth, but much less against it. At least I shall make it evident, that the Bishop of Rome in those early times of the Church, had no pretence to any Patriar­chal Power, much less over all the Western Churches.

And first what do we mean by a Patri­arch, but the Bishop of a vast Diocess Superior to all the Metropolitans, or Pro­vincial Bishops within his Diocess. For what ever Honours or Preheminences they enjoy'd besides, yet the thing by which they are distinguished from Metropolitans is their Authority over them, which was reduc'd to Practice according to the Bounds of the Diocesses, and that's the Definition that Valesius often gives us of a Patriarch, that he is Metropolitanus Me­trapolitanorum. Now it would be a prety discovery to find such things as Diocesses [Page 203] containing many Provinces, either in the Christian Church or the Roman Empire, long before the Council of Nice; and yet if Patriarch's there had then been by an­cient custom, Diocesses there must have been: Whereas there is nothing more e­vident then that there was no such thing till Constantine's new Model of the Empire. From that time forward we hear enough, and as will appear in the sequel of this dis­course, too much of them in the Trans­actions of the Church. But before that time it would be a very new Discovery to find out such Diocesses in Christendom. Did not these Learned men know, that Diocesses were not older than Constantine's new Project of Government? If they did, and it is certain they could not be Ignorant of it, then certainly they must be Consci­ous to themselves, that they had under­taken a Cause, that they must, but could not maintain. And yet this very absur­dity it self is one of the main Arguments, by which they would make good their Assertion; So Valesius: In hoc capite sexto agitur de Episcopis qui regunt Diocesin, non Observ. Ec. in Soc. & Soz. lib. 3. cap. 2. autem de his qui regunt unicam Provinciam, atqui Metropolitani unam tantum Provinci­am regunt, singuli enim praesunt Episcopis suae Provinciae. Patriarchae vero Diocaesin id est multas simul junctas Provincias Ad­ministrant, [Page 204] & Subjectos sibi habent Metro­politanos; de his ergo intelligendus est hic Canon, non de Simplicibus Metropolitanis. Alioquin manca & imperfecta esset consti­tutio Patrum Nicaenorum. That is in short, The Canon had been lame and imperfect, if it provided not for the Government of Diocesses as well as single Provinces. What, before there were any such things as Di­ocesses to be govern'd? If indeed they had been then in Being, and the Jurisdiction of the Church had been divided by their Limits, it might have been a neglect or an oversight not to take care of them; but when there was no such thing in the Christian Church, it is a very hard Imposi­tion 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 Petrus de Marca after all his Pains, is forc'd to dwindle this whole matter of Patriarch­ates, especially as divided into Eastern and Western into a kind of Prophesy. Ita ut ab initio nascentis Ecclesiae videatur esse De Const. Patriarch. Instit. pag. 122. delineata, illâ quasi futuri praesagâ distri­butione, Orbis Romani in Occidentis & Ori­entis Imperium divisio. Into such disho­nourable shifts do Learned men run them­selves, when they Write for Faction not for Truth. This Learned man had first [Page 205] given us an Account of the new State of the Empire from Constantine, and now immediately after that conforms the Mo­del of the Church to it, as it was setled from the very time of the Apostles. What, when there was no such State in the World? Yes, yes, saith he, they did it by the Spi­rit of Prophesy. But what proof of that? this is plainly to forsake the Evidence of the Records of the Church, and to appeal to unknown Inspiration. His Assertion is that the Primitive Church design'd to conform its Government to the present State of the Empire, and yet not regard­ing that, he now declares that it fram'd it by a new Model that it foresaw would be set up 300. years after. These discourses become not the Ingenuity of Learned men, but men that are forc'd to serve a Cause or quit preferment, cannot help themselves. And yet after all the Asser­tion is as false, as it is vain and precarious; For if he could find but any one instance of a Diocess, or a Patriarch, or any ordi­nary Power Superior to a Metropolitan in the Church before the time of Constan­tine; I will allow him his Cause without the help of this Machin of Prophesy, but if there be no such thing, it is a very slen­der piece of wisdom to require the Church­es care for the Government of its several [Page 206] Diocesan divisions, when there were no such divisions in the World. And yet this very same Learned man a few Pages after p. 126. 127. tells that us this Settlement of the three great Patriarchates over the Eastern and We­stern Diocesses, was made Secundum veterem superioris temporis consuetudinem. What but just now was done by presage of what was to come to pass in after times, is now done by the antient custom of former times. But this Custom is both as true, and as well prov'd as that Prophesy, it hath no other ground but the Learned mans own asser­tion, and no better proof than the Autho­rity of Zonaras and Balsamon; though himself confesses that they speak (as it is manifest they do) according to the custom of their own time, and talk so carelesly as to affirm that the Patriarchate of Je­rusalem over its three Provinces was setled at the same time. In short I cannot but stand amaz'd to hear this Learned man as well as others talk so perpetually of the Division of Diocesses before the Council of Nice, when it is Impossible that he could either be Ignorant or not aware that there was no such thing, either in Church or State till Constantine's new Constitution of the Empire. And that is an evident over­throw of all Patriarchal-pretences before that time, because there were till then no [Page 207] Diocesses, which is the first thing necessa­ry to the very being of a Patriarch, a Di­ocess containing in it many Provinces.

But Valesius objects that the great Council had already provided for the Ju­risdiction of Metropolitans in the fourth Canon, to what purpose then should it do the same again in the sixth? It might do it upon a new and particular occasion; In the fourth it might have setled the Juris­diction of Metropolitans in general, and in the sixth it doth the same, for the Pro­vince of Alexandria, upon account of the present Controversie about Meletius, and for that reason probably it adds, a new Penalty, the deposition of the Offender. So that if this allegation were true, there is no Inconsistency in it, but that the Council might have provided for the same thing in both Canons. Though the Case is quite otherwise, for in the fourth Ca­non they only setled the Rights of Ordi­nation; but, as Valesius himself observes in the sixth, they confirm all parts of Juris­diction, and that sure is a sufficient addi­tion to the fourth, and material enough for the making a new Canon.

But Valesius persists that when the Or­dination of Bishops, by Metropolitans was provided for in the fourth Canon, the sixth must settle the Ordination of Metropoli­tans [Page 208] by Patriarchs, how otherwise shall they be Ordain'd? This is a very unfor­tunate Argument, and utterly overthrows the Learned mans whole Design: When it is so well known, that long after that time all Metropolitans were ordained on­ly by the Bishops of their own Province, and that there was no other Custom till after the Council of Calcedon. And if Valesius could have produced one Instance of their being ordain'd by a Patriarch, or any other than by their own Synod, it might have done his Cause some kindness; but when there is no such example, that is a manifest proof that there was no such Power.

But to what purpose is it for men to argue what ought to have been against what certainly hath been? For it is cer­tain that these Canons speak only of [...] and the Bishops that presided over them, and that at that time there was no such thing as [...] in the Christian Church, and therefore if we must be ar­guing, the Proof is demonstrative that what ever the Council appointed in the fourth Canon, or ought to have appointed in the sixth, that it is impossible it should have taken any care of Patriarchs or Bi­shops, as antiently presiding over Dioce­ses, because it is certain that there were [Page 209] then no Diocesses to be taken care of. And therefore it is a pleasant Interpretation that Petrus de Marca gives us of the [...], De Concord. l. 1. c. 3. §. 8. that the words do not refer to all other Provinces in general, but parti­cularly to the three great Diocesses of A­sia, Pontus, and Thrace, that are here on­ly intended. But alas it is too plain that [...] will signifie nothing but a Pro­vince; and therefore if these alone were here intended, they were Provinces and not Diocesses. And then the [...] being joyn'd with those three great Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, they must be of the same nature too. But the great difficulty of all would be to find the Bishops of these Diocesses, at the time of the Council of Nice. For that there was then any Bishop presiding over all the Metropolitans of a Diocess; men have no grounds to believe than that their Cause requires it. And though it were true in it self, yet it is here precariously asserted by de Marca; for supposing that those three Diocesses were then in Being, what evidence hath he that the Council by the general words of [...] intend­ed them only and not all others? No­thing at all but because he thinks it a pret­ty conjecture, for he is very fond of it, and huggs it at every turn. But a Con­jecture [Page 201] without some ground is no better then a Dream; and the truth is, this is so far from any neatness of guess, that it is a most Enormous, if not a wilful mistake. For whereas he will have the Council in­tend by [...] the three Diocesses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, he very well knew that the State of those places was quite different at the time of that Coun­cil; for by Asia before that time was un­derstood only the Proconsular Asia, of which Ephesus was the Metropolis; Whereas when it was made a Diocess, ten more and those large Provinces were laid into it. The Province of Pontus, of which Caesarea of Cappadocia was Metropolis, was confin'd to Pontus it self, but the Di­ocess of Pontus contain'd ten Provinces more beside it self. The Province of Thrace, of which Heraclea was Metropo­lis, was no more than Thrace it self, but when it was made a Diocess, it contain'd six great Provinces within the Circuit of its Jurisdiction. So wild a Conceit was it in this Learned man to imagin that these single Provinces that were afterward mol­ded into vast Diocesses, had long been Diocesses before they were made so. If the Reader desire farther Satisfaction in this matter, beside the Records of the Church, and the Notitia of the Empire, he may [Page 211] consult an excellent discourse upon it by Petrus de Marcâ himself, in his little Book de Constantinopolitani Patriarchiatus Insti­tutione; where he have an accurate Ac­count of the State of the Church, both when it was Provincial, and when Dio­cesan, which will appear without any fur­ther pains to be sufficiently different. For example, that the Proconsular Asia, as a Province contain'd only the Kingdom of Attalus, but as a Diocess it took in ten other Nations. And then the mistake is very exhorbitant to confound the Diocess of Asia, with the Province of it, at a time when there had been no such thing as a Diocess, and then prove it by the after-practice of the Church. But this is an u­sual thing with this Learned man, to prove the Prescription of former times by the practice of later times. Thus in his Trea­tise de Constant. Patriarch. Institut. he is Pag. 145▪ very confident in it, that the Fathers in this Canon understand the Exarchs of these three Diocesses; and this he proves from the Council of Calcedon, that makes men­tion of the Diocesan Exarchs. It does so, and it is the first Council that does it. But is not this a very inverted Method of in­terpreting the Records of the Church, that because we meet with Exarchs of Dioces­ses in the Council of Calcedon, that was as­sembled [Page 212] a hundred years after; therefore when the Council of Constantinople speaks of the Bishops of Provinces, they must be understood of these Exarchs, though there is no Record of any such Title or Dignity at that time? But the truth is this error of Confounding the State of the Church and Empire after Constantine with the State of both before, is very common a­mong Learned men, and hath indeed brought great Confusion upon this whole matter. The ancient State of the Empire they describe or explain by the Notitia published by Pancirollus, that was not written till the latter end of Theodosius the younger, when the ancient State of the Empire was utterly demolish'd, and yet is this very Book made a Commentary upon the ancient Historians, Dio Cassius, Suetonius, Strabo, Pliny, Tacitus and all the Writers between Augustus and Constan­tine. And as for the Church, this is no­torious, at least in all the Writers of the Church of Rome, to accomodate ancient Prescription to modern Practice, and de­rive what they find in use in the latter ages of the Church from the first times of it, though there are then no Footsteps of any such usage. Though the greatest In­stance of this grand mistake is in Carolus a Sancto Paulo, who hath as he thinks or [Page 213] pretends, found out the Constitution of the Primitive Church from the Apostles to the Council of Nice, from no earlier Record than the Council of Calcedon, the Justinian Code, and other Writers after the great Alteration that was first setled by the Council of Calcedon.

§. XVI.

For as for the Authorities al­ledged for the Primitive Institution of Patriarchat's, they are all of them after the time of the Council of Nice, and there­fore there were none before it; and that is a sufficient presumption against their being at that time; for if they had been, it is impossible but that we must have heard something of them, that were the Supreme Power in the Church. And as they were all after the Council of Nice, so were most of them after the Council of Calcedon; by which Patriarchates were erected. As for those that wrote between the Interval of these two Councils, Petrus de Marca alledges some Authors that speak C. 3. Sect. 8. of Diocesses. And so they might without so much as dreaming of Patriarchates, be­cause from the time of Constantine it was used as a term of Art in the division of the Empire. And the first time that we Euseb. de vitâ Const. lib. 3. e. 19. hear of the word Diocess at all, is from Constantine himself, who uses it in his [Page 214] Speech concerning the Paschal Controver­sie, where he speaks of the Consent of the Bishops of the Diocesses of Asia and Pontus; for that was now their name in the new State of the Empire, but not a syllable of one Bishop over any Diocess. And he speaks of them as he doth in the same place of the Bishops of the East, West, North and South; so that from his words we may as well conclude a Patriarch for every quarter of the Compass, as for eve­ry Diocess of the Empire. And of the same nature are the passages that Peter de Marca alledges out of Theodotius and Con­stantius, who make mention of the Bi­shops of Asia, Pontus and Thrace, for they speak as Emperours ought to do, according to the Civil State of the Empire; neither do they speak of the Bishop, but the Bi­shops of each Diocess, and that is very far from any mention of a Diocesan Bishop. The first Author that speaks of the divisi­on of Diocesses and Institution of Patri­archates is Socrates the Historian, who attributes it to the second general Coun­cil. But if so, then however it is evident that there were none at the time of the first. Though besides that it is plain e­nough that he is mistaken, and that at the time of his Writing, though there were some that would have been pretending to [Page 215] this Superiority, yet were there none le­gally and canonically setled. That he is mistaken appears from the Council it self, where there is no such thing Instituted; but on the contrary it is expresly forbid­den, as will farther appear when I come to the Examination of the sence of that Council in this matter. And as for the several Patriarchs that he there sets down, the grossness of the mistake is notorious, in that they were no Patriarchs, but only Bishops of the Orthodox Communion, which were commonly call'd the [...], as appears both by the sixth Canon annexed to this Council, where all are defin'd Hereticks, that seperate from the [...] (for so it ought to be read, and not [...]) and by the Theodotian Law it self extant in the Code, whereby it is enacted, that those only should be accounted Orthodox and al­lowed publick Churches, that kept Com­munion with and were approved by some certain Bishops of the Emperours Nomi­nation, and these are the Bishops that So­crates Ignorantly enough calls Patriarchs, of the several Diocesses; though it is evi­dent that some of them belong'd to one and the same Diocess, as Helladius Otrejus of Militene, and Gregory of Nyssa to Pontus, Amphilochius and Optimus to Asia; and [Page 216] therefore they could not be Patriarch's of the new Diocesses, because there were more then one in a Diocess. But if there were no division of Diocesses, or Instituti­on of Patriarchates before the Council of Calcedon; How comes Socrates who liv'd before that time to dream of any such thing? This at the time of Socrates his Writing could be no great wonder; For it was not above seven or eight years before that Council, that his History was writ­ten. Before which time the Bishops of Diocesan Cities had been often labouring to raise themselves above the other Me­tropolitans, and appropriate to themselves the Titles of Exarchs of the Diocess; and though they were often repuls'd by the Church, yet by this time they (espe­cially the Bishops of Constantinople where he lived) had got Authority enough to maintain, and as it were by custom to Legitimate their Usurpation; and so So­crates finding them in some possession of their Power at the time of his Writing, what ought to have been ascrib'd meerly to their own Ambition, he either Igno­rantly or Carelesly imputes to that very Canon of the second Council, that was made only to keep down the very Pre­tence to any such Power. Though, tis most probable that he took his account from [Page 217] the current Opinion in that City at that time, (viz.) That such an Authority and Jurisdiction had been setled upon it by the Constantinoplitan Council, as we shall find it pleaded by the Clergy of Constantinople, in the Council of Calcedon.

As for the Testimonies of St. Jerom, Innocent the first, and Johannes Scholasti­cus, or Antiochenus, they need no Answer, because it is evident without any that they are gross mistakes. St. Jerom asserts that Antioch was made Metropolis of all the East by the Council of Nice; but with the Reserve of a ni fallor, if I be not mistak­en. But that he was mistaken is put out of all doubt by the words of the Canon it self, where we meet not with the least mention of the East, much less of all the East, but only in general of Antioch and its antient Priviledges. And that Antioch had any Superiority or Jurisdiction over any of the Eastern Metropolitans, is a thing unheard of in Ecclesiastical History. So that this must plainly pass among one of St. Jerom's many hasty Expressions, though the rashness of it is much abated by his ni fallor, a forme of Speech that he rarely uses, but when he writes at all ad­ventures, as it is evident he doth here without any warrant or Authority. I know that some Learned men would bring [Page 218] him off by saying that he means the Coun­cil of Constantinople, instead of that of Nice, in that not long after that Council there was compiled a Code of the Canons of the universal Church, in which the Nicene 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 mistake with another, because the Council of Constantinople no more owns any Patriarchal Jurisdiction ei­ther in that See or any other than the Council of Nice, as I shall prove when I come to consider it. But the best excuse that can be made for St. Jerom, and the most natural interpretation of his ni fallor is, that he Speaks according to the practice of his own time; for the Bishop of Anti­och then challenged a Superiority over the Eastern Metropolitans, and most of them had submitted to his Usurpation; as Inno­cent the first informs us, who requires the Metropolitan of Cyprus to be Subject to the Bishop of Antioch, out of conformity to other Churches; and therefore St. Jerom finding him actually instated in this Juris­diction; he after his hasty manner of wri­ting passes it as an ancient Right, but be­cause he knew no proof of it, he shelters his Assertion under the Reserve of a ni fallor. As for Pope Innocent his mistake, [Page 219] it is the same with St. Jerom's, only worse Epist. 18. because more peremptory or rather more partial, and indeed he is too much a Party to be a Witness; For about his time the Exarchs or Bishops of the great Cities be­gan to domineer, and think themselves bigger than their Brother Metropolitans, and then whatever they did must have the formality of being justified by the Council of Nice, though the Council is utterly silent about it. And thus in his Epistle to the Council of Toledo, he ordains of his own head, that neither Lawyers nor Courtiers, nor Souldiers should be admit­ted into Holy Orders, and then warrants his own Decree by the Authority of the Nicene Canons, though there is no such Rule in all the Decrees of that Council. The nearest thing to it is enjoyning very severe Penance upon Souldiers, that had Sacrificed to Idols in the Persecution of Licinius, and that I take it is a matter very remote from Holy Orders. And so here when the Bishop of Antioch complains to his reconciled Friend or Master Innocent, that the Bishops of Cyprus would ordain their Bishops without consulting his Ex­archateship (for that was the game at that time, though it would not hold) contrary to the Nicene Canons. His peremptory Answer is that they ought to observe the [Page 220] Canons, and submit to the same Govern­ment as other Churches did, that is, to the Exarch of the Diocess. All which is prov'd Notoriously false by the Nicene Canons themselves that assert no such thing, and so it was then judged by 200. Bishops in the Council of Ephesus, to whom a little after the cause was appeal'd, who condemn'd the Usurpation of the Bishop of Antioch, as an eminent Breach of the Liberties setled by the Nicene Council. So apparently false is the Allegation of this Pope, but forgery was his particular Ta­lent, and it is the Custom of Usurpers to assist one another, till some one of them finds himself able to overtop all the rest, and then is he as much concern'd to tram­ple them down, as ever he was to advance them; And so the Bishops of Rome were for the most part, at first, very forward to lend an helping hand to the Ambition of other Prelates, because how high soever these were raised, they themselves still mounted above them, till finding that they were arrived to their full heighth of Pow­er, nothing less would serve their turn than an Universal Monarchy over their own Confederates as well as all other Churches. And for this reason this Pre­suming Pope here first gives his helping hand to the Bishop of Antiochia, because [Page 221] he gave it for a Reason, that would give a greater Authority to himself, (viz.) That Antioch had once been the Seat of St. Pe­ter, and was only Inferior to Rome, in that he sat there only for a time, and made it not the Seat of his fixed and perpetual Residence as he did Rome. And upon this he adviseth him to ordain his Metropo­litans by his own singular Authority, and not to suffer his Metropolitans to ordain their own Bishops without his Allowance. This was at that time very humble advise, for that proud Pope that was not arriv'd to the Dignity of a Servus Servorum, and very agreeable to all the known Canons of the Church. But if by this means he could contract all the Power of the Bishops and Metropolitans of that great Diocess into the Bishop of Antioch, he very well knew that he had him Sufficiently at his own devotion; for Alexander the Bishop of Antioch had before-hand laid himself with all Humility at Pope Innocents Feet, to be entirely govern'd, or if he pleased trampled upon by him. And the truth of it is that this Innocent the first was re­ally the first Pope, as will appear through the whole Sequel of this Discourse. He first challeng'd the dependence of Foreign Churches upon the Apostolic See. He first broke down the old bounds of Metropo­litical [Page 222] Jurisdiction, by making the Gap for appeals of greater Causes to Rome. Si Epist. ad Victric. autem majores causae in medium fuerint de­volutae ad sedem Apostolicam, sicut Synodus statuit, post Episcopale Judicium referantur. But what Synod that was, he is so wise never to declare, and that hath been the common custom of his Successors to justi­fie their bold and unwarrantable Usurpa­tions by meer pretence of Authority from ancient Canons. As Pope Julius in his counterfeit Epistle to the Eastern Bishops, is made to say roundly: Cujus Apostolicae sedis dispositioni omnes majores Ecclesiasticas causas & Episcoporum Judicia antiqua Apo­stolorum eorum{que} Successorum, at{que} Canonum Auctoritas reservavit. This is bravely said, and nothing but the boldness of the Assertion bears out it self. For it would be a wise undertaking to find out any Apo­stolical Canon, Custom, or Constitution for Appeals to Rome. But as for Pope Inno­cent as he was the first that pretended to this Power, so was he high and Perem­ptory in his demands of it, particularly in his 24th. and 25th. Epistles to the Coun­cils of Carthage and Milevis; and in his Epistle of Answer to the Bishop of Mace­donia, he chides them in down-right terms: adverti sedi Apostolicae, ad quam Relatio quasi ad caput Ecclesiarum missa cur­rebat, [Page 223] aliquam fieri injuriam, cujus adhuc in ambiguum sententia duceretur. And this because they had not immediately follow'd his Resolution, but desired his opinion up­on better information of the Case. And though upon that he found that he had been mistaken, and was forc'd to quit it; yet he rates them for Suspending the Ex­ecution of his former wrong sentence as an injury to the Apostolical See the head of all Churches. In short this Pope was a man of an active and busy temper, and flush't with Success in all his undertakings, especially in the cause of St. Chrysostom, in which he brought the Emperour himself to Submission, conquer'd all the Eastern Bi­shops, and allow'd them his Communion only upon terms of Submission, in which the present Bishop of Antioch was most forward to comply, for which he endea­voured to requite him with an Authority over his Brethren, had not the general Council of Ephesus vigorously prevented it. In a word, he was the very Julius Caesar and founder of the Papal Empire.

Lastly as for the Testimony of Johannes Scholasticus or Antiochenus, it lies under as many or more disadvantages than the rest. For first it is apparently false, not only as to the Canon of Nice, but of Con­stantinople and Ephesus, which he sets down [Page 224] as Institutions of Patriarchal Jurisdiction, not only for the three Great Sees but for Jerusalem too, though it is so notorious that there was then no such thing as a Pa­triarchate there; and for the other Coun­cils I shall make it appear that their Can­ons were made with so little design of owning or abetting any such Power, that their only design was to suppress it. Se­condly Johannes Scholasticus himself was a Patriarch, and that of Constantinople, which was all along the most encroaching See of all the Rest, and whose Ambition first raised the others, even Rome it self to this new dignity. And therefore he was as much or more concerned as a Party, than Pope Innocent; the Patriarch of Constan­tinople looking upon himself at that time, as a much greater man than the Bishop of the then forsaken City of Rome. But the real ground of Johannes Scholasticus's mis­take is, that he liv'd at a time when this had been long granted and suppos'd an un­doubted Truth; and therefore he sets it down in course, without making any de­mur upon it, as many others had done be­fore, and many more have done since. He liv'd in the time of Justinian, when Pa­triarchs were just arriv'd to their heighth, and so scorn'd to own any later beginning than the Apostolical times; and therefore [Page 225] this Pretence having pass'd so long uncon­troul'd, it is no wonder that Johannes Scholasticus (especially in a case where himself was a Party, though a good and a Learned man) should so easily and heed­lesly pass it in his Collection of Canons. It is needless to answer any of the latter Testimonies, when it is so clear that they all mistake the Priviledges granted to Provin­cial Churches for Patriarchal Dignities, only because they were so in their own time; but otherwise there is a dead silence as to any such thing in all the more timely Records of the Christian Church, and they are the only competent Witnesses of the matter of Fact, whereas those that came some ages after gives us only their Opinion, but not their Testimony, and unless they could give us some ground for it from some more ancient Record, it is no better than a groundless Conceit of their own framing.

§. XVII.

Hitherto our way is clear that there was no authorised Superiority of Patriarchs, or any other Order above Metropolitans, at or before the Council of Nice. But now as for those very few Learned men, that place their Institution somewhat lower, they fix it upon the se­cond general Council held at Constantin­ople, though in that they seem to me to [Page 226] be much more mistaken than those that derive it from the first at Nice, for they that derive it from this, only impose upon the Canon, and make it say something, of which it is altogether silent; whereas these that fix it upon the second general Council, contradict it, and force it to vouch what it opposeth. For the second Canen, in which they suppose they find their Institution, was so far from being made with any design of Introducing or Confirming this new dignity, that the only design of it was to bridle the very at­tempts of its Usurpation, and to keep up the ancient Bounds of Metropolitical Ju­risdiction against the Invasions of those topping Bishops of Diocesan Cities, as will evidently appear from the words them­selves, that run thus: Let not such Bishops that are over the Diocess go beyond their own Bounds, lest they bring Confusion upon Churches; but according to the Canons, let the Bishop of Alexandria govern Aegypt, the Eastern Bishops the East, reserving to the Church of Antioch the priviledges and preheminences that were confirm'd by the Ni­cene Fathers. And let the Bishops of the Asian Diocess govern Asia only, those of the Pontic, Pontus: those of the Thracian, Thrace. And let not Bishops unless they are requested to it, go out of the Diocess either [Page 227] for Ordination or any other Ecclesiastical Of­fice. And now this Canon concerning Dioces­ses being observ'd, it is clear that the Synod of every Province ought to govern the Pro­vince as it was defin'd at Nice. One would think that the meaning of the Canon were plain enough for the restraint of any new pretended Diocesan Jurisdiction, and yet it is universally mistaken either for its first Institution, or at least its farther Ra­tification; and which of them it is, is be­come a Controversie among Learned men. Those few that deny it to have been setled by the Council of Nice, will have it to have been its first Institution, but this O­pinion is eagerly opposed by Petrus de Marca, Valesius and many others, for no other Reason than that it was, as they think, antecedently setled by the Council of Nice. So that however, it is agreed on all hands, that the Canon was made in behalf of either the Settlement or Ra­tification of Patriarchates. As for those that derive it from the Council of Nice, they are consider'd already, but now as for them that make this their first Instituti­on, they are induced to it, partly by the Authority of Socrates the Historian, who liv'd not long after, and partly from the seeming sence and novelty of the Canon it self, in setting Bounds to the Bishops of [Page 228] the Cities of the Diocesan divisions; for this is the first time that we meet with any such thing in the Records of the Church, and therefore must needs be its first Institution. But as for the Authority of Socrates, I have considered that already, and shewn his undenyable mistake in ma­king the appointment of Communicatory Bishops the Institution of Patriarchates, and Distribution of Provinces. Now to this it is in vain to answer, as some Learn­ed men have done, that though the Ca­talogue of Communicatory Bishops follows immediately the Account of Patriarchs and Diocesses; yet they relate not to the same matter, when it is so evident from the words themselves, that he speaks of one and the same thing. For when he had in general affirm'd that the Council had instituted Patriarchates and Diocesses, he proceeds to the particular settlement of the whole Affair, and tells us to what Bi­shops Patriarchates belong'd, and so reck­ons up the Communicatory Bishops, and calls the Jurisdiction 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 mistake, I have already accounted, though beside this grand mistake, he ex­presses himself so very ambiguously, that [Page 229] after all he asserts nothing. Thus (saith he) they instituted Patriarchs, and divi­ded Provinces, so as that Bishops should not go beyond their own Diocesses to meddle with Forreign Churches. What an huddle and confusion of words is here? They made Patriarchs because they divided Provin­ces, and they divided Provinces, because they confin'd Bishops within their own Diocess, as if the division of Provinces had been the Institution of Patriarchates, and the limitation of Diocesses the divi­sion of Provinces. So that it is plain that he was only confounded with the shuffle of things between the new Diocesses and the old Provinces; and so tells us in the Conclusion of all, after all his Stories of Patriarchs and Diocesans, that the Coun­cil determin'd that as need requir'd every Province should be govern'd by its own Synod.

But after all the Canon will best explain it self, and clear all difficulties if atten­ded to without prejudice. The greatest difficulty lyes in the word [...], because as it was new, so was it not arrived to any setled signification; for as this is the second or third time that we meet with it in the Records of the Church, so was it for some time, as most new words are, of a Fluctu­ating and uncertain sence, and not limited [Page 230] to its own proper Import, (viz.) A Cir­cuit of Government containing many Pro­vinces, but was promiscuously used to de­note any Bounds of Jurisdiction. So Pope Syricius, who was Install'd Anno 385. a very short time after this Council, not a­bove four years, bids Himerius to Com­municate his Rescript both to the Bishops, qui in tua sunt Diocaesi constituti of his own Diocess (that is Tarracona, that was a Provincial See in Spain) and to all the Neighbour Provinces; so that Province was Synonymous with Diocess; And Pope Innocent the first a few years after in his Epistle to Florentius Bishop of Tibur, char­ges him with Invading Nomentum, that belong'd to the Diocess of Ʋrsus; and yet it is certain that they were both but very small Bishopricks of Italy. And the Synod of Rome, in or about the same time in their Synodical Epistles to the French Bi­shops use the word Diocess, as Synony­mous with Metropolitical Jurisdiction, for so they express it, Metropolitanus in suâ Diocaesi. And so doth the Synod of Ephe­sus in the case of the Cyprian Bishops, where it decrees that in all Diocesses and Provin­ces no Bishop Act beyond the Bounds of his own Province. From whence it plain­ly appears that for some time the word Diocess had no fixed signification, but that [Page 231] as it was at first used as a term of Art in the new division of the Empire; so being a fashionable word at Court, it was soon apply'd to express all bounds of Jurisdicti­on. And so the Scholiasts themselves un­derstand the words of the Canon: When a Bishop (says Zonaras) is here commanded not to go beyond his Diocess, the meaning is, that he move not out of his Province. And so Balsamon, the only design of the Canon was to preserve the Bounds of Ju­risdiction, and not confound the Rights of Churches; and at last 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 for­mer Conceit of the Nicene Antiquity of Patriarchates, yet it shews that whenever they forget their Prejudices taken up from the Practice of later times, and consult the true and ancient Records of the Church, how easily 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 [...] had not obtain'd its setled sence in the Church, but only signified in general any Bounds of Jurisdiction, and so was for the most part apply'd to Provincial Churches.

The next difficulty or dispute will be, what is the meaning of [...], for the words themselves are capable of a double Sense from the Am­biguity of the word [...], that signifies either above or beyond, so that it may be rendred either the Bishops above the Dio­cess, as Dionysius Exiguus does, Qui sunt super Diocaesin Episcopi, or the Bishops out of their Diocess, as Zonaras expounds it. Though if we regard the design of the Canon, and the whole Contexture of the words, they plainly enough express their own meaning. For when it is said, let not Bishops over Diocesses, or Diocesan Cities go beyond their own bounds to invade foreign Churches; then the Scene is plain to restrain Bishops, especially those of the Diocesan Cities within the Circuit of their own Jurisdiction. But if we read it the latter way, let not Bishops out of their own Diocess go beyond their own bounds to forreign Churches, it is meer Non-sence; as if they should say, let not Bishops out of their bounds go beyond their bounds; for if they medled with Churches out of their Diocess, it is cer­tain that they were beyond their bounds: So that it cannot be understood any other way than of that greater sort of Bishops in the new Diocesan Cities, who then [Page 233] look'd too bigg, and encroach'd too bold­ly upon their neighbour Bishops. And that, it is plain, was the occasion of this Canon, that Melitius Bishop of Antioch, and Peter Bishop of Alexandria took up­on them to Ordain Bishops of Constanti­nople, that was in the Diocess of Thrace. For the Government of the Lievtenant of the East was divided into five Diocesses: The East properly so call'd, Aegypt, Asia, Pontus and Thrace, and therefore it was look'd upon as a new extravagance by this Council in these Bishops, one whereof was in the Diocess of Aegypt, and the o­ther of the East, to take upon them any Jurisdiction in the Diocess of Thrace. And this new exorbitance being restrain'd, the Council adds, That it will be clear enough from the Canon of Nice, that every Province is to be govern'd by its own Synod. So that the Canon is still so far from instituting any of these new Diocesan Bishops over the old Metropolitans, that the only end for which it was made was to preserve the Supremacy of Power in Metropolitans, from any Diocesan Encroachment for the time to come. And as in the first part they are forbid to meddle out of the bounds of their own proper Diocess; so in the latter part are they from challenging any Superiority over the other Metropo­litans [Page 234] within the same Diocess; the Coun­cil declaring that the Supreme Govern­ment of every Province was placed in its own Synod, and Metropolitan by the Council of Nice. And as there is no ground to imagine that this Council ever instituted any Superior Order to Metro­politans, but rather asserted their Supre­macy against all Usurpations upon them; so as for the next general Council that was conven'd at Ephesus, it doth with more than usual vehemence secure the Me­tropolitical Rights, against all these new Pretences of Encroachment. For upon occasion of the great Bishop of Antioch's taking upon him, partly by the encour­agement of Pope Innocent the first, whom I have already observ'd to be the first Pope, but more by the huffing Assistance of Di­onysius, a Commander in the Army, and then Governour of Antioch (as the Cyprian Bishops represent their Case to the Coun­cil) to ordain Bishops in the Isle of Cyprus, which had been a Church within it self by immemorial Prescription; It does not on­ly confirm the ancient Rights and Juris­dictions of that Province, but of all other Metropolitan Churches; and that with this smart resentment, lest under Pre­tence of Sacerdotal Power, the [...] Pride of secular Dominion be brought into the [Page 235] Church, and by degrees we be deprived of that Liberty, in which our Saviour hath instated us, and for a farther security a­gainst all future Usurpations upon the Metropolitical Power, the Council orders all Metropolitans to take out and keep Copies of the Acts of the Council [...] for every mans own especial security.

§. XVIII.

And as no such Power is hitherto own'd by the general Councils, neither is it mention'd or any way inti­mated by any Provincial Synods: and to pass by the rest, that treat of other mat­ters, the two chiefest that concern the Discipline and Government of the Church are, the Council of Antioch in the East, and Sardica in the West. And yet it was altogether unknown to both. The Synod of Antioch was conven'd Anno Dom. 341. and among many Canons that it makes about Appeals, it makes no mention of Patriarch­al Appeals, but supposes the last possible Appeal to be made to the Metropolitan and Synod of the Province. Thus in the 9th. Canon they enjoyn, that Bishops do nothing but what concerns meerly their own Bishoprick without their Metropoli­tan, as it is commanded by an ancient Canon of the Fathers. Now that ancient [Page 236] Canon can be no other than the 34th. Apo­stolical Canon, which is here repeated al­most in the very same words; unless it be that he that is there call'd the first Bishop, is here stil'd Metropolitan, which word was not brought into use in the first and second Ages of the Church, and that by the way shews the Antiquity of the Apo­stolical Canons, that they never use it, but in its stead always make use of the plain and simple Phrase of the first Bishop, that was us'd by the Writers of that Age and some time after, as the Metropolitan See is stiled by the Council of Illiberis, that was but 20. years older than the Council of Nice, prima Cathedra, and from hence came the term of Primates, peculiar to the African Church for Metropolitans.

And here by the way I cannot but take notice of one Instance of Salmasius his In­genuity, De Primatu Papae. c. 3. who indeed took great pains in reading the Ancients only to pervert them. He having occasion to quote this Aposto­lical Canon, that supposes and does not in­stitute these first Bishops, from thence con­cludes, that these Canons were made long after the Apostles, because there was no such thing as Metropolitans in their time, whereas there is no one thing more evi­dent in the Records of the Church than their Existence from the beginning; so that [Page 237] the whole force of his Argument lyes meerly in his own Confidence, oppos'd to the evidence of Truth it self. And though we affirm not that these Canons were compiled by the Apostles themselves, yet they were by Apostolical men that suc­ceeded in the Ages next after them; of which beside many other Proofs, Salmasi­us hath here given one, whilst he is dis­paraging their Antiquity, because he ob­serves that this is the very Canon that is quoted by the Council of Antioch, as an ancient Canon, and if so, then there is no avoiding it, but that its Antiquity must rise up into the two first Centuries after the Apostles, and we pretend no higher. Though after his constant custom of con­tradicting himself, as well as the Records of the Church, when he hath so positive­ly asserted, that the Council of Antioch quotes this very Canon: Quis non credat vidisse eos illum Apostolorum Canonem, & de eo hic intelligere, praesertim cum ipsissima verba ponant quae in illo extant? The next thing that he undertakes to prove after this, is, That the Council of Antioch quote no Canon at all, because the word [...] signifies Custom as well as Law, and may be so understood here; What? when you have just prov'd that 'tis so undenyably evi­dent that it quotes this Law word for [Page 238] word? So that though the word Canon may signifie Custom; yet here it cannot, because it is so evident from the words themselves, that they refer to an ancient Law, and not a Custom; and yet that the Apostolical Canons were more ancient than the Council of Antioch, is plain from their using the term of first Bishop, instead of Metropolitan; so that our Grammarian might have spar'd all his tedious glossing upon the word [...], though the truth of it is he cannot help it, it is his natural faculty; and his whole Book is more like a Dictionary than a controversial dis­course.

But to proceed, as this Canon of Anti­och makes no Provision for Bishops beyond their Metropolitan, so neither does it for Metropolitans beyond their own Synod; whereas had there been any higher Power in the Church, it must have allow'd and enjoyn'd appeals to its last Judgement. Nay the Fathers of this Council were so far from dreaming of any farther Ecclesiasti­cal Appeal than to Provincial Synods, that they could not devise any other delay than by flying to the Secular Power, and there­fore it is enacted Canon the 11th. That if any Clergy-man shall appeal from the Ecclesiastical Rule to the Emperour with­out leave from the Metropolitan and Sy­nod, [Page 239] he shall be depriv'd both of Com­munion and Dignity; and in the very next Canon is depos'd for ever without hope of Restitution, unless by a greater Synod. And by Vertue of this Canon was St. Chrysostom kept out of his See of Con­stantinople, after he was restor'd by the Emperour and a Synod of Bishops, because the Synod that restor'd him was less than that which depos'd him. And in the 14th. Canon it is provided, That if the Bishops of the Province cannot agree in their Sen­tence upon an accused Bishop, that the Metropolitan may call in the help of the Bishops of the next Province; that was the last appeal they could devise. And therefore in the 15th. Canon, The Bishop that is Sentenc'd by the unanimous Vote of the Bishops of the Province hath no appeal, which could never have been de­creed, had there been at that time any such Power and Dignity as Patriarchal Thrones. And therefore Justinian when he Enacts this Canon into a Law, Novel 167. he then allows the last Appeal to the Patriarch, because then that order was brought in, which was unknown to the Fathers of this Council. And so Balsamon in his Notes upon this Canon starts the Question, Whether it allows appeals from a Patriarch to the Emperour, and when [Page 240] he hath given the Opinions and Reasons of Lawyers on both sides, his own is, That this Law was made before the compleat constitution of the Church was finish'd, and therefore it makes no mention of Pa­triarchs, that is to say, because there were none at that time. Though this is very consistent with his Notes upon the sixth Canon of Nice, 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 Coun­cil, that was assembl'd near 20. years af­ter; but it is an usual thing with him un­awares to forget himself into the Truth.

As for the Council of Sardica, that was conven'd about six years after that of An­tioch, and was of a peculiar Nature from all the other Councils; for though the Bi­shops were summon'd out of both Em­pires to the Council; yet the Eastern Bi­shops forsook it, so that it consisted meer­ly of the Western; and they being thus left to themselves, began to make their Complements to the great See of Rome, that was the only Prerogative Bishoprick in the West; all the other great Sees going along with the Eastern Empire. And this little accident was the first Foundation of the Roman greatness; for though the par­ticular honour that this Synod gave it was [Page 241] little more than meer Courtship and Civi­lity; yet in process of time they rais'd it to the heigth of Power, as we shall see afterwards. But as for the Council it self, that was so far from owning any such Inherent Supremacy in him, that it still limits the Supreme Jurisdiction to the Me­tropolitan and Bishops of the Province. Thus in the very third and fourth Canons, that are the Darlings of the Church of Rome, it is decreed that Bishops that have any Controversies among themselves do not seek for Judges out of their own Pro­vince; only it is propounded by Hosius, That if any one shall think himself aggriev'd, if it seem good to the Council, in honour to the memory of St. Peter, Julius Bishop of Rome, if he judge it convenient, may ap­point a Review of the cause by Neighbouring Bishops. And, Canon the fifth, by sending some of his own Presbyters to sit in Com­mission with the Bishops. In all which it is suppos'd that there was no settled Right of Appeal beyond the Metropolitan: And though the Council is pleas'd to allow a small kind of Priviledge to the Bishop of Rome, to order a Review of the Cause in the same Province where it had been ad­judg'd, without any Power of judging it himself; they do not own any former Right or Custom for this Priviledge, but [Page 242] now grant it out of a meer pang of com­plement in the President Hosius, to the memory of St. Peter, or rather out of kindness to his friend the present Bishop of Rome. And yet they were so tender of allowing any real Right of Appeal, that they durst not own the name, and there­fore express it very modestly in the fifth Canon, that if as it were appealing, the Party aggriev'd should fly for Sanctuary to the Holy Bishop of Rome; so as they do not allow any real Appeal of the cause, because he had no power to judge it him­self, but could only return it to be judg'd in its proper place, so neither do they al­low this small Priviledge, to be a proper Appeal, but as it were an Appeal. And yet how did this slender as it were, swell it self in after ages to an immensity of Power, and swallow up all the real Authority of the Christian Church into it self. So dan­gerous a thing is it to pass Complements upon that designing See, that can make so much Advantage out of so slight a Civility; For we shall at last find that this was the first Plea for all their Greatness. But at present it is evident, that the Fathers of this Council knew no ordinary and stand­ing Superiority of Power above Metropo­litans, nor any larger extent of Jurisdicti­on than Provinces. So that hitherto any [Page 243] higher Orders were unreceiv'd both in the Eastern and Western Church, and for a good time after, as appears from the gene­ral Council of Ephesus, which though but twenty years older than that of Calcedon would own no such thing; but on the contrary (as we have seen in the case of the Cyprian Bishops) expresly confirm'd all the ancient Metropolitical Suprema­cies.

§. XIX.

And yet in the ninth Canon of the great Council of Calcedon, we meet with a new sort of Officers above Metro­politans call'd the Exarchs of the Diocess; the Canon runs thus: If any Clergy man have a Controversie with another, he is first to refer it to his Bishop, before he bring it to the Secular Court; if with the Bishop him­self to the Synod of the Province; if with the Metropolitan of the Province, to the Exarch of the Diocess; or to the Throne of the Royal City of Constantinople. Here is apparently a new order of Exarchs supe­rior to the Metropolitans, but how they first came in is the great Riddle of Eccle­siastical Story, (viz.) To find a new or­der of Priesthood thus sprung up on the suddain in the Christian Church, like Melchisedek, from an unknown Birth and Parentage; and there is not a stranger [Page 244] thing in all the Records of the Church, than that such an exorbitant Power should so suddainly and insensibly settle and au­thorise it self without any other Autho­rity than barely its own possession; for as it was hitherto beat down by all the Coun­cils of the Church; so this Council does not institute the Order, but only ratifies that Power in which they pretended to be actually instated. Now how is this pos­sible, or how could it ever come to pass and not to be taken notice of in the Re­cords of the Church, especially if it be true, as I pretend to have prov'd, that those Canons and Decrees of Councils, that have hitherto pass'd for the Patent of their Institution, were made on no other De­sign than to assert the Supreme Rights of Metropolitans against all such uncanonical Encroachments? But though this may at first, seem a great Difficulty, yet if we take a right Method to examin the mat­ter, the difficulty will clear it self. And that is by beginning our Enquiry where others leave off theirs: For as they end with the Institution of the Patriarch of Constantin­ople, which is Universally suppos'd to have been the youngest of them all; the business was so far from that, that it was the first born, and indeed gave being to all the rest: So that had it not first lead the way, [Page 245] 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 Progress from its first beginning to its last perfe­ction.

First then Constantine the Great built Constantinople, either out of disgust to the Senate of Rome, for their Aversion to the Christian Religion, as Zozimus would suggest; or for the Convenience of its Si­tuation, as a fit place for the Emperours Residence against the Incursions of the Barbarous Nations, that then first began to Infest the Empire; but most probable it was from his natural Magnificence and sence 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 greatness of mind, so to out-strip them in the Success of Gran­deur and Glory; But most especially in the suddain Growth and Greatness of this City, which as it obtein'd the name of Rome together with his own, so it did its State and Beauty. It had its Senate, the same Orders of men and Magistrates, the same Ensigns of Dignity, the same Exem­ptions, Priviledges and Honours; in short, the Rights and Prerogatives of the Quirites [Page 246] or Citizens of Rome. To which he added many great Gifts of his own Munificence, as particularly 4000 Measures of Corn daily distributed among its Inhabitants. And as it soon equall'd old Rome in Power, so it excell'd it in Beauty, Ornament and Pleasure. He rob'd all other places, even Rome it self to Beautifie this; he adorn'd it with its Capitol, its Circus maximus, Amphitheaters, Forums, Porticuses, Baths, Column's, Statues, Pyramids, and every thing that could give it State or Beauty. Now all this could not but draw a great Concourse of People to a Place endow'd with so many Priviledges, and the Suc­ceeding Emperours fixing the Court there, so multiply'd the Inhabitants, that in a short time it became the head City in the World, and so dispeopl'd Rome it self of its Citizens, that Pletho calls it [...]. Neither was it much less beholden to the following Emperours than to its Founder; they seem to con­tend who should shew it most favour, as the best Monument they could leave of their own Fame, so that there were none of them that were not great Benefactors to it. Constantius (who no doubt must have a particular kindness for it, because it was founded at the Solemnity of his be­ing made Caesar;) constituted a Praefect [Page 247] there; that was the only thing which was wanting in it of the Government of Rome, and to him lay Appeals from the Gover­nours of Pontus▪ Asia, and Thrace. The first thing that Valentinian and Valens did, when they came to the Empire was to re­trieve the great Bounty of Constantine for Victualling the City, setling a certain por­tion of Bread out of his gift of Corn upon each House; so that it was as it were part of the Fee simple, and was bought and sold with the House it self. And whereas the Tyrant Procopius had in the time of his Rebellion violated the Jus Italicum of the City, i. e. its exemption from all manner of Taxes, tam capitis quam soli (as the Law expresses it) by Imposing severe ex­actions, not only upon the Citizens, but the Senators themselves, the Emperour Valens immediatly after the Tyrants over­throw, restores its ancient Rights by an Edict extant in the Theodosian Code, Tom. 5. Tit. 13. as he expresses it, arbitrâ aequitate, because of its equality to Rome, and that was ever the Reason for any new priviledges that were at any time granted to it. And besides the Particular kind­ness of this his first Law, he was all his life time a great Favourer and Benefactor of this City, adorning it with many pub­lick Buildings, Aquaeducts, Bathes, and [Page 248] Churches, beside a great many constituti­ons for its Benefit and Honour, extant under their several Titles in the Theodosian Code, de annonis Civicis, Lege 7. De studiis Libert. Ʋrb. Rom. & Const. lib. 20. de Praetoribus, lib. 3. De Dignitatibus Ord. lib. 1. & 5. Et de Decurion. lib. 93.

But above all Theodosius the great, as he came nearest of any to Constantine in the greatness of his Actions, so did he in kind­ness to this City. Themistius the Philoso­pher Orat 6—Pag. 61. in his Orations, hath given us an am­ple Account of his Munificence, of which after having recounted all Particulars he concludes; That it will hence forth remain doubtful, whether of the two Cities be great­er and more beautiful, that which Theodo­sius adds to Constantinople, or that which Constantine added to Byzantium. Now this City being grown to so much great­ness, and having overtop'd old Rome in State and Glory, it is no wonder if it af­fected the same Grandeur in Religion; and as it was equall'd to old Rome in all other things, so it ought to be in the Dig­nity of its Prelate and Precedency of its Church. And accordingly it soon com­passed this Design under the Favour and Patronage of this Emperour, who was an equal friend both to the City and to Re­ligion; and therefore as he was always [Page 249] forward enough (perhaps too much) to do any Honour to the Church, so no doubt he was more particularly Zealous to ad­vance it there for the Honour of the City. And therefore having Occasion to Sum­mon a general Council, he was pleas'd to Honour the City with it, where Gregory Nazianzen having in Obedience to the Canons of the Church resign'd the Bishop­rick, because he was uncanonically elected to it; the Emperour either is or seems more than usually Solicitous about the choice of a Bishop, for the great and Im­perial City; and the matter was so order­ed either by Chance, or, as is most pro­bable, by Design of the Emperour, though Flattery imputed it to Providence, that Nectarius a man of the Senatorian Order, of great Dignity in the State, very popu­lar for the Curtesie and Obligingness of his Conversation; but above all an intimate favorite of the Emperour was plac'd in the Bishoprick. For the Emperour having commanded the Bishops to deliver him Schedules of the Names of those Persons, that they would nominate to his choice; it happen'd that the Bishop of Antioch (as 'tis said) meerly to please the Fancy of Diodorus, an old Doting Bishop (though they call'd his Dotage Inspiration) nam'd Nectarius, a Person altogether unqualified [Page 250] by the Canons, the last in his Schedule, whom the Emperour Immediately pitch'd upon: and though he were then Unbap­tiz'd, and so by the Canons uncapable of a Bishoprick; and was for that Reason at first refus'd by the Bishops of the Coun­cil; yet the Emperour persisting in his choice, they were forced to yeild, and so Nectarius being immediately Baptiz'd, he was, whilst in his Neophytes habit, con­stituted Bishop of Constantinople. Now this great man being plac'd in the Episco­pal Throne of this great City, and made head of the great Council assembled in it; the Council proceeds to action, and after the Confirmation of the Nicene Faith, they ratifie the old Provincial Constitution of the Church, that every Province should be govern'd by its own Synod, as I have shewn above out of the Canon it self, and as it is expresly attested by Sozomen. And Lib. 7 cap. 9 now having thus shewn their tender care of all other Churches Rights, they might with the less Jealousie and Suspicion enhance their own, and therefore the next decree that immediately follows is to as­sign its Praecedency of Honour next to Rome. And that was artificial enough to seem to be content with its usual Power, and not to endeavour the advancing it self to any greater Authority than of an in­ferior [Page 251] Bishoprick, but only out of respect to the Imperial City of new Rome, that it might be allow'd the [...] the Precedency of Honour next to old Rome, the same thing that the Council of Nice had done for the Church of Jerusalem, reser­ving the Rights of Jurisdiction to the Me­tropolis of Caesarea; and this is the most this third Canon could pretend to grant after the enacting of the second; for when they had confirm'd the Provincial Settle­ment of Churches, Constantinople having ever been Subject to the Metropolis of Heraclea, the Council could not pretend to raise it to any higher Power, than of a Subject Bishoprick, without manifest in­jury to its Metropolitan. So that this Council was so far from allowing this great City any Power Superior to Metro­politans, as 'tis commonly supposed, that it did not so much as attempt to raise it to Metropolitical Authority, but left it un­der the Power of the Metropolis of He­raclea, to which it had belong'd from the beginning. And this no doubt was the ground of that custom, that continued for a long time after that it was raised up to a Patriarchate, that the Patriarch of Con­stantinople was consecrated by the Bishop of Heraclea, in token (as Balsamon upon the Canon observes) that he had been [Page 252] once Subject to him; and this custom he sayes continued to his own time, i. e. to­wards the end of the eleventh Century, and Hist. Rom. lib. 6. Nicephorus Gregoruis continues it down in­to his own Age, and that is the fourteenth. But as this Precedency of Honour was granted to Constantinople; first in the City it self; secondly under Theodosius its Pa­tron; thirdly when Nectarius, a great man, was its Bishop; so lastly was it done when there were none but Eastern Bi­shops present at the Council; and there­fore we shall find it ever after opposed by the Popes, though at last it was allow'd of by Innocent the third, who began to Reign in the year 1199. in the Council of La­teran; that is, when the Patriarch of Con­stantinople was reduc'd to so low a Con­dition, that there was no danger of his ever being Rival to his Holiness. Baronius Ad annum 381. and after him Binius, is confident in it, that the Canon it self is Supposititious; partly because it was for so long time dis­own'd by the Church of Rome, partly be­cause it apparently contradicts the pre­ceeding Canon. But that it was genuine is evident from all the ancient Copies of the Councils, from the clear and concur­rent Testimonies of the Historians, from the Authority of the Council of Calcedon, who cite it in their Synodical Epistle to [Page 253] Pope Leo; so that there can be no doubt of the Authenticalness of the Canon it self, neither is its being disliked at Rome any proof of its Forgery, for that was never pretended by the Popes themselves; and it only shews the Jealousie of that See, that was always particularly watchful against the growth of Constantinople. And for its contradiction to the former Canon, no­thing more common in such cases than for men when they have Ambitious De­signs in their heads to protest against them, and methinks one so throughly knowing in the History of his own Church as this Learned Cardinal was, should not be unacquainted with such slights. But af­ter all he is plainly mistaken, for the Coun­cil doth not give the Bishop of Constantin­ople any Preheminence of Authority, as he imagins, but only precedency of Honour, and that makes no Alteration in the Nicene bounds of Jurisdiction: For every Metro­politan notwithstanding that, still enjoy'd the same 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 Surprise, because the Synod, as this Learned Historian very well ob­serves, in their Synodical Epistle to Pope Damasus, in which they give an Account [Page 254] of all their Actions and Proceedings, make apud Theo. lib. 5. cap. 9. [...] not the least mention of it; nay they seem diligently to suppress it, as a thing to be kept from his knowledge, and as doubt­ing of his Consent. And that which shrewdly increases this suspicion is, that though they leave this out in their Syno­dical Epistle to the Bishop of Rome, and put him off with a general account of things, and a solemn story of their great Respect to the Nicene Council; yet when they write to the Emperour himself, they send him their particular Canons, as one to whom the Design might be imparted, and who probably set it on foot, at least they knew that he would take it kindly of them as an Honour done to his Royal City. But however this business was man­aged, whether fairly or fraudulently, this See being thus advanc'd to the heighth of Honour and Dignity, that alone was e­nough to mount it up to a Supremacy of Power; Some attempts of Usurpation had been made from the time of Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was an Active and a Bold man, and much the most powerful Prelate of his time, and therefore when he was Translated to Constantinople by the Emperour Constantius his Favour, and that too with an high hand; there is no doubt but a man of his Temper assisted with so [Page 255] much Court-Power and Interest, would be very forward to advance and enlarge the Authority of his See; and according­ly we find his Successor Eudoxius exten­ding Philostor­gius. his Power to the Province of Hele­spont, before the Council of Constantinople, ordeining Eunomius Bishop of Cysicum, the Metropolitan City of the Province. But from this time forward i. e. from the Constantinopolitan Council, we perpetual­ly find the Bishops of Constantinople en­croaching upon the Jurisdiction of their Neighbours, openly violating the Eccle­siastical Canons by an exorbitant use of its greatness, swallowing up not only whole Provinces but whole Diocesses into its U­surpation, till at last it push'd fair for the universal Supremacy; and had once seiz'd it but it could not hold it. Its most ob­servable irregularities between the second and fourth Council, when it was advanc'd from an honorary title to a real Power and Jurisdiction, I shall here remark, and shew the several Steps and Methods, whereby an empty dignity may improve it self into a Supremacy of Power.

§. XX.

And in the first place, the very erecting the Committee of Communi­catory Bishops by Theodosius, immediately after the Council of Constantinople, was a [Page 256] plain Subversion of the ancient Govern­ment 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 some­times made a private Bishop Superior in Authority to his Metropolitan, because some of the Committee were Subject Bi­shops, and yet the Right to Christian Communion, not only in their own Pro­vince, but the whole new Instituted Di­ocess that conteined several Metropoli­tans, was at their single disposal. So that I take this Edict of Theodosius, how well so ever it might have been intended, to have been one of the first open Breaches that was made upon the Original Consti­tution of the Christian Church; for now the Government of it was turn'd out of its old Channel, where it had run from the time of the Apostles, the Synod of the Province under their Metropolitan, and diverted into new guts and courses as the favour or wantonness of the Court was pleased to appoint. So that though Theo­dosius were a great Patron of the Church, yet by not protecting of it the right way, he did it great Injury; for instead of giving it the effectual Assistance of the civil Government, he out of too much Zeal Invaded the Ecclesiastick Authority, by assuming to himself a Power of erecting [Page 257] new Models of Government, which is in effect to destroy the Being and Constituti­on of a Christian Church; for if it stand upon divine Right from our Saviour and his Apostles, it is then in no mans Power to alter it; If it does not, 'tis no Church, for there can be no such thing without Insti­tution by divine Authority. And to lay the foundations of a Church or Religion no deeper than humane Law, is to declare it an Imposture and artifice of State. But to proceed; as these Bishops were made heads of the Catholick Church, contrary to all the ancient practice of it; so was it no less a Novelty to make Nectarius the Head of the Combination; For as that made some few Metropolitans, together with four or five privat Bishops, Superior to all the Provincial Synods and Metropo­litans in the World; so this made a privat Bishop Supreme head of the Catholick Communion. And then beside, whereas the Jurisdiction of other Bishops is limited to their own Diocesses, as to Aegypt, the East, Asia, Pontus and Scythia, there is no confinement set to his Authority, but it is express'd in general terms without re­straints or Limitations; For which the wri­ters of the Church of Rome assign a very apposite Reason, particularly the wisest of De Concord. Sac. & Imp. l. 1. c. 3. §. 10. them all, the Learned Petrus de Marca: [Page 258] Because (saith he) the Council had rais'd the Bishop of Constantinople to the second Place next to the Bishop of Rome, and for that Reason therefore, he must after the Example of that, have an unconfin'd Juris­diction. And if this Learned man could have found us any Example at that time, of any such Power in the Bishops of Rome, it would have been a notable hint of their Supremacy. But when there is no such thing upon Record, and when the Bishop of Rome is particulraly left out of this Association, it is a shrewd Intimation that his universal Supremacy was but little known or talk'd of in those days; But it is pleasant to see how this Learned man can suit his Reasons to his Cause, and blow either hot or cold out of the same mouth as his own and the Popes convenience re­quires. For when he is to depress the See of Constantinople, then the reason why he had no particular Diocess assign'd him in De Instit. pat. Const. Page 157. the Association, is because he had none, and therefore his Jurisdiction was exten­ded only to the City of Constantinople. And thus he who but just now was one of the two Bishops that presided over the whole world, is here confin'd to the Go­vernment of one City, must be content with the narrow fortune of other ordinary Bi­shops, and not be so vain as to equal him­self [Page 259] with the great Sovereign Bishop of Rome. But though his former Reason was founded upon a palpable falshood, yet it is possible that this may be true, and that the Edict design'd only that City to the particular Care of Nectarius, and if it did, that alone gave him great Influence over all the Bishops of the Empire, by reason of their great Resort thither, and their fre­quent occasions to make use of his interest to promote their Suits at Court, which would in course oblige them to some de­ference to his Authority; So that in a little time the Bishops of Constantinople took up­on themselves together with the Bishops that were occasionally there present, the Government of all other Churches. And that was one of the most artificial slights in all their Usurpation, the trick of get­ting a Synod of Bishops: For they being of the inferior Rank of Bishops, they had no right to assemble Synods, and without Synods they could exercise no Power ca­nonically, and therefore to supply this want, they made use of this Advantage, that there being always a great number of Bishops more or less residing at Constan­tinople, and attending about the Court, upon emergent Occasions the Bishop of the City was wont to consult with them, which meetings in process of time obtein'd [Page 260] both the Name and Authority of Synods. The most remarkable Instance that I know of this kind, was in the Proceed­ings of Anatolius with his Conclave a­gainst Photius Bishop of Tyre, which were so foul that the very Council of Calcedon were asham'd of them, as we find in the 4th. Action of that Council. The Busi­ness was this, The Citizens of Beryte, that was Subject to the Metropolis of Tyre, had obtein'd of the Emperour the Grant of Metropolitical Supremacy, and an ali­enation of a great part of the Province of Tyre to be laid to its Jurisdiction. Which Grant Anatolius ratifies, and threatens Excommunication to Photius the Tyrian Bishop, if he consent not to it. This be­ing so great a Violation of the Rights of the Church, especially when Photius was no way Subject to his Jurisdiction; it was complain'd of to the Council, and by them condemned, and the Convention of Sy­nods at Constantinople disown'd and declar­ed to have no Synodical Authority. Nei­ther had Anatolius any thing to plead in his own Justification but only Custom: He durst not so much as pretend to any Canonical Right; that it seems was too Impudent, but a kind of convenient cust­om, for the more easie determination of emergent Controversies; because there [Page 261] was alwayes a sufficient number of Bishops residing upon the Place, and so were rea­dy at hand to decide matters brought be­fore them without the trouble of calling Provincial Synods upon every occasion. So that this one Instance, though no elder than the Council of Calcedon proves a more ancient custom; for thereby Ana­tolius excuses himself, and the Bishops that joyn'd with him; that what they did was no new thing, not so much as No­vitati affine, but had been practic'd of old. And the Instances of this kind are very frequent; it was such a Synod, by which Act 1. Conc. Calced. Flavian Bishop of Constantinople first con­demn'd Eutyches, and therefore Eutyches excepts against their Authority, because they were not canonically Summon'd, but were casually met at Constantinople for their own private Affairs. Many more Instan­ces there are of this kind in the Actions of Atticus, Proclus and St. Chrysostom, who in these Synods settled matters that belong'd to other Metropolitans; And as for St. Chrysostom (who probably first began this custom) he got himself restored to his Bishoprick by such a Court Synod, though his Restitution would not hold, because his Synod was not of equal number with that by which he was deposed. But to return to Theodosius his Instrument of Ca­tholick [Page 262] Association, and Petrus de Marca's Remarks upon it, that the Bishop of Con­stantinople's Power was not limited: First, Because it resembled the Popes that had no bounds. Secondly, Because he had no Di­ocess to be limited; and though this last may be true, yet I am apt to think that the most probable Account of the thing is, that the Emperour in his Edict de­sign'd neither a limited nor an unlimited Jurisdiction to his Favorite Bishop, but only express'd himself in general terms, that he should be one of this Ecclesiastical Committee, and then the nature of the thing it self would first limit his direct Power to Constantinople; and that alone, we see gave him an Indirect Power over all other places. In short, He seems on­ly to have design'd to Honour his own Court Bishop; In the first place, by give­ing him the first place in the Association, but how far that would go, he left it to his own management, and what that was we very little know, because for want of Learning he was forc'd to leave it to Cyri­acus a Sicilian Bishop, whom he kept with Sozom. lib. [...]. cap. 10. him as his guide and guardian. But not­withstanding that, it is certain that either through remissness or want of ability, things were ill enough manag'd, as ap­pears by Gregory Nazianzen's Epistle to him, Inter Orat. [...]6. [Page 263] wherein he complains of the wanton growth and encrease of Heresies within his City, and exhorts him to obtain the Em­perours Assistance for their effectual Sup­pression. But of the particular Actions of his Government, I find nothing recorded unless his attempt to depose Gerontius Bi­shop of Nicomedia, in the Province of Bithynia, but was repuls'd by the Nicome­dians; Sozom. lib. 8. cap. 6. however we see by it how early the endeavours of the Canstantinoplitans were after Usurpation.

§. XXI.

To him succeeds St. Chryso­stom, a very good man, but of a tart and eager Temper, as appears not only by the Character given of him by his own Histo­rians, but by the tenor of his actions. I say nothing of his Quarel with the Court and his own Clergy, because that was within his own Jurisdiction; and though perhaps he might sometimes act with too much heat, yet I cannot see but that for the main, he behav'd himself as became an honest man, and one that made Con­science of his Duty and the faithful dis­charge of it. But as for his protecting the Rebellious Monks of Aegypt against the Canonical censure of their Bishop and Pro­vincial Synod, and persisting in it after the Bishop had inform'd him of their Mu­tinous [Page 264] Behaviour, not only against him­self, whom they had endeavour'd to Mur­der, but the Civil Magistrate, who was forc'd for the Peace of the Province to drive them into Banishment; it is such an overthrow of the Discipline of the Church, that no candor can excuse it. So that whatever were the merits of the Cause (and that of the Monks was bad enough) the Violation of the Canons of the Church was the thing with which Theophilus Bi­shop of Alexandria upbraided him, as Pal­ladius himself, who is very Partial on St. Chrysostom's side in this story, tells it. Ar­bitror te non ignorare quid praecipiant Con­cilii Nicaeni Canones, Sancientes Episcopum non judicare causam extra Terminos suos. Si autem ignoras, disce & libellos contra me suscipere desine: nam etsi judicari me opus sit, ab Aegyptiis magis quam abs te id fieri oportet qui Septuaginta dierum Itinere à no­bis seperatus es.

‘I suppose you are not ignorant of the Ni­cene Canon, which enacts that Bishops take not upon them to judge Causes out of their own Jurisdiction; but if you are ignorant of it, learn from me, and cease to receive accusa­tions against me. For if I deserve any Censure the Bishops of Aegypt ought to inflict it, not you that live at the distance of seaventy days journey from us.’

This was smart and unanswerable; It was a breach upon the whole Government of the Christian Church. For if another Bi­shop will receive such into Communion, as stand Excommunicate by their own Bi­shop, there is an end of all Ecclesiastical Discipline. And therefore that was the first and most sacred Rule in the Govern­ment of the ancient Church, not to ad­mit any Person that liv'd under the Juris­diction of another Bishop, into Commu­nion without his Bishops Certificate. But to receive and patronise such as were Ca­nonically proceeded against by their own Bishop, and that after information of their Sentence, as St. Chrysostom did, was in re­ality an Affront to the Government of all other Churches. For notwithstanding that Theophilus sent him a Copy of the Decree of the Council of Alexandria, and that Epiphanius attended upon him in Person, with another Decree of the Bi­shops of Cyprus, to take him off from this uncanonical Interposition, yet he would not desist, but took to himself the Power of Umpirage between the Bishop and his Monks; and would part with them upon no other terms than that the Bishop would yield to be reconcil'd to them by his Me­diation. No wonder then that those good men Theophilus and Epiphanius resented this [Page 266] thing with so much Severity. Epiphanius, when he was at Constantinople, would ne­ver so much as communicate with him, because when he had been before-hand advis'd by Letters from himself of the Sentence of the Council, he would not acquiesce in it. Theophilus being Sum­mon'd by the Emperour, takes a journey to Constantinople, and joyns with him as many Bishops as he could take up by the way, with a resolution to depose Chryso­stom in Council, for his Irregular proceed­ings; and when he came would not so much as see him; no nor as St. Jerom in­forms Pope Innocent, so much as lodge within the Walls of the City. Baronius and the Writers of the Church of Rome, Ad annum 403. blame Theophilus for the Vehemence of his proceedings against him, as too vio­lently prosecuting a private pique. But all the ground of their concernment for St. Chrysostom was, because the Pope was on his side, otherwise it is but an unchari­table surmise to impute Theophilus's Zeal, in this matter to personal revenge. A Quarrel, I know, there was between them, and that perhaps might push him on with too much keenness: but had he not just cause enough to be very warm in this case, wherein the whole Discipline of the Christian Church lay at stake? For if what [Page 267] St. Chrysostom had done should pass uncon­troll'd, it would put an end to the effectu­al Discipline of all other Churches in the World. Theophilus was as far as I can dis­cern through the partiality of all the Hi­storians against him, a good man, and mettlesom too, a great Assertor of Eccle­siastical Discipline, and a lover of true Peace and Unity. And therefore he can­not be blam'd for the hottest Opposition against such disorderly proceedings. But when St. Chrysostom was depos'd in the Council Sub Quercu, and his Interposition between Theophilus and his Clergy re­mov'd; Theophilus with a Fatherly ten­derness invites the Offenders to Reconcili­ation, and upon Submission restores them to Communion, as Sozomen himself tells the Story. For he and all the Historians lib. 8. c. 17. are very Partial in representing this Busi­ness on St. Chrysostom's side for the sake of Origen, against whom as they imagine, Theophilus made all this stir. But if we consider the whole matter Impartially, it will appear that the Origenian contest was least of Theophilus his concern, and that the main thing he labour'd in was the or­der of the Church. And therefore in the Synod under the Oak, in which St. Chry­sostom was depos'd, he makes no mention (as Sozomen in the same place informes us) [Page 268] of Origen's Books, but only invites the Monks to repent of thir Schism, and upon their Repentance absolves them. And if the Acts of this Council, extant in Photius, may be believ'd (and I see very little ground to question them) the chief Ar­ticle against St. Chrysostom was his invasi­on of other Provinces, and three Libels were prefer'd against him by three Bishops that he had depos'd, Gerontius, Faustinus and Eugnomonius. So that all Theophilus his Zeal against the Origenists, was no­thing else but a trick of subtilty, thereby to gain a party to himself, and without that assistance the Canons of the Church, though on his side, would scarce have born him up against the greatness of St. Chrysostom; but the World being at that time divided about this eontroversie, and the Anti-Origenists being the prevailing Party, he by accusing his Schismatical Monks of Origenism, gain'd all the adverse party to his side, and particularly engaged the Zeal of Epiphanius and St. Jerom in his behalf, by whom, and that ruling re­putation that they then had in the World, he was able to make head against the Power of St. Chrysostom, and at length break through it, though otherwise he was a great Student of Origen's Work both before and after this Controversie; before [Page 269] he had like to have been Murdered for it by the Anthropomorphites, if he had not appeased them by his Wit; and afterwards it was objected to him, which he excused by pleading that there were many good flowers in him beside his Errours and He­resies. But that Theophilus had no such im­placable unkindness to the Opinions of Origen, is evident from his intercourse and friendship with Synesius, who being inform'd of his own Nomination to a Bi­shoprick, to avoid it, he tells all the ill things that he can of himself; and among the rest, that he was an Irreclaimable Ori­genist, which he supposed was at that time the worst objection that he could contrive against himself. And whether this were only an artificial Fiction, as Ba­ronius will have it, or his real Opinion, as it must be, because he declares it with a Protestation before God and his Holy An­gels of its truth; it is all one, seeing the confession of it was not crime enough with Theophilus to deny him consecration, which he was so far from doing, that he was the chief man that pressed him to it; and though after he had ordein'd him, Synesius continued in his old Fondness to his Origenian Opinions, as is evident from divers of his Writings, especially his Po­ems; yet for all that there was an intimate [Page 270] Friendship and Familiarity kept up be­tween him and Theophilus all his life time. Which plainly shews that he was in his heart no such Enemy to Origen, but only pretended so to be, thereby to gain a par­ty to assist and bear him up against the greatness of St. Chrysostom. But if Theo­philus may be condemn'd for using too much craft in the Origenian contest, and such counterfeitings, unless very prudent, are very suspicious and hardly to be ex­cused; however that may be, I think it is evident enough, that Theophilus can never with any pretence of Law or Justice be blam'd for acting after so high a manner in another mans Jurisdiction; for he came not voluntarily to Constantinople, but was forc'd thither by the Emperours Edict to answer the Articles of Accusation, that were there preferred against him by his own disobedient Clergy. And therefore knowing his own Innocence and the Ju­stice of his Cause, when he came, he would not appear as a guilty Person, but boldly asserts the Rights of the Christian Church; and instead of answering before St. Chry­sostom and the Court Bishops, for any thing that had passed between himself and his own Clergy; he protests as well as he could, against all their Illegal proceedings, and declares St. Chrysostom unworthy of [Page 271] his Episcopal trust, by having stretch'd it to the Injury of all other Christian Bi­shops as well as himself. So that it is none of Theophilus his fault, that he ever appear­ed at Constantinople, but when he came it was his Duty to assert the Rights and Li­berties of the Catholick Church. And this he could not do without censuring St. Chrysostom, who had so rashly Invaded other Provinces as well as Aegypt, taking upon him to ordain and depose Bishops every where, without regard to the di­stinction of Provinces and Limitation of Churches. Ordeining fifteen Bishops in Asia, and Deposing thirteen, choosing the Soc. l. 6. c. 10. Soz. l. 8. c. 6. Metropolitan of Ephesus, and thrusting his own Deacon into the Government of that Church; in short he took upon him to reform all other Churches as well as his own of Constantinople, as Theodoret informs us; the Diocess of Thrace, and it's six Pro­vinces, lib. 5. c. 18. all Asia. and its eleven Provinces, and Pontus that hath as many Provinces as Asia. In Pontus he deposed Gerontius their Metropolitan, in Thrace he ordein'd Sera­pion Bishop of Heraclea, that was his own Metropolitan. Now these and the like actions could not but be very offensive to the rest of the World; so that as the Hi­storians tell us, both the Eastern and We­stern Bishops were displeased with him, and [Page 272] no wonder, when it was the common cause of all, and that was the real state of his case, the Authority of the See of Constan­tinople set up against and over the Catholick Church.

The Learned Petrus de Marca hath pleaded several things in his excuse, first, For his acting in Asia and Ephesus, he pleads the Necessity of the thing, and the sad degeneracy of that Church. And this I will allow to be true; but yet all corrup­tions are to be redressed in a regular way, otherwise instead of reforming Churches, we do but destroy them, and therefore he might have done his Duty towards the Reformation of these Churches, as the Canons had prescrib'd, by Letters to the Synod of the Province to reform themselves, by inciting other Bishops to joyn with him in the same work, by dis­owning Communion with them till they had remov'd abuses out of their Churches. This was all the Authority, that the Bishops of one Province had over the Bi­shops of another, and by this means was the Unity and Communion of the Catho­lick Church for a long time admirably preserv'd. But for a private Bishop to take upon him to ride his Circuit through other Provinces, and where ever he came, to ordein, depose, Institute, and reform [Page 273] with an high hand, was such an Irregu­larity as no Necessity can excuse, or war­rant.

In the next place it is pleaded that he acted as honorary Exarch over the Dio­cesses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace, as he was made by the Council of Constantinople, that plac'd him next to Rome. But this honorary dignity gave him no Jurisdicti­on over his Neighbours, and therefore if by vertue of that he challeng'd any, it is plain that he usurp'd it. Then says Petrus de Marca, Is there nothing to excuse a man, so much own'd and Patroniz'd by the Church of Rome, that they restor'd him into the Dypticks of the Church? Truly I am sorry there is not, because as I seriously believe him to have been a very good man, so I take him to have been one of greatest Wits of the Christian Church. And perhaps the greatness of his Wit may be his best Apology, for that is always ac­companied with too much warmth and vehemence of Temper, and this joyned with stiff honesty might hurry him incon­siderately upon extraordinary and unwar­rantable actions, and especially when his Zeal was exasperated by gross and notori­ous crimes, that might very easily trans­port him beyond due bounds. Besides which, there are two things that may [Page 274] somewhat palliate and alleviate his fault. The first is, The custom of his See, that he himself began not these excursions over the Diocesses of Asia, Pontus and Thrace, but found Constantinople in Possession of them, not only since the Council of Con­stantinople, by the attempt of his Prede­cessor Nectarius to depose Gerontius, but before that by Eudoxius his ordeining the Metropolitan of Nicomedia; and men are too apt to make use of such Precedents for creating a right to themselves.

But the best Plea is the clause inserted in the second Canon of the Council of Constantinople, to explain and limit it, that when the Canon had first forbidden the Invasion of other Provinces, it adds: Let not Bishops uncall'd go beyond the Bounds of their Diocesses, either to ordain or to ex­ercise any other Ecclesiastical Office. So that by this clause if they are called they have liberty to go. And this Liberty St. Chry­sostom might have taken upon complaints from several Bishops to him; for as he was the man of greatest Fame and Reputation in the Church at that time, so being Bi­shop of Constantinople, the Seat of the Court, whither Bishops from all parts often resorted; he could not but have frequent Appeals and Applications made to him, which through his great Zeal he [Page 275] might receive too eagerly, and so turn that Liberty which the Council had left for extraordinary cases into an ordinary Jurisdiction. And the truth of it is, when Laws allow such Reserves, if men are not very tender and cautious in using them, they defeat the Laws themselves, that provide peremptorily for all ordinary Cases, and leave no such Liberty for them, and therefore when men too commonly make use of it, as St. Chrysostom did, upon every complaint, they destroy the Design of the Law it self, as he did this; for whereas the design of the Canon was to restrain every Bishop within his own or­dinary Jurisdiction, unless in one extra­ordinary case, he by making use of this extraordinary case too familiarly, plainly exercis'd an ordinary Jurisdiction in other mens Provinces. This I take to be the true State of St. Chrysostom's cause, and have represented it as fairly and as candidly as I could without wronging the Truth, and if in any thing I have made it worse than it is, I should much rejoyce to amend that fault; for among all the ancient Wor­thys of the Church, I know not any whose memory I more honour than St. Chrysostom's.

§. XXII,

His next Successors were his two great Enemies, Arsacius and Atticus, who manag'd the Accusation against him in the Synod Sub Quercu; Arsacius was Brother to Nectarius, and prefer'd only for his sake, being a decrepit old man, a­bove eighty years of Age when he was chosen, and liv'd not above a year and two months after it; so that we have lit­tle more recorded of him, than that be­sides his great Age, he was more unquali­fied than his Brother for the Episcopal Trust, both to his Parts and Learning. To him succeeds Atticus, a man (says Socrates) rather Politick than Learned, a Character that he made good by the course of his following Actions: For being warn'd by St. Chrysostom's troubles, and finding that it was impossible to bear up (which if any man, St. Chrysostom would have done) against the united opposition of all other Bishops; he takes another course, and fortifies himself with the Em­perours Authority, procures Laws and Edicts to Authorise his Usurpation, and if we believe Palladius, when Pope Innocent Excommunicated him, and the People re­fus'd to communicate with him, he ob­tein'd an Edict from the Emperour Arca­dius, commanding them to it under pain [Page 277] of Excommunication and Confiscation of Goods. But as for his Foreign Invasions, Lib. 7. c. 28. Socrates tells us of a Law of his own pro­curement, though the occasion of menti­oning it happen'd not till the time of his Successor Sicinnius, who undertaking to constitute Proclus Arch-Bishop of Cyzicum in the Province of Hellespont, the Cyzece­nians (says the Historian) refuse his Bi­shop and choose one of his own; And that notwithstanding that Law that enacts that no Bishop be appointed without the Consent and Authority of the Bishop of Constantin­ople; pleading for themselves that the Law related only to the Person of At­ticus, and therefore expiring with him, ought to be of no force in the case of his Successors. So that it is plain that such a Law there was, though he tells us not when, or by whom enacted (though it could be made by none but Theodosius the younger) neither how far it extended, whether to other Provinces, or only to Cyzicum, because that was the first and in­deed the only Precedent of their Usurpati­on before the Council of Constantinople; and therefore if that were but once rati­fied by Law, that alone would give Au­thority to all the other Usurpations, that follow'd its Example. But the most sub­tile and artificial Law was that, which [Page 278] concerns the Diocess of Illyricum, where­by all ancient both Customs and Canons are confirm'd, but yet so that if any con­troversie should arise, it is to be determi­ned by the Sacerdotal Convention, but not without the Assent of the Bishop of Constantinople. Here first the Confirma­tion of all ancient Canons was plausible, but the thing aim'd at was under that pretence to slur in the Confirmation of Customs too, for by this time they plea­ded prescriptions for their Usurpations. But 'tis still more pleasant to make the Bi­shop of Constantinople Supreme Judge in those Cases, in which himself was the only guilty Party; so that the design of the Law was only to empower him to abet himself in all his Usurpations. But the most pleasant of all is, not only to justifie Illegal Customs by Laws that contradict them, and to make the Chief Offender against the Law, chief Judge of the Lega­lity of the Custom, but under pretext of ancient custom to bring in meer Innovati­ons. For though the Bishops of Constan­tinople had for some time Usurp'd some Authority in the Eastern Diocesses, yet till this time they never challeng'd any in the Western; but by virtue of this Law, they hoped under-hand to gain it, though we do not find that ever it took effect; [Page 279] And it is probable that this was the first beginning of the open Breach between Rome and Constantinople concerning the Bounds of Jurisdiction; which as it was a great Controversie in after-Ages, Illy­ricum being the middle bound of both Empires, and Theodosius the Great having not long before laid the Eastern Illyricum to the Eastern Empire, whereas all Illyri­cum had till that time belong'd to the Western; his Son, it seems, thought it conventient to have Ecclesiastical Jurisdicti­on follow it, and that probably by the In­stigation and Ambition of Atticus. But what effect it took is not certain, unless it be that the two Prelates, that were by this time setting up for Supremacy in each Empire, engag'd the two Emperours in the contest; Honorius the Western Empe­rour upon the Bishop of Rome's complaint Holsten Col­lect Rom. p. 81. &c. Now inser­ted into the Concil. max. writes to Theodosius to withdraw the E­dict; Theodosius promises to refer it to the Examination of his Praefectus Praetorio; but what was done in it we know not, pro­bably nothing at all, for it was ever after upon any advantage on either side brought into debate, though for the most part the Bishop of Rome was at the last in this, as he was in all other controversies, Victor. But the after-contests about it relate not to my present Enquiry, which is to find [Page 280] out the beginnings of Ecclesiastical Ʋsur­pation; and especially in the See of Con­stantinople, and here more particularly by Atticus.

But though the Constantinoplitans could not prevail in the West, yet they kept their ground in the East. Of Sisinnius who was immediate Successor to Atticus, and his invading the Metropolis of Cyzicum, we have spoken already. To him succeeds Ne­storius a man of that fiery Temper, that had he not shortned his Reign, like Nero, by his own folly and fury, would no doubt have set all the Christian World on fire, as he did Constantinople at his very Consecration, whence he was ever after commonly called the Incendiary. But he had work enough to defend himself and his new Metaphysicks, and was in a little time deposed by the Council of Ephesus. Neither is there any thing material record­ded of Maximianus who succeeded, pro­bably because of the short time of his sit­ting. Proclus is next whose management of matters in the case of Bassianus and Ste­phanus, and divers other Metropolitans, is more remarkable than all the rest, and was indeed the very Settlement of their Usurpation; but because this whole cause was canvassed in the Council of Calce­don, and was withall the first thing that [Page 281] gave occasion of debating the Rights of Constantinople in that Council; I shall re­fer its enquiry thither, which follow'd but a short time after under Anatolius, who succeeded him after Flavianus, and who with his Clergy defended the Prerogatives of the Church of Constantinople in the Council.

But having given this Compendious Historical Account of the Usurpations of that See, between the time of the Coun­cil of Constantinople, who only honour'd it with a Complement, and this of Calce­don, who emprov'd an empty Title into great Eminence of Power; before I pro­ceed any farther, it will be convenient to examine a little what was done in other Churches of the same kind, either by the Example of Constantinople, or rather by their advancement in the State of the Em­pire. For it is certain that the first breach that was made upon the ancient and Apo­stolick Liberties of the Church, was occa­sion'd by the raising of some Metropoles above others in the new constitution of the Empire. The Bishops that resided in the great Cities, that govern'd all the Metro­politan Cities of the Diocess, taking state upon themselves from the greatness and dignity of their Sees, and probably had for that reason a Preheminence of Place [Page 282] and Respect given them; for we find seve­ral of them in a setled possession of honour and precedency at the time of the Council of Calcedon, where were eight of them present, that in every Action are reckon'd before the rest and subscribe in the first place, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Heraclea, Caesarea, Ephesus, that were all Diocesan Cities in the civil division of the Empire; and so had by custom it seems gain'd some honour of precedency. But nothing more; for the Subscriptions to this, as well as all o­ther Councils are made according to the Ancient Division of the Empire into Pro­vinces, not after the new model by Dio­cesses. And though the Bishop of the Di­ocesan City subscribes first, yet he only subscribes as the Metropolitan of his own Province; and in the first place, because first Metropolitan within the Diocess. Though this they would not be content with, without some Supremacy of Power, as is evident from all the forementioned Canons, made on purpose to beat back their several Attempts of Usurpation. But they persisting in their Pretences, not only of higher Privileges, but greater Power than other Churches, at last obtain'd it in the Council of Calcedon, out of meer com­plement and flattery to the Throne of Con­stantinople, [Page 283] for whose sake it was that all the other were advanced with no kindness to themselves; for that being but a pri­vate Bishoprick, it had been too invidi­ous a thing to advance it to so great a heighth, had it not seem'd to give some kind of Equality to those great Churches that could challenge some Title to Prero­gative; and therefore the Council gives them a Superiority of Power over Metro­politans within their own Diocess meerly to countenance that Ʋniversality of Juris­diction, that it gave to the See of Constan­tinople, Canon 19th. If any Clerke have a controversie with another Clerke, he is to complain to his own Bishop, and not the Se­cular Courts; if a controversie with his Bi­shop, to the Synod of the Province; if with his Metropolitan, to the Exarch of the Dio­cess, or the Throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople. The word [...] signi­fies any kind of Supreme Authority, and so we find in the Council of Sardica the Exarch of the Province used as Synonymous with the Bishop of the Metropolis or the head Bishop of the Province. But because it was a kind of Secular word, and was by custom appropriated to the Vicarii of Di­ocesses, it was thought too Lordly by the wise African Bishops, who were of all o­thers the most watchful against the En­croachments [Page 284] of Ambition. And therefore they decreed in the 42. Canon of the Afri­can Code, that no Metropolitan shall be stiled Exarch, but only Bishop of the first See. Which they did, say the Scholiasts, Balsamon and Zonaras, to prevent Pride and Arrogance in the Church; and I do not know that it is any where but in the Council of Sardica given to Metropoli­tans. And the first time that we meet with the Exarch of a Diocess is in the Council of Calcedon; and therefore it is a mistake without bottom in Petrus de Marca, to Lib. 1. cap. 3. §. 5. affirm that this Title is used by the Coun­cil of Constantinople; there indeed we meet with such a thing as a Diocess, but not an Exarch; and the word Diocess is used as a term of Art in the State, rather than in the Church, and signifies only the Metropoli­tan of that City, that is made the Dioce­san City in the new division of the Em­pire, excluding all Superiority over the other Metropolitans of the same Diocess. For the Canon expresly vouches the Su­premacy of every Metropolitan. So that the meaning of the Constantinoplitan Canon is only and plainly this, that whereas by the Decree of the Council of Nice, the Metropolitan had Supreme Jurisdiction within his own Province; yet notwith­standing that these Bishops of the new [Page 285] Diocesan Cities grew so exorbitant as to take upon them Authority in other Chur­ches, even beyond the Bounds of their own civil Diocess; therefore the Council se­verely checks this new kind of Insolence. And that being restrein'd, it immediately adds, That the Supreme right of Metropoli­tans is sufficiently secured by the Council of Nice. As if they should have said, we need take no care for that which is already so well settled; our present business is to restrain this new exorbitance of the Dioce­san Cities. And therefore it is observable that the Canon is particularly made for the five Diocesses under the Praefectus Praetorio of the East; the East peculiarly so called, Aegypt, Asia, Pontus and Thra­ce, as they are there reckoned up: But as in that Council we first meet with the Term Diocess, as distinctly denoting ma­ny Provinces according to the new civil Division of the Empire; So in the fourth Council held at Calcedon, do we first find the Settlement of the Ecclesiastical Exarch of these Diocesses, as set up above Metro­politans.

§. XXIII.

For matters having been long prepared by so many several Attempts of Usurpation, though they were still in general condemn'd by Councils, yet many [Page 286] particulars took effect and pass'd uncon­troll'd, and then they became Precedents to Authorise the same Irregularities for the time to come. But especially Constantin­ople, being somewhat countenanced (as they Impudently pretended) by this very Canon of Constantinople, and having the most ancient prescription in this kind; but chiefly the bold and open practice of St. Chrysostom, who was now the Favorite of the Church of Rome, from whom alone the Constantinoplitans fear'd any Oppositi­on; they thought all things ripe for the full accomplishment and legal Settlement of their Usurpation. And this was the chief design at the bottom in calling the great Council of Calcedon; and though it came upon the Stage last of all, and was brought in very obliquely, yet both par­ties seem to have come particularly pre­par'd for this Combate; and upon every slight occasion have their hands upon their Swords ready to draw. The first breaking out of the Quarrel was from the Contest between Bassianus and Stephanus for the Bishoprick of Ephesus, to which neither of them being Canonically ordein'd, the Council Depose them both; and then the Question is abruptly enough started, where the new Bishop should be Consecra­ted, at Constantinople or Ephesus? Upon [Page 287] this the Council is immediately in an up­roar, the Judges refer it to the Bishops, where the Bishop of Ephesus ought to be regularly ordein'd according to the Can­ons? They all Answer within his own Province, and this Leontius Bishop of Mag­nesia, proves over and above by the Uni­versal practice of that Church, down from St. Timothy its first Bishop. This immedi­ately gives fire to the Constantinoplitans; and though they durst not appear whilst the Cause was referr'd to the Canons, yet the word Custom was no sooner mention'd, than they all Discharge. Philip a Pres­byter of that Church contradicts it with the Practice of St. Chrysostom, who De­pos'd fifteen Bishops in Asia, and ordein'd others in their stead; and among the rest Memnon was ordein'd at Constantinople. Aetius the Arch-Deacon of Constantinople alledges the Precedents of Castinus, Hera­clides and Basilius Bishops of Ephesus, and all ordain'd at Constantinople. To which the Bishops cry out [...]. Let the Canons prevail. And the Constantino­politans answer; Yes let them, but let not the Privileges of the Church of Constantinople be impair'd, and let our Arch-Bishop ordein according to Custom. Here the disingenuity of the Constantinopolitans is notorious, not only to set up custom against the Nicene [Page 288] Canons, for if it were against them, that alone must prove it illegal, but to pre­scribe a Custom from so few Precedents; for St. Chrysostom's deposing fifteen Bishops in Asia, as Philippus pleads, was nothing to the purpose, for his ordeining Bishops at Constantinople, when he did it not at Constantinople, but in the Province of Asia; But Aetius his Plea of custom from the Instance of Basilius is very Impudent, when he was inform'd just before by Le­ontius, that this was done by force, against the will of the Asian Churches, and with great Tumults and Disorders; and yet from this violent and irregular action, which they were forc'd to maintain by the Emperours Authority, he does not blush to insist upon the Plea of Prescription. But the Judges finding the debate so warm and the Arguments of the Constantinopolitans so weak, adjourn the Council to the next day, in which nothing was treated of but the Cause of Bassianus and Stephanus. So that that opportunity being lost, the next Action of the Council was taken up with the Controversie between Eunomius Bi­shop of Nicomedia, and Anastasius Bishop of Nice; Nicomedia was the ancient Me­tropolis of Bythinia, and so the Bishop of it had Jurisdiction over the whole Pro­vince; but Nice having been lately made [Page 289] a Metropolitan City by the Emperour; the Bishop of it thereupon took upon him Metropolitical Authority in some part of the Province, especially in the Bishoprick of Basilonopolis; of this Eunomius makes complaint to the Council, who upon per­usal of the Canons, and the Emperours Letter of Grant, to Nice, determine (as was usual in such cases) that according to the ancient Canons, the Bishop of Nico­media shall enjoy the Metropolitical Au­thority of the Province; and the Bishop of Nice, in obedience to the Emperours grant, Metropolitical honour, but so as to be Subject to his Metropolitan as well as the other Bishops of the Province. This one would think remote enough from the Cause of Constantinople, yet here Aetius is not able to hold, but enters his Prote­station that this Judgement should be no Prejudice to the See of Constantinople, that had Power to ordein in Basilonopolis and other Places. So that thereby the Bishops of Constantinople had a Right to ordein not only Metropolitans, but inferior Bishops, and so this mans Confidence improves in every Action. But here it rais'd the Cho­ler and indignation of the Bishops, and renews their former Cry, to the Canons, to the Canons, and that causes the adjourn­ment of the Council.

The next Action's taken up with the cause of Domnus Bishop of Antioch, and A­thanasius Bishop of Perrha, who being ac­cus'd of great Crimes; Domnus refers the hearing of the Cause to his Friend Pan­olbius, and yet Athanasius declines the Judgement, refuses to appear, and resigns his Bishoprick. And after all this repairs to Constantinople, tells a strange Story to Proclus and Cyrillus, who embrace his ap­peal, especially Proclus, and write to Domnus in his behalf, wherein among o­ther things Proclus desires him not to take it ill as an injury offer'd to the See of An­tioch, that his Bishop should take refuge at Constantinople, but that he did it to a­void the Tumult and Sedition of the Peo­ple; and therefore begg'd the Intercession of Proclus and his Brother Cyril, as the most modest and peaceable way to recon­cile himself to his Metropolitan. Arm'd with these Letters, he returns home, throws out Sabinianus, that was chosen into his Place, and resumes his Bishoprick, of which Sabinianus making his Com­plaint to the Council, they depose Atha­nasius and restore him. Here we may see how ready the Constantinopolitans were to embrace and encourage such Fugitives; but above all the rest Proclus was most forward in these Irregularities, and made [Page 291] the boldest Precedents. It was he that or­dein'd Basilius Bishop of Ephesus at Con­stantinople in spite of the Bishops of the Province; it was he that Protected Bassi­anus, both against the Canons and his Provincial Synod; and it is he that under­takes the fowl Cause of Athanasius, in ap­pealing from his Metropolitan, and with­out making due Enquiry into the Merits of it, right or wrong interposes for his Re­stitution.

And now we come to the 15th. Action in which the Canons of this Council are pass'd; and here the Constantinopolitans seem to have been too subtile for the Romanists, for though they were both upon their Guard, yet the Popes Legates, I know not by what Inadvertency, voted with them, till they came to the twenty eighth Canon, which gave the Bishop of Constantinople a strange 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 last Appeal from the Metropoli­tan of the Province, is to be made either to the Exarch of the Diocess, or the Bi­shop of Constantinople. The design of this is plain enough, the Exarch's or Bishops of the Diocesan Cities were to be gratifi­ed in their Ambition of gaining a Superi­ority [Page 292] over the Metropolitans of the Diocess, and that was enough to oblige those great Prelates, that drew the rest after them to a forward complyance, for any thing that would gratifie the Constantinopolitan Cler­gy, that were the grand Contrivers of this Canon. And that was so order'd as at the same time, that it gave them their Power, it took it away, and settled it all on the Bishop of Constantinople, for where­as their Power was limited to their own Diocesses, his was Universal and unlimi­ted; and that engross'd all their Powers in his own hands. For where several Li­berties of Appeal are granted, if one be greater than another, as all Persons natu­rally resort to that, so that as naturally takes all Appeals from the other Courts in­to its own Jurisdiction, and makes it self Superior Judge of their Proceedings, and last head of all Appeals from them to it self. This was well contriv'd for the Supremacy of their own See; but it is better rivetted in the seventeenth Canon, where it is decreed, that all Controver­sies about Bounds of Jurisdiction, shall be referr'd to the Synod of the Province, and determin'd by thirty years Prescription; but if the Custom be within the last thir­ty years, the Appeal may be made to the Exarch of the Diocess, or the Bishop of [Page 293] Constantinople. And hereby they made themselves Judges of the Legality of their own Proceedings. For as for the Actions of St. Chrysostom, they had been already justified to some purpose by the Church of Rome, and therefore they were secure of their allowance; and as for Proclus's trans­gressions, that they pleaded as their main Precedents, they were within less than the Compass of thirty years; for he sate in the Throne twelve years and odd months, dyed in the year 446. whereas the Coun­cil was conven'd in the year 451. So that by this Cannon they took the last Supreme Appeal, concerning all Irregular Actions to themselves; and when they had made themselves their own Judges, we may be sure that they would not fail to be their own Advocates, and take care of their own Cause. Thus far the Council and the Legates went lovingly together; but the Constantinopolitans having gain'd this Ad­vantage to Authorise their own Innovati­ons; they immediately sweep the three great Diocesses of Asia, Pontus and Thrace into their own Jurisdiction, because they knew they had thirty years Prescription for their Usurpations there. But this was pass'd by stealth, and in the absence not only of the Legates, but in the absence of the Exarch of Pontus, and the vacancy of [Page 294] Ephesus, that were the chief Persons con­cern'd; and by the Votes of not above two hundred Bishops, that were not a­bove the third part of the Council. Of this the Legates next day make grievous Complaint; But Aetius answers as to their Absence, that they absented themselves, and that they were acquaintd with the business, but refused to act, as being be­yond their Commission. And to their Ob­jection of the Canon of Nice, for the Su­preme Power of Metropolitans in their Province, that was here destroy'd, he op­poses after his usual Rate of Impudence the second Canon of the Council of Con­stantinople, for the honorary precedency of that City next to Rome. As for the Pretence of Compulsion, the Bishops of Asia and Pontus, that were most concern'd (for Thrace was already devour'd) declare the freedom of their Vote and Subscripti­on. The other Bishops that had not Sub­scribed, being ask'd their Opinion, were for the most part silent, only Eusebius Bi­shop of Ancyra asserts the right of his Pro­vince of Galatia, and complains of the late invasion of Proclus, in ordeining the Bishop of Gangra within his Province. But here he is school'd by Anatolius, and call'd to give an Account of his own Ordinati­on; to which he confesses, that himself [Page 295] was ordein'd by Proclus, Upon this Tha­lassius Metropolitan of Pontus, and so the Person most concern'd, having been an old Courtier, and seeing which way the Court drove, submits himself to the Bi­shop of Constantinople; the Judges siese his complement, and without any farther Ceremony, Subject the Diocesses of Thra­ce, Asia and Pontus to his Jurisdiction, and so (the Legates having only time to pro­test against it) break up the Council. And thus is this new Power instituted 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 Sub­ject to any Authority out of it; now are the Metropolitans of Thrace, Pontus and Asia reduc'd under an Inferior Bishop, so as to be Subject to him and ordein'd by him. Though the Canon is piec'd toge­ther so awkerdly, as plainly shews the Impudence of its contrivers; they found it upon the Privileges granted by the Council of Constantinople to that See, which was nothing but Precedency of Honour; and yet by vertue of that they Subject Thrace, Asia, and Pontus to its Jurisdiction; notwithstanding that the same Council at the same time, had se­cur'd their Government to their own Me­tropolitans; [Page 296] so that the sence of the Canon was plainly this, forasmuch as the Council of Constantinople hath ordein'd, that Thrace, Pontus and Asia, shall be govern'd by the Metropolitans of Heraclea, Caesarea, and Ephesus, and none other; in pursuance thereof we ordein that both they and their Metropolitans shall be Subject to the Bishop of Constantinople.

§. XXIV.

But all this is only the open­ing of War, and setting up the Standard of Usurpation, for at the News hereof the great Pope Leo is alarm'd, as seeing him­self like to be overtop'd by Constantinople, having so large a Jurisdiction laid to its Authority; a Power which himself and Predecessors had never directly pretended to. But that he might not be surprised, the Council it self takes care to acquaint him with their Proceedings in a Synodical Epistle, in which they tell him, that they had confirm'd the Precedency of Honour to Constantinople next to Rome, because it had been setled upon it by the second ge­neral Pag. 837. eam nam{que} consuetudi­nem, &c. Council; and whereas there had been a Custom of a long standing for the Bishop of Constantinople, to ordein the Metropolitans of Asia, Pontus and Thrace, they had thought good to Establish it by a Synodical Decree, not that they design'd [Page 297] to add any thing to the Throne of Con­stantinople, but only to provide for the Peace of the Churches, especially Ephesus, where had happen'd so many Tumults and Disorders in times of Vacancy; and to all this they say, they were induc'd be­cause they knew it to be a thing very ac­ceptable, not only to the most Christian Emperours themselves, but also to the Il­lustrious Senat, and to the whole Impe­rial City; and therefore desire his con­currence to so grateful a Work. But Pope Leo was wiser than to be put off with such rank Hypocrisie. and first he schools Ana­tolius himself, writes him a sharp Letter, lays all this Prevarication at his Door, twits him with his own scarce Canonical C [...]i [...]tion and then with his presuming to Com [...] [...] of Antioch, and then tells him that he is [...]ry, that after these failings he should be so presumptuous as to infringe the Nicene [...]ons, by which the second Preeminence [...] Honour is setled upon the See of Alexand [...] and the third upon Antioch; and yet [...] withstanding that, he should place him­self about them, and deprive all other Me­tropolitans of their just Honour; for which unheard of Attempts, he abuses the Authority of the Council, that was only call'd to extinguish, not to abet Ambiti­on: [Page 298] But all in vain, for nothing can ever take effect, that is contrary to the Nicene 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 desist from these Attempts for the time to come, and not upon frivolous Pretences, to destroy the Right of Pro­vinces, and the ancient Privileges of Me­tropolitans, not to rob St. Mark's See of Alexandria, and St. Peter's of Antioch of their Dignity; but if he have a mind to advance his own See, his best way to do it, is by being an Example to other Churches in Vertue and Humility, by which he will make himself greater than by all his ways of Ambition. And as for the Canon of Constantinople, that set­tles the second Place of Preheminence upon that See; he tells him that the Apostolick See was never acquainted with it, and that it was now too late to prop up such a tot­tering Title by forcing the shew of a Con­firmation from the Council. And then deals plainly with the Emperour and Em­peress, by acquainting them with the In­solency of Anatolius, and the Illegality of his Attempt to get Power over Metropo­litans, declares his utmost Opposition, and threatens Peremptory Excommunication. And here the only thing he pretends to [Page 299] stand upon, is the Authority of the Coun­cil of Nice, by which the Supremacy of Metropolitans within their Province is establish'd; this Rule he will by no means suffer to be violated, but will have it so Sacred and Unalterable, that it cannot be retrench'd by any Council how great so ever. And therefore he requires Anatoli­us to desist from this Ambition, with some severe suggestions if he doth not, and conjures the Emperour and Emperess not to suffer such an unwarrantable Innovati­on to be thrust upon the Church in their time, as they would not stein the Honour of their Reign. Then he takes the Council it self to task, and sends them too to School to the Nicene Council. After this Epist. 15. Epist. 17. he incites Maximus Bishop of Antioch, to maintain the Right of his See, as it stood setled by the Council of Nice, and not suffer himself, that was the third Bishop in the World, to be thrust down into the fourth place by the Pride and Ambition of Constantinople. At the roaring of this great Lyon (as Baronius wittily insults) they are all affrighted. The Emperour Marcian by Edict nulls his confirmation of the Calcedon Canon, as contrary to the Nicene Canons; and acknowledges all E­dicts of Princes, that are inconsistent with them, not to be obligatory. Anatolius Leon Ep. 7. [Page 300] submits and transfers the fault from him­self to his Clergy, and is hardly forgiven by the Pope, even at the Emperours Inter­cession. See (says Baronius) the Sovereign Power of the Pope over the Catholick Anno 454. Church, who alone was able to reverse and countermand the Decree of six hundred Bi­shops. But for this Complement Pope Leo is beholden to the Cardinal, for in his own Epistles, (though he was a stout and an Imperious Pope, and without doubt de­sign'd the Papal Monarchy of the Aposto­lick See, as high as any of the whole Suc­cession) he makes no such Pretence to any Sovereign Authority; he claims no Pow­er Superior to Metropolitans; nay he ex­presly disclaims it as a Breach of the Nice­ne Canons, and that is the ground of his Remonstrance; so that he here stands not upon his own Authority (as Baronius in­timates) as if it were to overrule a general Council, but only upon the great Autho­rity of the Council of Nice, in obedience to which he enters his Protestation against the Council of Calcedon, declaring they had Power to determin any Causes that were left undetermin'd by the Nicene Council; and that he would not have concern'd himself about it, but whilst they so openly contradicted that, he for his part must declare to all the World that all [Page 301] Canons and Laws contrary to the De­crees of Nice, are ipso facto, null and void. This is short is the plain substance of all his thundering Epistles about this mat­ter.

And so he dying things rested a while during the Reign of Marcian, and the sitting of Gennadius, who succeeded Ana­tolius at Constantinople, and Hilarius who succeeded Leo at Rome. But the Western Empire being then invaded and overrun by the barbarous Nations, Rome it self twice taken by the Goths, and at that in­stant enslav'd by the Hunns, and the He­ruli, and perpetually wasted with Nor­thern Incursions, and reduced into Sub­jection to Forreigners, and at best when they enjoyed any Liberty, were govern'd by a Vice-Roy from Constantinople; This Acacius a bold man, who succeeded next in that Throne, thought a convenient time to recover the grandeur of that See. And therefore obteins a Rescript from the Emperour Leo, to restore him to all the rights, Priviledges and Preeminences that any of his Predecessors ever enjoy'd, and to null all Laws made to the contrary. Sacrosanctam quoque Religiosissimae hujus Ci­vitatis Ecclesiam & matrem nostrae pietatis, & Christianorum Orthodoxae Religionis om­nium, Lib. 16. De Sacrosanct. Ecclesi. & ejusdem regiae Ʋrbis Sanctissimam [Page 302] sedem privilegia & honores omnes super Epis­coporum creationibus, & jura ante alios resi­dendi, & caetera omnia, quae ante nostrum im­perium, vel nobis imperantibus habuisse dig­noscitur, habere in perpetuum firmiter regiae GelasE. 11. urbis intuitu judicamus & sancimus. This immediately nettles Pope Simplicius, and away he writes both to Acacius and the Emperour, rates them both for their dis­orderly actings, and requires them to de­sist from their Attempts. But all in vain, for the Emperour never revers'd his Edict, neither would Acacius yield to any of his demands. Only in the deposition of Ti­motheus Aelurus from Alexandria, he was pleas'd to gratifie the Popes Importunity, and no wonder, when he had been one of the boldest Assertors of the rights of the Church, against the Constantinopolitan U­surpation. The story in short is this: The Tyrant Basiliscus having put the Empe­rour Zeno to flight, and seis'd the Em­pire, he calls back Timotheus Aelurus from Banishment, whom the Emperour Leo had Banish'd because of his restless Temper; but he returning to the Bishoprick of A­lexandria procured circular Letters of the Evag. l. 3. Tyrant to revoke all the Decrees of the Council of Calcedon, and though he did this chiefly for the sake of his Heresie, yet by this means he restor'd the dignity of [Page 303] his own Church, and (as Evagrius records it) the Patriarchal right of Ephesus, which had been taken away by the Council of Calcedon, which though true, the Histo­rian is somewhat mistaken, for Ephesus never actually enjoy'd a Patriarchal Right, i. e. a Power over Metropolitans; but the meaning of the Historian is that it was re­stor'd to its ancient Liberty, which the Council had taken away by Subjecting it to the See of Constantinople; so that it was not restor'd to its own Patriarchal right, but was deliver'd from that of Constantin­ople. But a while after the Tyrant being distress'd by Acacius and his Monks, and hearing that Zeno was marching towards him with a great Army, to appease Acaci­us, he recants his former Edict to Timo­theus Aelurus, and restores the Patriarch­al right of Constantinople; and then he be­ing overcome, and Zeno restor'd to the Imperial Throne, Acacius, who was the chiefest instrument of his Restitution, ea­sily obteins of him to condemn the Ty­rants first Edict, and confirm'd the Patri­archal priviledges of the Royal City. And flush't with this Success and the Emperours deserved Favour; he mounts above all Power in the Christian Church, places and displaces Arch-Bishops in the great Cities of Alexandria and Antioch at his [Page 304] pleasure. When he had depos'd Calendion at Antioch, he would never at all the Popes Importunity yeild to his Restitution: And when John the new chosen Bishop of Alex­andria neglected to signifie his Election to him, he removes him by the Emperours Authority, and places Petrus Moggus in his stead. The Pope vehemently opposes it, but the Emperour at the Instigation of A­cacius, sends his peremptory commands to the Prefect of Aegypt, to Banish John and instal Peter; John flies to Rome and beggs the Popes assistance for his restitution, who entertains his Suit, but dyes before he could effect it, and leaves it to his Succes­sor Faelix, who receives from John Ar­ticles against Acacius, and writes to the Emperour to send him to Rome to clear himself in Council there; but Acacius out­wits his Legates, and draws them into Communicate publickly, not only with himself but Peter Moggus, and sends them Evag. l. 3. Cap. 18. 21. back with smart Letters from the Empe­rour and himself against John, and Impri­sons Faelix the Popes own Kinsman, be­cause he refused to joyn in Communion with them. Upon this Faelix Deposes and Excommunicates not only his Legates, but Acacius and Peter Moggus; upon that Acacius fires, and as he had before Depos'd Calendion from the See of Antioch in spite [Page 305] of Simplicius; so now he puts Petrus Fullo that stood convicted of Heresie by the Apostolick See, in his stead, requites the Pope with his own Curtesie of Excommu­nication, and strikes his name out of the Dypticks of the Church. A second Coun­cil is call'd at Rome, and Acacius Excom­municated a second time, particularly for his Stubbornness against Calendion, and this is signified to the Emperour, the Clergy of Constantinople, and the Eastern Bishops. But Acacius a second time overcomes his Legate with Bribes, and makes him dis­cover all the Plots and Designs at Rome against him, stands undauntedly to his cause; and not long after dyes the very Thomas a Becket of the Church of Constan­tinople, and his memory was so dear to the People of that City, that the Emperour Anastasius a good time after, to make him­self popular to the Constantinopolitans, re­fused to have his name expung'd out of the Dypticks, at the Importunity of Pope Hormisdas for this very reason, lest it might raise a Tumult among the Peo­ple, who honoured his name above all others.

§. XXV.

But though he was dead, the Controversie dyes not with him; Phrani­tas Epist. 13. succeeds, to whom Pope Faelix refuses [Page 306] communion, till the name of Acacius be expung'd; but before the Controversie came to any head, or indeed that he re­ceiv'd the Popes Letter, Phranitas dyes within four months after his Election. To him succeeds Euphemius an Orthodox Bi­shop, he restores Faelix his name to the Dypticks; but because he would not ex­punge Acacius, Faelix admitts him not to Liberaetus Cap. 18. Communion; and writing a Congratula­tory Letter to the Emperour Zeno, for the choice of so good a Bishop, he tells him that this is the only thing that remain'd to perfect his Reformation; and then writes to Thalassius, Prior of the Monks of Constantinople, and Vetranio the Deposed Bishop of Antioch, not to Communicate with the Church of Constantinople, till the name of Acacius was expung'd, and that they had leave from the Apostolical See. And that Plea is very observable in his and Leo's Letters; many strictures there are of it in the other Popes from the time of In­nocent the first, but these finding them­selves over power'd by the Court of Con­stantinople, leave the Plea of Primacy from the dignity of their City, and the Vote of the Council of Nice, and insist upon no­thing but the honour of St. Peter, and the Authority of the Apostolick See, to bear up against the greatness of Constantinople, [Page 307] and the favour of the Emperours to their Imperial City; and by the Confidence of this new Plea bore them down, opposing the name of St. Peter, to what ever the Emperours Enacted; and at last this Pope made a Decree, that in Ecclesiastical mat­ters Gratian dist. 10. the Priestly Authority ought to over­rule the Imperial, knowing that if that were cut off from the See of Constantin­ople, he could easily over-top all its pre­tences, that was t'other day but a private Bishoprick by Ecclesiastical Law and Pre­scription. And as he raised this Pretence so high, none of his Successors would ever abate it; Gelasius a stiff man that follow'd next, refuses all Communion with Euphe­mius of Constantinople, till Acacius is ex­pung'd; the pretence of all which wrath was his Complyance with the Eutychians in his latter days; but the first Quarrel was his Ambition to over-top Rome, and therefore the Romanists resolv'd never to let the business fall till they had blasted his name and memory, that had been their boldest and most dangerous Adversary; and that is the thing insisted upon in all Galasius's Epistles to the Oriental Chur­ches, that Acacius is never to be forgiven, as dying in open Rebellion to the Autho­rity of the Apostolical See; which alone as he tells the Bishops of Dardania in his [Page 308] 13th. Epistle, is sufficient to warrant his Condemnation. And therefore to pre­vent mistakes and Objections (that pro­bably were made at that time) he Pub­lishes his Manifesto, that the Council of Council Max. Vol. 4. p. 1227. Calcedon was not sufficient to justifie his Proceedings; and that though that had given him so great Authority, yet that being contradicted by the Apostolical See, was in it self void, the Acts of Councils having no force or validity without the Confirmation of the Apostolical See. And so came out the meaning of their Zeal a­gainst Acacius; the Cry was his Comply­ance with the Eutychians. But, I pray why is that a Crime? Because condemn'd by the Council of Calcedon, for either (as Galasius begins his Manifesto) Ne fortè, quod solent, dicant, &c. But if it be said, as it commonly is, that if we admit the Coun­cil of Calcedon, all its Decrees are to be equally admitted, but if we admit not all, we lose the Authority of every part, and then what becomes of your out-cry against the Eutychians and Nestorians by virtue of that Council? To this he replys, Let the world know that what the Apostolical See confirm'd, was good and valid, and ought to be receiv'd of the Catholick Church; but if there were any thing there treated of and determined, that the Apo­stolical [Page 309] See dislik'd, it was null and void. And thus he boldly gain'd his Point, when the Council of Calcedon was set against it self in the Cause of Acacius, to distinguish between what was and was not allowed by the Apostolical See; for so the cause was carried both against the Eutychians and the Bishops of Constantinople, for the first they pass'd, and the last they disa­vow'd. So that the Authority of this Council was at last cast upon the Bishop of Rome; and so far as he was pleased to allow it, it was valid, but if not, it was against the Tradition of the Catholick Church. And to shew the great Authority of the Apostolick See, he takes upon him in a private Synod of his own, to Con­firm 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 use of St. Peters Prima­cy: for so he begins his Decree; Sancta Romana Catholica & Apostolica Ecclesia nul­lis Synodicis constitutis caeteris Ecclesiis pr­lata est, sed Evangelicâ voce Domini & Sal­vatoris nostri primatum obtinuit, Tu es Pe­trus, inquientis; And upon this, pretends to pass his Judgement at Random, but with full Apostolical Authority, and hath to shew his Judgement, rejected most of [Page 310] the best writers of the Christian Church, and admitted great numbers of others, both counterfeit and fabulous, and that may pass among the other Proofs of his Infalli­bility; though in those days they were not come to that Degree of Confidence; But however here is St. Peter's Primacy with a witness, not by Ecclesiastical Cust­om or Constitution, but by Divine Right, and that over the Catholick Church; for so he expresly affirms in the Preface of his Decree. Here is Primacy or Precedency by Custom turn'd, First into Divine Right: Secondly into Authority; whereas before the Quarrel with Constantinople, no Bishop of Rome ever pretended to any Power in another Province; but now the Bishop of Constantinople aims to mount above him by assuming equal dignity, much greater Authority and larger extent of Jurisdicti­on, he is resolv'd to out-bid him, and no less Diocess will content him than the whole Catholick Church. And thus was the Supremacy of the Church of Rome foun­ded meerly upon the Ambition of the Church of Constantinople. Galasius having thus laid the foundation of the Papal Empire, he dyes, and Anastafius succeeding in his stead, the first Act of his Reign is to dispatch his Mandate to Anastasius the Emperour, demanding Justice upon the name of Aca­cius, [Page 311] and requiring his obedience to the Apostolick See, and having thus made his Protestation, he dyed. Though Gratian, not­withstanding he quotes the very Epistle in which Anastasius requires of the Emperour to Expunge the name of Acacius out of the Dypticks, is so blind as to tell us, that he was struck by the Judgement of God, be­cause he endeavour'd his Restitution. Quia vo­luit occultè revocare Aca­cium, & non potuit, nutu Divino percussus est. Dist. 19. Cap. 9.

And though his Successor Pope Symmachus had work enough to defend himself against Theo­dorick an Arrian King, and the Accusations of some of the great men at Rome, and con­tinual Domestick Disturbances, yet he will not let this Contro­versie fall; and in pursuit of it Excommunicates the Empe­rour Anastasius; upon which the Emperour writes an Inve­ctive against him; in answer to which, Symmachus writes a brisk Apologetick, from which it appears that one of the great Articles of their Contest was about Communicating with the name of Aca­cius, i. e. keeping it in, or blotting it out of the Dypticks. And then having bound up the Emperour, he writes to the Ori­ental Bishops, to submit themselves to the Apostolical See, under pain of Excommu­nication. Quia si ab eorum, quos Apostoli­ca sedes damnavit, non se societate remove­rint, sciant nullo colore, nullo figmento, nul­laque calliditate Ecclesiasticae se custodiae posse Subrepere. The Bishops at least some them being scar'd either with his bold [Page 312] proceeding against the Emperour, or his Imperious Comminations against them­selves, return him a very meek and sub­missive answer, renounce Acacius and all the Hereticks, and beg to be restored to the State of Salvation, by being received into the Communion of the Apostolick See: But who they were, or how many, we know not, because there are no sub­scriptions of Names. The Effect of it, as we find by the Instructions of his Succes­sour to his Legates, was that it set the Bishops at variance, and reduc'd all things to dispute and Confusion.

§. XXVI.

But the next Pope Hormis­das, being a Stout and Resolute man, and finding himself in a better State by the favour of two great Kings, Theodorick of Italy, and Clodoveus of France, and the Emperour Anastasius in a much worse by the Rebellion of Vitalian the Scythian a­gainst him; he resolved not to lose the opportunity, especially when he found the Stout Emperour begin to bend, for he made the first offer of Treaty, and that with Humility enough, only blaming the stiffness of some of this Popes Predecessors towards himself, and profering for the Cure of the present Schisms, to call a ge­neral Council. This the Pope finding, re­ceives [Page 313] the business as loftily, justifies his Predecessors, and to his motion of a gene­ral Council tells him, that when he knows the cause of calling one, he will give him his Answer. The Emperour replyes, It is for curing the Schisms and Divisions in Scythia; the Pope rejoyns that he will let him know his mind by his Legates. To them he gives private Instructions, not so much as to condescend to any treaty, but upon entire Submission to the Apostolick See: If the Clergy neglect you, take no notice of it, if they court you, refuse any Feast or Entertainment, till by the Recon­ciliation both Parties are first qualified for the Participation of the Holy Feast: when you deliver my Letters to the Emperour, if he enquire of you their Contents, pre­tend perfect Ignorance, and refer him to the Letters themselves. But if he persist to enquire what you stand upon, tell him the Council of Calcedon. If he say the Bi­shops are ready to do it, ask whence then arise those divisions and animosities a­mong them. To which if he answer, that they were enflam'd by the Letters of my Predecessor Symmachus, tell him that there is nothing faulty in them, unless it be as­serting the Council of Calcedon. No a­batement! But if he say, Communicate with me, I embrace all you desire, both [Page 314] the Council and the Epistles of Pope Leo▪ Reply, That we Sir, believe your Inte­grity, but we first desire your care to make up the breach of the Church. If he ask how; Reply with all humility that your Holy Father hath written about that to the Bishops themselves, second these Letters with yours, declaring that you will be govern'd by the Apostolick See, and then as the Orthodox will never leave its unity, So the Hereticks will discover themselves; but if he ask you in the mean time to Communicate with the Bishop of Constantinople; By no means, till the Peace be concluded. But what if he receive the Council of Calcedon and Pope Leo's Letters. Tell him you are glad of that, but refer him for clearing himself to his Tryal be­fore the Council. If the Emperour reply, What will you not leave me my Bishop here for my Spiritual guide. Tell him, You cannot help that, the Canons force him to attend the Council, and that he hath ma­ny other Remedies for Ghostly advice, without injuring the forme of Proceed­ings. If he ask what they are. Tell him, the business will soon be at an End, if he will refer it to the judgement of the Apo­stolick See. If he consent to all, I may come my self. But above all things they are ordered to avoid the Bishop of Canstan­tinople, [Page 315] not so much as to discourse the Emperour before him. And if he desire it, excuse your selves by answering that part of your Errand is to accuse him, and there­fore you can say nothing before him till he appear to answer in Council. In short the Council of Calcedon and Pope Leo must be submitted to by the Emperour, and all the World; Acacius and the Hereticks must be disclaim'd, the banish'd Orthodox Bishops restored. And if there be any prose­cution of that nature, it is to be referred to the Apostolick See. Here hath this cunning Pope betrayed the whole Plot: The Pre­tence was to be the faith of the Council of Calcedon, but the design was to bring both the Emperour, the Rival Bishop of Constantinople, and all the Bishops of the East to a Submission to the Supremacy of the Apostolick See; this he follows with a Letter to the Emperour, to let him know that the Bishop of Rome was not wont to be Summon'd to Council by any Emperour of them all, but cares not if he comes, so the Faith of Calcedon be own'd, Pope Leo justified, and Acacius condemn'd. The Emperour complyes in all things, on­ly he desires to be excused in the case of Acacius, for fear of raising Tumults among the People. But the Pope continues stub­born, the Emperour writes to the Senate [Page 316] of Rome to soften him, who tell him that nothing is to be done till Justice is first done upon Acacius his Name. And so en­ded the first Embassy. But there follows a second, in which he plainly tells the Em­perour in the first place, that it is in vain to talk of any Reconciliation till Acacius is condemn'd. But whilst both Parties stand stiff upon these Terms, the Emperour dy­ed. And Justin Succeeds, who having but an ill Title, courts this Powerful Pope, and for the same reason the Pope courts him. The Emperour first writes to him in the name of the Bishop and Clergy of Constan­tinople to mediate a Reconciliation. But still the answer is, Let them first deliver up the name of Acacius, and submit to the Apostolick See. The Bishop of Constantin­ople complyes with him in all his demands, only omitting that concerning Acacius; the Pope tells him it is all trifling till that be done, and then adds: Post haec quid re­stat Epist. 29. in se ut Sedis Apostolicae cujus fidem a Te dicis amplecti, sequaris etiam sine tre­pidatione judicia? The same he writes to the Emperour: And then sends new Le­gates Epist. 31. with Instructions, like those given to the first in the time of the Emperour Anastasius, and writes by them to the Em­perour, that no Regard ought to be had to such Persons that Subscribe the Coun­cil Epist. 32. [Page 317] of Calcedon if they refuse to joyn in the condemnation of Acacius, as condemn'd Epist. 34. by the Apostolick See. This he repeats to John Bishop of Constantinople, and mak­ing Interest with the Emperess and great men at Court, both the Emperour and Bishop yield, and expunge the Name of Acacius; And so the Peace is concluded and the Pope Triumphs; and if the Rea­der desires to see with what Insolence, he may peruse his following Letters, in which he demands the Submission of the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch as well as Constantinople, sends his dispatches into all these Western Parts of the World to inform them of his Victories, insults over the Bishops and Clergy of Constan­tinople, receives their Appeals, and or­ders their Affairs, Governs all Christen­dom, keeps Justinian himself in awe, and dyes in the heighth of his Glory. One of the most fortunate Popes in the whole Succession of the Papal Empire.

§. XXVII.

But as great Conquests sel­dom long survive the Conqueror, so it hap'ned here after the Death of this huffing Pope. For Justinian coming to the Crown, and being resolute and succesful, and with­all Orthodox, he knew his own Power, and if he used it, the Popes had no advan­tage [Page 318] against him for his Religion, as they had against Zeno and Anastasius. And though he was forc'd to court and com­plement Hormisda, and to serve his Impor­tunity to serve his own turn; yet he be­gan at last to grow weary of him, and writes one Letter to him to dispatch this business, and another not to be so severe with the names of dead men, and bobs him with a saying of his Predecessors: Quia vester quoque Praedecessor beatae recordatio­nis ad memoriae principalis Anastasium scrip­sit, ut Si nomen Acacii tantumodo tollere­tur, una nobis esset Communio; That is the plain truth, and Justinian saw through the meaning of all this stir; the Bishops of Rome were resolv'd, if it were possible to trample upon the Pride and Presumption of Acacius, that it might never become a Precedent to any of his Successors, to nose them as Acacius had done; but Justinian not regarding their displeasure, turns the 28th. Canon of Calcedon into an Imperial Law, and institutes new Patriarchates by his own Authority, Carthage and Justini­ana prima the place of his Birth, Novel 131. Though how he came to enact so many Ecclesiastical Laws as he did, 'tis difficult to discover; for himself was altogether un­learned, not so much as able to read; and Trebonian the Lawyer, whom he employ­ed [Page 319] to compile the work was an Heathen, and so but little skill'd in or concern'd for Laws in the Christian Church; and there­fore Baronius not improbably conjectures that this part of the work was perform'd by the two Bishops of Constantinople, Epi­phanius and Menna, and Implicitely con­firm'd Ad annum 528. by the Emperour: And then no wonder if they took care of the dignity of their own See; but whoever drew up the Ecclesiastical Laws, it was taken care of, and the Emperours became oblig'd in ho­nour to their Imperial Laws, as well as their Imperial City to see it preserv'd. And Constantinople being thus firmly setled in its Patriarchal Honour, it ever after held it. How this and the other Exarchs came by the Title of Patriarchs is scarce known, only it is certain that the Title was bor­row'd from the wandring Jews of those times, who wherever they setled in any Considerable Body, especially in the East, had a Supreme Governour whom they stil'd their Patriarch; but in the fourth Century they were abrogated by Theodosi­us the younger, for their intolerable inso­lence; and so this Title and Authority be­ing taken from the Jews, it was in a little time after applyed to the Exarchs of Di­ocesses, and so we find it used in the Coun­cil of Calcedon, as Synonomous with the Ti­tles [Page 320] of Arch-Bishop and Exarch; and that's the first time that I know of its being us'd in the Christian Church. I am sure we meet nothing of it in the Theodosian Code, but in the Jewish sence. And from the time of the Council of Calcedon it is only used in the Christian Sence, nothing more frequent in the Justinian Code, and the Acts of the fifth Council under Justinian. And though it was at first given to all the eighth Exarchs, yet but five of them re­tain'd either name or thing, the other three being swallow'd up by Constantin­ople; this was the beginning of the five famous Patriarchates, and the first time that we meet with them reckon'd all to­gether, is in the 36th. Canon of the Coun­cil in Trullo under Justinian the 2d. Anno Dom. 691. where the Order of Preceden­cy is determin'd, having never been de­fin'd before by Synodical Authority; how the other four came by this dignity is clear from this foregoing discourse, Constantin­ople leading the way, which I have prov'd to be so far from being instituted the last, that it was the first] of all, and that it was for the sake of that, that the Rest were advanc'd to this Dignity. For though Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, had by Custom and the Nicene Council gain'd the honour of Precedency; yet they never pre­tended [Page 321] to any Power more than Metro­political, till such a Power was given to the Bishop of Constantinople, and then these having ever been as it were Prerogative Churches, and being then Diocesan Cities in the new civil Division of the Empire, could not but be advanc'd for shame to the same Superiority of Power over the Me­tropolitans of their own Diocesses: But how Jerusalem could come to the dignity and Authority of a Patriarchate, is, I must confess, a great Mystery; for though true it is that it was the Mother Church, of all Christian Churches, so that if any Church could Chalenge any Superiority over all others, that had the fairest Plea; yet it was so far from so high a Claim, that it was never advanc'd to the Power of a Me­tropolitan, but was ever subject to the Metropolis of Caesarea; and yet now I know not how all on a suddain it is ad­vanc'd to Patriarchal Sovereignity. But by what means or upon what grounds, it being no Diocesan City, I cannot find. Sozomen indeed informs us that St. Cyril Lib. 4. c. 25. of Jerusalem had attempted to remove the Metropolitical Jurisdiction from Caesarea, to his own See, under pretence of its be­ing the Apostolick Throne; but that A­cacius the present Bishop of Caesarea was too hard for him, and upon the Provocation [Page 322] proceeded with that severity against him, as to procure his Deposition by a Pro­vincial Synod. So that no Alteration was effected at that time as to Metropoli­tical, much less Patriarchal Dignity. But Petrus de Marca tells us, That Juvenal De instit. Pag. 192. Bishop of Jerusalem taking Advantage of the Quarrel between Cyril of Alexandria, and John Bishop of Antioch, in the Council of Ephesus, endeavoured to bring both the Palestines that were Subject to Antioch, under his own Jurisdiction, and effected it by the Emperours Edict, procur'd by the Bishop of Constantinople to make way for the great leap that himself was taking out of a Subject Bishoprick, over the heads of great Metropolitans. And it is certain that Juvenal was a great Court-Parasite, and so might obtain such Letters, but that he did I know no Proof, and wish this Lear­ned man had produc'd his Author, that this mystery might have been unriddled. That Juvenal had such a design in the Council of Ephesus, I find in Pope Leo's Letters to Maximus Bishop of Antioch, Epist. 16. Sicut enim in Ephesina Synodo Juvenalis Episcopus ad obtinendum Palestinae Provin­ciae Principatum credidit se posse sufficere, & insolentes ausus per commentitia Scripta fir­mare, Quod sanctae memoriae Cyrillus Alex­andrinus Episcopus meritò perhorrescens, [Page 323] scriptis suis mihi, quid praedicta Cupiditas ausa est, indicavit, & solicitâ prece multum poposcit, ut nulla illicitis conatibus praebere­tur assensio. I cannot tell what he means by the commentitia scripta, unless pretended Mandates, from Court, but it is likely he ob­tained not his request in that Council, when Cyril that govern'd all there was so violent against it; however he kept up his Pretence so powerfully, that Maximus at last was forc'd to compound with him, and the composition was setled by a Re­ference to the Council of Calcedon, that Maximus should keep Arabia and both Act. 7. the Phaenicias, and Juvenal should have the three Palestines. This is all the account that I can find of the Institution of this fifth Patriarchate, that had no other foundation than Juvenal's Impudence in stealing three whole Provinces, and leaping over the Head of his own Metropolitan. Though the Truth is Juvenal hereby offer'd no In­jury to the Rights of the Bishop of Anti­och, but only rob'd him of part of his Spoyls, as Thieves and Beasts of Prey are wont to serve one another; for the legal Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Antioch reach­ed not beyond the Province of Syria, and all the other Provinces that were shared be­tween him and Juvenal of Jerusalem, were only the gains of Usurpation, and when a [Page 324] man hath no Right, he hath none to lose; all Usurpers are in Mr. Hobb's his State of Nature, that live by mutual Stealth, and have no Law or Measure of Right but present Possession. And therefore Juvenal had as good a Title as Maximus, and in my Opinion somewhat better; for of all men the first that does wrong is least ca­pable of Right, and they that rob him of his Prey do some Justice to the wronged cause. And it must be confessed that the See of Antioch had been a great and an old Encroacher, as we find by the Case of the Cyprian Bishops, whom in the time of In­nocent the first, it would have swept away with divers other Provinces; For so the Pope commands that that Island should do as other Provinces did, in submitting themselves to the Bishop of Antioch; so that it seems there were then some Pro­vinces that were quite carried away cap­tive, and it was in the Popes Eye a great Singularity in the Bishops of Cyprus (who probably were the last to be conquered as being an Island) to stand it out when all others had long since yielded up the Keys of their Supremacy into his hands.

§. XXVIII.

But to return to the two great Champions of Rome and Constantin­ople. Pope Hormisdas being dead, I do not [Page 325] find that the War broke out in the time of the two next Successors, John the first and Faelix the third, whose Reigns were too short for any great Action, especially the first, whose whole time was taken up in an Embassay to Constantinople, and after his Return, in Imprisonment; and as he lived not two years, so his Successor Faelix lived but two months, and odd days beyond it. But it is probable that the Constantinopo­litans not regarding the Articles of Peace, went on in their accustomed Usurpation, and it is no wonder if Complaints were not so suddainly brought to Rome; and that likely was the Reason that we hear nothing of this business under these two Popes: But in the time of Boniface the 2d. who sate but two years it broke forth with great Violence. Stephen Bishop of Laris­saea the Metropolis of Thessaly being cano­nically elected and ordained, was by the Faction of Probianus one of his own Suffra­gans, and the Authority of Epiphanius Bishop of Constantinople Irregularly de­prived of his Bishoprick; he appeals to Rome, and tells a sad story of his Suffer­ings; Boniface Summons a Council, where the whole business was canvased from the beginning: for now the War coming near­er home into Illyricum, which the Popes had hitherto kept, it alarm'd the Jealousie [Page 326] of Rome, lest they should lose so great a Part of their Jurisdiction; the Com­plaints of Stephen are read, and the sum of the Story is, that he was deposed for not owning the Authority of Constantinople, and appealing as in duty bound to the A­postolick See; and among the rest he tells them, That when he did but mention that the Pope should at least be acquainted with the matter before Sentence was Pronoun­ced, they for that reason were so severe upon him, Quod dictum magis eos adversum me amplius incitavit; putantes de Sacrarum Ecclesiarum Regiae urbis jure aliquid minui, quod Ego Apostolorum vestram sedem visus sum nominasse. And in the second Session, Stephen with two other Bishops of his Pro­vince Elpidius and Timotheus, tell the Council that the Constantinoplitans endea­vour to bring their Province under the Constantinopolitan Jurisdiction, that after that Example no man may dare to speak of the right of Churches and Custom of Antiquity, because their design is to bring other Provinces under the Authority of the Royal City. But this Controversie concerned Rome it self as closely as the Bishop of La­rissea, and therefore upon this Occasion they fall to examining the right of the A­postolick See to Illyricum, and to that purpose produced many Letters of former [Page 327] Popes and Emperours to prove it; Pope Da­masus is the first, but cited Impertinently enough; when Maximus the Cynick pre­tended to the Bishoprick of Constantinople, he writes to the Clergy of the City against him, and desires them to choose a fitter Person; from whence this Council would infer some Authority of the Pope over Con­stantinople it self, whereas the Letter inti­mates no such thing, nor doth Damasus 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 Person; nay, he is not come so far as the Language of the Apostolick See, that was set up after his time to oppose to that of the Royal City. But any Logick will serve Ambition. The next is Siricius to as little purpose, who writes to Anysius Metropolitan of Illyri­cum, that he suffer no Ordinations to be made there without his own Consent, as the Canons of Nice command; this is a doubty proof of Siricius his Pretence to Authority over Illyricum, when he only writes to a Neighbour Bishop, than which nothing was at that time more common, to observe the Canons. Anastasius is pas­sed over: Innocent the first speaks with more confidence, and adviseth with more Authority, as if he would, but durst not [Page 328] pretend to an Authority over Illyricum, and therefore he only Commends it in an half Commanding way to the Govern­ment of its own Metropolitan. Zosimus the next Pope is passed by, his Reign was short, and spent in his African and Gal­lican Usurpations. Boniface the first comes next, and he indeed talks bigger words, and insists much upon the Apostolick Chair, and it was but time, for then the Royal City was come to its heighth of Glory. What the matter was is not evident, but something had been done by somebody in the Province of Illyricum, that must not pass, and that too by somebody that was no more than an ordinary Bishop, who took upon him to set up against the Apo­stolick See, and who that was, is easy to guess. Audio Episcoporum quosdam Apo­stolico jure contempto novum quippiam contra Christi propriè praecepta tentare, cum se ab Apostolicae Sedis Communione, et ut dicam verius (that is but faintly said) potestate se separare nituntur; Eorum petentes Aux­ilium (that is the Crime) quos Ecclesiasti­carum sanctio regularum majoris esse non de­dit Potestatis. The intimation is plain e­nough, but lest he should not be through­ly understood, he tells us which was the second and the third See next to Rome, and how that they had alwayes been so civil [Page 329] as to be content with their Place; and as for the City of Constantinople, when Theo­dosius had a Design to make Nectarius Bi­shop, he sent for the Consent of the Apo­stolick See. So that there was the grie­vance (whatsoever the particular cause was) the Bishop of Constantinople's medling with any thing in Illyricum. But matters rested not here, the Emperours were engaged in the Controversie, and it is referred to the Praefecti Praetorio, as appears by Ho­norius his Letter to Theodosius, and Theo­dosius his Answer. But it came to nothing, for we find the same Controversie depen­ding in the time of his Successor Celestine, who writes to the same purpose as Boni­face had done, to keep all Forreign Juris­diction out of Illyricum, to settle its Government under the Metropolitan of Thessalonica. But at length the Romanists gain ground, for in the Letters of Xy­stus that followed next, we find him Con­gratulating the Conversion of Perigenes, who had raised all the Controversie, by appealing from the Bishop of Thessalonica to Constantinople, and his Submission to his Metropolitan, and withal writes to Pro­clus of Constantinople to be more cautious against the Subreptions of Bishops (for that was their term for Uncanonical Appeals) and that for the time to come he entertain [Page 330] none of the Clergy of the Province of Illy­ricum, without commendatory Letters from the Bishop of Thessalonica, which broadly intimates that Proclus had been guilty of some Subreption in that Province. And then in the last place writes to the Bishops of Illyricum to stand upon their guard against Forreign Jurisdiction and be obedient to their own Metropolitan. Nec his vos, fratres Chrissimi, constitutis, quae praeter nostra praecepta Orientalis Sy­nodus decernere voluit, credatis tenere prae­ter id quidem quod de fide nobis consentienti­bus judicavit. Neither, my Brethren, think your selves obliged by the Decrees of the Eastern Council, unless what it defin'd as to matters of Faith with our Consent. Now this Eastern Council that he here speaks of, could not be that of Calcedon, he be­ing dead eleven years before it was called, and therefore could be none but the Coun­cil of Constantinople, which giving only Preheminence of Dignity to that City next to Rome, had been it seems pleaded for Preheminence of power over other Provinces. But now comes the Council of Calcedon, and Letters of Pope Leo, of which we have already given an Account, though besides them, there are some others that are preserv'd only in this manuscript of this Roman Synod (first published by [Page 331] Holstenius, and now inserted into the Con­cilia Max. in its proper place, with his own Learned Notes upon it.) One to the Pag. 1717. Emperour Marcian, herein he declares his Reconciliation to Anatolius upon his Sub­mission, and an Answer to him from Ana­tolius, in which he farther excuses himself. De his autem quae Constantinopolitanae gratiâ sedis, &c. But the most remarkable Letters that are thereby preserv'd, are one to Anastasius Bishop of Thessalonica, and two to the Metropolitans of Illyricum and Achaia, in which he Subjects all the Me­tropolitans of both to the Ordination and Authority of the Bishop of Thassalonica as his Vice-Gerent, and sets up Appeals from the Provincial Synods to him. So that at the same time that this great Pope is beat­ing down this Ambition at Constantinople, out of pure reverence to the Canons, is he breaking the very same Canons in Illyri­cum by setting up a Jurisdiction, Superi­or to Metropolitans and Provincial Sy­nods. So much for this Synod of Rome under Boniface the second, for here the in­script ends, and a short time after the Pope dyed; so that what was the Event we know not, only it is certain that Rome held the Possession, for it was never taken from them and given to Constantinople, till the time of Leo Isaurus, who being Ex­communicated [Page 332] by Gregory the second, in the Controversie about Images; he to be reveng'd of the Pope, laid both this and a great deal more of his Territories to the Jurisdiction of Constantinople.

§. XXIX.

But to return to the time of Justinian, after the Death of Boniface; the Controversie slept under John the 2d. but broke out by a side wind under Aga­petus, who being sent on an Embassy to Constantinople, found Anthimus then Bishop of it an Eutychian, glad of which he Schools the Emperour for Electing such an Here­tick; this brings the Emperour himself into Suspicion of Heresie among the Peo­ple, and that forces him for his own Justi­fication to Publish his Confessions of Faith, in some of which he sordidly Flatters the Roman Bishop, and at his Importunity de­poses Anthimus; and such an Affront as that to the Patriarch of the Royal City, was Victory enough for Agapetus, though he had the fate of Epaminondas to know but not survive his Conquest; for Anthi­mus was not Synodically deposed till after his Death, by the Council of Constantin­ople under Menna, whom the Pope had en­gaged the Emperour to prefer to that See; However Agapetus had the Glory of the Work, and to him it is ascrib'd by the [Page 333] Monks of Constantinople, who were the Act. 1. Solicitors against Anthimus. This was one of the greatest blows given to Constantin­ople by Rome during all this Civil War be­tween the two Sees, for a Bishop of Rome to depose a Bishop of Constantinople, to confirm it by the Civil Sanction of the Emperour, that was the deposed Bishops Novel 42. Patron, and put a Creature of his own in his stead, who was oblig'd to be grate­ful and obedient to his Creator, and accor­dingly he concludes the Sentence against Anthimus, with paying Devotion to him. We follow and obey the Apostolick See, and those that it Communicates with, we receive to Communion, and those that it Condemns, we Condemn. And he was all his time such a Spaniel to the Bishop of Rome, that he fetch'd and carried at his Command, and so when he Subscrib'd to Justinian's Edict, against the tria Capitula, he did it with this Reserve, That if the Bishop of Rome approved not the Edict, that then his Subscription should be null and void. But the Contest ended not so, for though Aga­petus scaped scot-free by speedy Death, his Successor Silverius paid the Reckoning. The­odora the Empress taking Anthimus his part sent Vigilius to Belisarius then at Rome, to command Pope Silverius to restore Anthi­mus, who refusing it, was accused of High [Page 334] Treason, for holding Correspondence with the Goths, and so deposed and thrust into a Monastery, and Vigilius put in his place, who getting it by Usurpation, Legitima­ted it by a legal Election upon the Death of Silverius, and when that was done, de­fy'd the Empress, and refused to restore Anthimus, huffs the Emperour in defence of the Privileges of St. Peter's Chair, Su­spends Menna the Bishop of Constantinople, together with all the Eastern Metropoli­tans, Chatechises the Emperour with the Rod of Excommunication in his hand, Actually Excommunicates the Empress, and all her Favorites, especially Theodorus of Caesarea, opposes the Emperours Edict, coneerning the third Capitula, Excom­municates Menna, and all that subscrib'd it, so incenses the Emperour that (to shel­ter himself against his displeasure) he is forc'd to take Sanctuary in St. Peter's Church, and then by night to escape to Calcedon, where he forces the Emperour to revoke his Edict, and brings Menna and Theodorus to Submission: Necessitates the Emperour to call fifth general Council, and when they are met refuseth to sit with them, tells them that he will signi­fie his mind by writing, forbids them to Decree any thing till they understand his Pleasure, opposeth the Emperour and [Page 335] Council in the Condemnation of the three Capitula, is banish't, and in his Banish­ment Condemns the three Capitula him­self, and calls the Decree of his Condem­nation [...] which Word was pro­per to the Emperour's Edicts. Upon all which there is one pleasant observation in Petrus de Marca, of the great Authority that the Pope then had from ancient times, in that Vigilius shew'd great Reve­rence to the four first general Councils, because they had been confirm'd by the Pope, but this fifth he would not so much as design to give it the Title of Council, because it wanted his Consent. After this manner are we forc'd to catch at every thing, how remote soever, for our Supre­macy; for otherwise so wise a man as de Marca could have concluded nothing else from this Action of Vigilius, than his own unparalell'd Insolence and Capriciousness; for what can be more extravagant than first to force a general Council, and when it meets, to take State or Pet, and refuse to joyn with them, and forbid them to Act without him; to send his Perempt­ory Opinion to the Emperour against that of the Council; and when he is banish'd for his Perverseness, to send a kind of Imperial Edict to declare his Consent to their Decree; and after all this refuse to [Page 336] give them the Civil Title of a Council? all this can argue nothing, but a very weak and Childish Peevishness. And yet is he brought off, not only for his Unchange­able Constancy, but for his wise and pru­dent Conduct in the whole Management of this Affair. And in the first place he is his own Apologist, and gives a fair Ac­count as he thinks of his own Innocence, in his Decretal Epistle of Recantati­on, and first he saith: The Devil cheated him, and by his Subtile Insinuations had drawn him in without regard to Brotherly Love and Charity to sow Discord and Di­vision in the Christian Church. This is a very fair Confession of a very foul fault, the Crime is great in it self, and how much soever the Devil shar'd in it, the guilt will lye at his own Door; otherwise if that were any excuse for a Crime, it is common to all Mankind, and every man may as well as the Pope load the Devil with his own Miscarriages. But if the Devil were so busy and Malitious with the head of the Church in this matter, that is a sign that it was of very Mischievous Consequence to the Body: For Mischief is the Motive of his Zeal, so that where he is most Active, he doth most harm; and what can be worse than for the first and most Honourable Bishop in Christen­dom, [Page 337] upon whom at that time in a great Measure depended the good Government of the Church, to demean himself after that Factious and Disorderly rate, no body knows for what, neither himself why, but that the Devil, he knows not how, had blown a cross-grain'd Capricio into his head. An admirable Apology suited to the Tem­per and the Modesty of the Man. But what will he say to his contradicting him­self so grosly and publickly in the face of the World? To that his answer is easy and ready. That he was grown wiser and might retract as well as St. Austin. It is true, but then neither he nor St. Austin must be infallible, but I think infallibility was not then pretended to, and therefore shall not object that; But what will he say for the Fury and Vehemence of his Actings whilst he was mistaken? let him confess his ill Manners as well as his Er­rour. With what rudeness did he treat the Bishops, and will he now give them no Satisfaction? Menna, and the Eastern Bi­shops were wrong'd and disgrac'd by his Excommunication, will he make them no amends, not so much as ask them for­giveness? take no notice either of his own folly, or their Injury, but only after an Im­perious manner, and in the Imperial Stile command them to be of their own Opini­on. [Page 338] But the most Surprizing excuse for their Inconstancy, is that of his Successor Marcas dis­sert. de 5 to. Concilio, in the Concilia Maxima, Vol. 5. p. 601. Epist. ad Ep Ist. c. 8. Pelagius the second. Si igitur in trium ca­pitulorum negotio, &c. Concil. Max. Vol. 5. P. 611. What if he grew wiser upon enquiry in the business of the tria Capi­tula? Why must the change of a Man's Opi­nion be objected to this See, which is Ho­noured by all the Church in its Governour, for it is not the Change of Opinion, but the Inconstancy of Apprehension that is to be bla­med. When therefore an unchangeable reso­lution holds out to the discovery of Truth, what harm is it, if leaving his Ignorance, he alter his Story? Truly none at all, if he were a modest 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 so foolish or so ignorant as himself. But this is a pretty Device to prove that let a Pope change his mind never so often, he is al­ways constant to himself, and so indeed are all the greatest time-servers; It is not the men but the times that alter, they are always true to themselves and their own Interest: but however I will not charge that upon this Action, and will allow that Vigilius might be an hot-headed honest man, and was not wrought upon by hopes or rears in his Recantation: Yet sure let [Page 339] us not be born down that he never chang'd his opinion, only because he always thought himself in the Right; neither let men go about to excuse his extream Indi­scretion for his Violence and fury either way, and when he was grown so much wiser, as to find himself deceiv'd, he should have been so much wiser too, as at least to think it possible for him to be deceiv'd again, and not without any acknowledge­ment of his Blunder, to Impose his new Opinion upon all the World under pain of Damnation; and that upon those very Persons, that he had before so Perempto­rily Damn'd for holding it: Certainly all this is very inconsistent with good man­ners and prudent Government, but would have been Intollerable if he had pretended to that rank Infallibility that his Succes­sours now challenge. But the man that brings him off with Triumph and flying Colours is the Learned P. de Marca, in a Treatise purposely written upon the Ar­gument, and since inserted into the Concil. Max. Vol. 5. p. 601. in which he thought he had done such a good piece of Service to the Apostolick See, as might very well suffice to expiate all his suppos'd Offences against it, as he tells Innocent the tenth in his Supplicatory Libel, after he had been four years kept out of his [Page 340] Bishoprick, and probably this promoted his Dispatch; for not long after he receiv'd his Confirmation: And I must confess he deserv'd it, for he did his best Endeavour, and hath with no small shew of Learning made the Cause look somewhat fair and plausible, though when all's done, it is so Transparently bad, that nothing can re­lieve it. First he pleads that this was a Controversie, not concerning Faith but Persons. So that if the Pope were mista­ken it was a matter of no great moment. But if it were not, why did he make such a stir about it; to what purpose should 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 inexcusable by this Apology, in that all this outragi­ous Zeal was not spent upon any point of Religion, but only the Opinions of some private men, and that's the highest Ag­gravation of a Schism to break the Peace of the Church, for things in which it is not at all concern'd. But secondly, this Controversie was not only about Persons, but points of Religion, i. e. Whether such Opinions held by such Authors ought to be condemn'd by the Church or not? Vi­gilius was a long time for the Negative, and then at last in his Decretal Epistle [Page 341] condemns them as contrary to the Christi­an Faith, and Blasphemous Impieties: and certainly the Christian Faith is, if any were, concern'd in such Cases as contra­dict or Blaspheme it. So that if his last Decree be true, he had been all along an Assertor of Blasphemy; but if it be not, then it is still False. So strangely hath the man entangled himself with his own Passion, that no Wit or Ingenuity can set him loose from his own Folly. But not content with this slender Excuse, the Learned man proceeds to make out his pru­dent Management of the business. For we must know, saith he, that there are two ways of Exercising Ecclesiastical Dis­cipline, either strictly according to seve­rity of Canon, or with Temperament abating of rigour of Law, when by that the Peace and Unity of the Church may be better preserv'd; Both which ways Vi­gilius acted, as he was directed by change of Circumstances, for preservation of Truth and Peace. And yet the Pope car­ried things so awkerdly, that he hath cros­sed the Apology both ways. For as for Rigour of Canon, he had no such Pre­tence to oppose the Condemnation of the tria Capitula. And whereas he pretends that it look'd like correcting the Council of Calcedon; if that were of any force, it [Page 342] takes away all Government; for upon the same Terms no new Law may be Enacted, lest it reflect upon the Imperfection of former Legislators. And upon the same ground the Council of Calcedon it self ought never to have pass'd with Authori­ty, because 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 Coun­cils, as Pope Leo determins, yet that Rule concerns matters of Faith, and not parti­cular Controversies, relating to single Persons; and therefore it is no way per­tinent to the Rule it self, to affirm that these Authors ought not to be condemn'd of Heresie, because they are not particu­larly condemn'd by the Council of Calce­don, especially when Vigilius himself pleads in his Decretal, that the Opinions them­selves were condemn'd for damnable He­resies, and then the Case is plain, that whoever holds them, ought to be cen­sured as an Heretick. However he had no Canon to Justifie his first Obstinacy, and therefore it is a meer Precarious Plea of de Marca. And then to pass by many intermediate Actions, upon which our Learned man would put a fair Gloss, his last Decree was so far from Temperament, [Page 343] that it was more Furious than all the rest; for he might have condemn'd the tria Ca­pitula to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church, but then what need of char­ging them with so foul a thing as Blas­phemy? for if he only condescended for Peace sake, he ought to have passed them over with a general Sentence of Condem­nation. But if he condemn'd them for their own Impiety, then there was no Condescention in the Complyance, but what he did was in prosecution of an In­dispensable Duty. So unhappy is this great man in his labour'd Apology: That where he pleads strict Law, there was perfect Liberty, and where he pleads Li­berty, there was strict Law. And that was the unlucky Fury of that Passionate Pope, that which way soever he went, he was always in the wrong. And therefore how confidently soever Vigilius might look, after his Recantation, and whatso­ever Apologies the Roman Clients and Parasites may have made to varnish over the Action, it was the foulest Baffle that was ever given to that See, and lost them as much ground as all the huffing of Leo the Great and Hormisda had gain'd. And therefore the Constantinopolitans having got this Advantage, and the Emperour on their side, who indeed had plaid foul play [Page 344] in this whole matter, for he promised to call a general Council, of an equal num­ber of Eastern and Western Bishops, and yet Summon'd only the Eastern, and the Pope himself, who was to appear in Per­son, and not by his Legates, of this the Pope had reason to complain; but then he ought in prudence to have stood to it, and not to submit; for when the Council was conven'd by his procurement, and he was so openly overrul'd by it, he gave them that Advantage that they would be sure never to lose. And therefore as I was saying they made their best of it, and finding themselves Masters of the field, resolved to make good their Ground, and pursue their Victory; so that having over­top'd all the other Patriarchates, and ha­ving no Rival lest but Rome, they were now once more embolden'd to push for an Universal Supremacy.

§. XXX.

And their Pursuit was very easy, there being no enemy to make head against them; for Pelagius the first that Succeeded, having subscrib'd the late Council, with which the Western Bishops being highly displeased, for the Affront and neglect that had been put upon them, they refused his Communion, insomuch that he could procure but two Bishops [Page 345] and one Presbyter to be present at his Consecration, and instead of Forreign Wars, he was wholy employed in setling Peace at home; and that is the Subject of his Epistles to perswade his Neighbour Bi­shops to a Reconciliation, and incite the Courtiers to bring them to it by Violence and Compulsion; so that he was never so much as able to recollect his Scattered Forces. Neither were his three next Suc­cessors, John the third, Benedict the first, and Pelagius the second, the Western Church being over-run with Schism about the tria Capitula, and Italy it self miserably harrast by the Lombards, only the last labour'd (or rather Gregory in his name, and by his command) to reduce his Bishops to obedi­ence, but all in vain, for they were too head-strong, and both his Interest and his Arguments were too weak; of the latter I have given a tast in his Endeavour to prove Vigilius constant in his Inconstancy. But now are we come to the very Pharsa­lian Field, in which was determin'd the Empire of the Universal Church. For Gregory the great Succeeding, a man of a Military Education, great Courage, Po­pular Piety and Devotion; he is no sooner setled in his Throne, but he labours every where for the settlement of the Church, and by his great Activity obtein'd an U­niversal [Page 346] Authority in it, Deposing Patri­archs, and comptrolling Provincial Sy­nods; and as he took to himself the Of­fice of Universal Pastor, so John Bishop of Constantinople assum'd the Title, and ob­tein'd to have it setled upon him and his Successors, by the Authority of Mauritius the Emperour. This puts Pope Gregory into a Rage, and he immediately Flies out against it, as the very heighth of Anti­christian Pride and Insolence, especially when Mauritius had given him the Title of Fool, for with that he begins his Com­plaint about this business; the first Let­ter that he sends to Mauritius is to com­plain of his being call'd Fool, and tax'd of indiscretion, and minds him of that Re­verence Lib. 4. Ep. 31. that is to be shewn to the Priest­hood by the Example of Constantine the great; in the next he thunders against the Title of Universal Bishop, but so opposeth the setting of the name upon the Bishop of Constantinople, as to settle the real Au­thority of the thing upon the Bishop of Rome; for that is his Argument, that though St. Peter and his Successours re­ceiv'd from our Saviour Universal Power over the Church, yet he was so modest as never to challenge the Title of Universal Apostle. But this is an odd kind of Coun­terfeit Humility that is practised by the [Page 347] Popes of Rome, whilst they make the proudest claims to give themselves the humblest Titles, and under the name of Servus Servorum, to make themselves Princes of the World: But however, if the thing were granted by our Saviour to St. Peter, I understand not what Pride it would have been to have own'd it by its proper name, especially when the Go­vernment of the Church through all Ages depended upon the clearness of his Title to it; so that the Result of the Argu­ment is this, that it was a proud thing in John of Constantinople to assume that Title that was only due to himself. But this moves not the Emperour, who only re­turns him this answer, as Gregory com­plains, ut cum fratre & Consacerdote meo Joanne debeam esse pacificus, i. e. to be sa­tisfied Epist. 34. with what is done. Upon this he Beleaguers the Empress, and lays the stress of his cause upon the injury that was done to St. Peter, not to himself, and tells her that she ought to be kind to his Church out of Gratitude, because she had receiv'd the Absolution of her Sins by vertue of his Authority: So that it is not the cause of the Catholick Church, that he so Zea­lously appears for against Constantinople, but of his own See. And though he would make it seem to be the cause of the [Page 348] whole Church, by inferring that if he were Universal Bishop, he would be sole Bishop too; yet the Consequence is equal­ly odious and Illogical; for could he not pretend to a regular Power over all other Bishops, but presently there must be no other Bishops besides himself? He had Supreme Power within his own Patriarch­ate; Was he therefore sole Bishop in it? Nay St. Peter (as St. Gregory informs us) was Universal Pastor, though in modesty he would not take the Title: Was there therefore no other? If it follows in one case, it follows in both, if not, in neither. And when he tells the Emperour Mauriti­us that the same Title that John had U­surp'd, was offered to the Bishop of Rome Epist. 32. by the Council of Calcedon, but was re­fused because it seem'd to diminish the Ho­nour of other Bishops. Though here I doubt his Holiness somewhat leases, for no man besides himself ever heard of any such offer; neither was there so good un­derstanding between the Pope and the Council in this matter; they granted him Precedency, or the Title of the first Bi­shop, but nothing of Supremacy; So that it is but another cast of St. Gregory's Lo­gick, to infer one from the other. But supposing the Truth of the Assertion, does it follow that they therefore resign'd their [Page 349] Bishopricks, and constituted him sole Bi­shop of the World? This were too ridicu­lous and too precarious to affirm, so that he dares not do it here; for the Reason that he gives of the Refusal is, because it would diminish the Honour of other Bishops, but certainly it is one thing to lose a little Honour, and another to be strip't of all Authority. This therefore is plainly an Invidious Consequence of St. Gregory, to infer from the Title of Ʋniversal Bishop that of sole Bishop, thereby to draw all other Bishops to his side. So that it is plain the Competition was between these two Sees, who should have the Universal Monarchy, and not between Constantin­ople and the Catholick Church; Neither was it the cause of St. Peter that he pleaded but his own, for St. Peter never alledg'd that we know of Tu es Petrus for any Uni­versal Monarchy; nay if we may believe St. Gregory never openly own'd it, or if he did, he was long since dead, and what happened now was none of his, but his Successors cause; however this is a poor begging of the Question, for humble St. Gregory to transfer the Odium of the Con­troversie from himself to St. Peter, unless he could have better prov'd that St. Peter either had or pretended to any such Uni­versal Authority. Then he falls upon the [Page 350] Bishop himself, and Preaches him a Ser­mon Epist. 38. of Humility, and to his former Ar­guments tells him, That by assuming this Title he will become like Lucifer, when he said he would ascend above the Stars and the Clouds, because the Bishops are Stars that enlighten mens minds, and Clouds that rain upon them Showers of Truth. But Bishop John knowing that Bishops were neither Stars nor Cloudes, was not affrighted with the Argument of ascending so high, for he knew he stood upon firm Ground, and had both Empe­rour and Empress to support him. And therefore taking Occasion to write to the Pope about another business stiles himself, as the Pope complains in his Letter to Sa­binian, Epist. 39. pene per omnem versum [...] Patriarcha, and so dies the Prince of Pride, the Forerunner of Antichrist, and the Fa­ther of Blasphemy; all which Titles and a great many more St, Gregory hath be­stowed upon that of Oecumenical Bishop. But whatever became of him, Cyriacus his Successour was not at all scared with St. Gregory's Threatnings, and persists in the same claim with his Predecessour; Gregory writes to him to lay aside that Nefandum Nomen, and intimates as if it were to be the Article of their Communion. The Lib. 6. c. 4. Emperour writes to him and taxes him [Page 351] with indiscretion to make such a stir about a Epist. 30. frivolous name; he answers, and that indeed wisely enough, That though he very much disliked the thing, yet he was not so indiscreet as for that to deny Commu­nion with him; and that though it were a frivolous name, it was of dangerous Consequence, and would make way to bring in Antichristan Pride into the Church. And then he endeavours to Epist. 31. draw to his Party the Patriarchs of Alex­andria and Antioch, and makes it their Controversie, as well as his own; and the better to induce them to it, he is content to divide St. Peter's Primacy between the three Sees; but this was to no purpose, for they had in the time of his Predeces­sour Pelagius the second, given their con­sent to the thing in a Council of Constantin­ople, as himself intimates; and Pelagius complains, that it was done in their own L. 4. E. 34. L. 1. E. 8. Conventicle. And so the Controversie rested all the time of Mauritius; but he being Barbarously Murder'd by his Rebel Servant Phocas, who was not content to deprive his Master both of Crown and Life, but first Murder'd him in his Chil­dren, Sacrificing them all before his Eyes, before he laid the Knife to his own Throat; one of the greatest instances of insulting and inhumanity, that is upon Record. [Page 352] And yet this Brutal Wretch, that had no pretence, nor Title to the Crown, but a casual and suddain Tumult, that had thus Brutishly Imbrued his hands in Royal Bloud, was no sooner setled in his Usurped Tyranny, but St. Gregory Congratulates the Providence that delivered the Empire from its former miserable Condition, and plac'd him on the Throne for the publick good. And this I must confess I cannot but take very heinously from a man that pretended to so much Integrity; for as for his Prevaricating in the Controversie of Universality, it is possible that he might not understand 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 boasting so much of it) to be guilty of the haughtiest Pride with­out being sensible of it. He believ'd him­self a very humble and Mortified man, and therefore never suspected any Proud designs in his own Actions, and for that reason that vanity that he thought Anti­christian Pride in another, he thought consistent with humility in himself. But this was downright Dishonesty to justifie such a wretch in his Villany, only to serve his own Ambition, for the old Complaint against the Bishop of Constantinople is in the Tail of all his Flattery; when once [Page 353] he found that he had got into the Tyrant, in his first Letter he Congratulates the happiness of the Times, and the Goodness of God in his Advancement to the Throne. Epist. l. 11. He presently sends his Apocrisiary accor­ding to ancient Custom to reside in the Epist. 38. Court of Constantinople, as the Tyrant de­sired, and excuses himself that there were none residing before he came to the Epist. 45. Crown, by the badness of the Times and the Barbarity of their usage: The Tyrant be­ing thus prepared, he Assaults the Em­press, as thinking that she was more easily to be overcome with Flattery; and when he had discharg'd that Topick with Ful­somness enough, he then thinks fit to in­sinuate Epist. 46. his own Interest, Rogare forsitan debui, &c. What encouragement he found Pag. 1535. I know not, but it is certain that he took heart upon it, and therefore writes to Cy­riacus himself after a more Peremptory manner than he was wont to do in the time of Mauritius, advising him, That Epist. 47. he make haste to remove out of the Church, the Scandal of that Perverse and Proud Title, lest he find himself sepera­ted from the Communion of his Peace. But after he had thus Flattered and caress'd the Tyrant in all his Wickedness, he liv'd not to reap the Fruits of it, for the Title of Universal Bishop was not taken from [Page 354] Constantinople and setled upon the See of Rome, till the time of Pope Boniface the third his Successour, who obtain'd from Phocas to declare that it appertain'd not of Right to the Bishop of Constantinople, who had Usurp'd it, but was the peculiar right of the Roman See. This Boniface had been St. Gregory's Resident at Court, and for his Courtly behaviour toward the Tyrant, was chosen to succeed in the See; and Cyriacus a little after falling under the Tyrants displeasure, for siding with the Relations of Mauritius, and declaring a­gainst the Execrable Murder of Phocas, Boniface seizes the Opportunity of his displeasure, and easily prevails with him to declare by publick Edict, That the Bi­shop of Rome was Head of the Universal Church, and commanded the Bishop of Constantinople to forbear assuming that Ti­tle to himself.

And thus having shewn by what de­grees this See advanc'd it self in the Chri­stian Church, till at length it gain'd U­niversal Supremacy over the Catholick Church; it is not at present material to shew how it used it, that is another dis­pute, my present business is to shew that there was no such thing from the begin­ning, either by Divine Right, or Aposto­lical Prescription; or so much as Ecclesi­astical [Page 355] Constitution in the following Ages in the Church; that it was never preten­ded to, till the 5th. nor setled till the 6th. Century; and lastly, that its setlement was made by a very Incompetent Autho­rity; and that so very late, that it was only born time enough to be Elder Brother to Mahumetanism, that being brought forth under the Reign of Phocas, and this under his immediate Successour Heraclius: But here Baronius is very merry, and tells us, That when we make such a noise about Anno Dom. 606. the Popes being first made head of the Church by Phocas, we are like a pack of Hounds hunting a painted Hare: or like Saul's Mes­sengers that when they thought they had ta­ken David, found they had only a Logg to their Prisoner: For ahlas what if Phocas did declare this Title, to be the Right of the Bishop of Rome; did he therefore first grant it? Is it not evident from all the Re­cords of the Church, that the Bishop of Rome ever had it in all Ages? Is it not then ri­diculous that when this Tyrant out of a Pique to Cyriacus happened to do it right, to in­fer that it had none before? For if we search the Annals of the Church from our Saviours coming, to Phocas his Reign (which is 600. years) we shall scarce find a year to have passed without a Precedent of the Popes Pri­macy; and this is so clear that it will be [Page 356] easier to deny that the Sun shines, or the Fire burns, than to obscure the Glistering Evi­dence of this Truth. Boldly said Cardinal! But your cause requires it, for it is no­thing but Confidence that sets you up and bears the People down; for they cannot imagin that you should be so peremptory in your Opinion, without an Infallible as­surance of your being in the Right. But when these general Challenges are reduc'd to particular Precedents, what work do you make with the Records of the Church? your whole business is to impose upon and pervert every thing that concerns your selves, so that I must crave leave to be as positive in the right as you are in the wrong, and tell you that there is not one Precedent in the ancient Church on your side, and that the whole Practice of the Catholick Church is a perpetual Precedent against you. And that I may not be con­fident as you are without just Reason; I will close with your Chalenge and appeal to the Monuments of the Church. I have already told mine own Story out of them honestly and Impartially, and if it be true, your Cause is overthrown, for then it is certain that the Power you pretend to by Divine Right is meer Usurpation, and for the truth of it, I must leave it to the judg­ment of the World; and though I doubt [Page 357] not but that there may be divers less mate­rial slips and mistakes in it; yet I am so assur'd of my own Integrity, that I know that as to the main Point I drive at, I have Irrefragable Truth on my side: And there­fore having done mine own part of the work, you may demolish it if you can; I will now return back with you to yours, and examine those 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 that Catches the Painted Hare. But at present I am tyr'd with this tedious Chace of 600 years, and therefore shall adjourn the Match till the next Season. In the mean while I shall only desire the Reader to observe that I dispute not in a Destructive and Negative way, nor Inte­rest my self in the Quarrel of this or that particular Party. My only Concernment is for real Truth, which I must and will assert against all sorts of Opposition. And therefore in every part of this Argument I shall begin with the Demonstration of that, and that being firmly laid, I shall from thence proceed to the Conviction of all kinds of Errour. For the Enormity of Errour lyes meerly in its distance from Truth, and if the Distance be the same, it is all one to me whether it lye East or [Page 358] West. So that this will engage me in the Opposition of all Extreams, and I shall make no difference between Parties, how much soever they differ between them­selves, that agree in departing from the true Constitution of the Christian Church. For the only rule and measure of our Re­formation is the Original Practice of the Primitive and Apostolick Church, and the Corruption of the Church of Rome lyes in nothing else than its departure and separa­tion from that, so that the only design of reforming the Christian Church is to re­turn so far back to its first Constitution, as the Church of Rome hath departed from it. And if we do not limit it by those Bounds that are prescrib'd from the begin­ning, we may indeed make ten thousand alterations in the Church, but not one Reformation. And therefore if any other Churches that have cashier'd the Corrup­tions of the Church of Rome, instead of reforming themselves by the Primitive Rule, have erected any new Fabrick of their own devising, whatever Titles they may give themselves, they are in the same Case and Condemnation with the Church of Rome, and instead of amending its Er­rours, have only exchang'd the old Apo­stacy for a new one.

Seeing therefore the defence of Truth will engage me in a defyance to all sorts of Errour, I shall forbear particular Ap­plication to any Party of men, till I come to sum up the Evidence in the Conclusion of the whole, because 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 shall prove the Church of Rome to be much more Catholick than it thinks it self to be. And shake some of its most Zealous Friends and Fiercest Enemies into the same bagg of Communion.