man if he shall but put the premises and conclusion together thus It was Ignatius's command to the Magâ—â—siâ—ns that no man must do any thing â—n his own head without the Bishop and Presbyters but when they assemble together they must have one prayer one supplication adding one mind one hope in charity in joy unblameable therefore in Ignatius's time there was no other Officer instituted in the Church which related to more Churches in his office or to any other Church than a single particular congregation 27. If this be the manner of concluding Church-models from antient Writers I shall not wonder that the Prâ—latists wayes of inference have been disliked for I acknowledg they beare no proportion with this For certainly 1. if he had spoken of some single congregation which constantly met in the same place within the same walls and bid them when they thus met they should have one prayer one supplication as one mind one hope this would onely conclude that there were such particular congregations and so we know among us every Parish Church is where none but the publick Liturgie is used but this would no way conclude as the hypothesis doth that there is no other but such A particular affirmative hath no power of excluding all but it's self Ignatius's speaking of a single house cannot conclude it his opinion that there is no Town no City no Province no World made up of all these nor consequently that he which is Ruler of that house may not also be placed in office in the City in the Nation c. 28. But then secondly 't is manifest that in this place where he talks of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he talks also of the Bishop and Presbyters and the Prefacer hath not yet told me that his particular congregation will bear all those a Bishop and Deacon or Deacons he said he could allow but then that Bishop was to be but a Presbyter whatsoever he was call'd And therefore I may suppose that a Bishop and Presbyters in Ignatius's sense such as he makes two orders superiour to Deacons and all three in that Church of the Magnesians to which he speaks will not be born by his particular Congregation and therefore even that which Ignatius here speaks of was not such 29. Thirdly They that live under a Bishop and Presbyters and doe every one of them somewhere or other assemble with other Christians in some one place as whosoever assemble in any place must assemble in one may yet all of them make up above one single congregation the several Christians of the City of Oxford may live obediently under the Bishop of Oxford and uuder the Presbyters of that Citie and every one assemble 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 partake constantly of the Church-meetings some at St. Peters others at Allhallows and every one at some or other and yet all those make up many particular Congregations and the Bishop govern them all and so relate in his office to them all and by the several Presbyters ordain'd and instituted to the several charges administer and order all 30. Nay fourthly the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might fitly be rendred no more but unanimous â—rayer all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 continue in concord and in prayer one with another in the Epistle to the Trallians and that may equally be done whether they meet all in one or in many places And so still he hath not gain'd so much as his particular affirmative from hence that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here spoken of by Ignatius referr'd to a single congregation which yet if it did were farre enough from concluding the none but such 31. Lastly It is farther evident from Ignatius 1. that there is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Catholick Church 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church in Syria joyned under himself as their one Pastor i. e. a National Church and thirdly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church of Syria at Antioch a Metropolitical Church and so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church which presided in the place of the Region or Province of the Romans a Metropolitical and Provincial Church again And fourthly in every Epistle a Church under a Bishop Presbyters and Deacons which the world hath hitherto call'd a Diocesan Church consisting of many single congregations 32. It is not easie to reckon up all the inconsequences of this inference whereby the Prefacers hypothesis is concluded from this Testimony of Ignatius These may at the present suffice till farther discovery be made by him what medium will be chosen to draw this conclusion out of these premises which seem not at all inclin'd to it And so though we are not come much nearer to a conclusion of this controversie there is yet no season of adding more to the debating of it and therefore so much for this Section also Sect. 2. The mysterie of iniquitie Clement's argument for the allaying the sedition Proofs of the Congregational way invalid The contrary more than intimated by Ignatius The Ecclesiastick distributions contemper'd by the Apostles to the Civil 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ignatius Num. 1. THat which next follows is the telling us three things that he will not insist on and onely one fourth that he will and me-thinks that should not detain us long He thus begins 2. Being unwilling to goe too far ouâ— of my way I shâ—ll noâ— 1. Consider the severals instanced in fâ—r the proof of Episcopacy by the Doctor seeing indeâ—iâ—blâ— the interpâ—etation must follow and be prâ—poâ—tioâ—ed by the generall issue or that state of the Church in the daâ—es wherein those Epistles weâ—e wâ—… or are pretended so to be if that appear to be such as I have mention'd I pâ—â—sume thâ— Doctor himself will confesse thaâ— his witnesses 〈◊〉 worâ— to his businesse for whoâ—e confirmation he doth produce them Nor 2. Shall I insist upon the degeneâ—ation of the institutions and appointments of Jesus Christ concerning Church-Administrations in the mannagement of the succeeding Churches as principled and â—pirâ—ted by the operative and efficaciâ— us mysterie of iniquity occasion'â— and advantaged by the accommodation of Ecclesiasticall affaires to the civill â—istâ—ibuâ—ions and aloâ—ments of the poâ—â—tical state of things in those dayes nor 3. Insist much farther on the exceeding dissimiliâ—ude and inconfâ—â—mity that is between the expressions concerning Church Officers and 〈…〉 these Epistles whence ever they come and those in the wâ—â—tings of unquestionable credit immediately before and after them as also the uâ—ter silence of the Scripture in those things wherewith they so abound The Epistle of Clemens of which mention was made before was wriâ—ten for the composing and quieting of a division and distemper that was fallen out in the Church of Corâ—nâ—h Of the cause of that dissention that then miserably rent that congregation he informes us in that complaint that some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were wrongfully cast from the Ministry by the multâ—â—uâ—e and he tells you that these were good honest men
to that of Origen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Governour of the Church of every City must keep conformity to the ruler of those that are in the City Contr. Cels l. 3. but also in hypothesi that so it was particularly in this of Corinth 26. To which purpose it were easie to multiply testimonies which put it out of question that Corinth was a Metropolitical Church and so is recorded to be in all the Notitiae that are extant But I shall content my selfe with one testimony that of Saint Chrysostome who asketh this question 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Why writing to the Metropolis he writes i. e. expresses himselfe to write to all by or through that whereas in other Epistles he doth not doe so for writing to the Thessalonians he no where addresseth it to the Macedonians also and writing to the Ephesians in like manner he comprehendeth not all Asia and the Epistle to the Romans was not addrest also to the inhabitants of Italy but here this he doth and in the Epistle to the Galatians for there also he makes his addresse not to one or two or three Cities but to all every where dispersed saying Paul an Apostle to the churches of Galatia where as Corinth at the time when Saint Paul wrote that Epistle is by him supposed to be a Metropolis and so Thessalonica and Ephesus and Rome so both in the Epistles to the Corinthians and in that to the Galatians there were more Cities than one to whom they were addrest And then I suppose there is a full testimony to all and more than I undertook to prove from it At the present it sufficeth Corinth saith he was a Metropolis and that in the Ecclesiastick notion when Saint Paul wrote to it 27. What the Prefacer farther addes is for the examining my next proofe or evidence that Clement's Epistle belonged to the Churches of Achaia and not to Corinth onely because the Epistles of Saint Paul appear to have done so And besides the scoffs and the demurer accusation about Grotius which shall anon be considered all that he replyes is 1. That though St. Pauls being expresly and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 directed to the Churches of Aâ—haia cannot be confined to the Church of Corinth yet Clement directing his Epistle to the Church of orinth onely without mention or insinuation of any intention to extend it to any other handling in it the peculiar concernment of that Church and a difference about one or two persons therein cannot be supposed to be written thus to the Churches of all Achaia Secondly That in his opinion I might more probably have adhered to a former conjecture of mine concerning two different Churches with distinct Officers in the same City though this would not suffice neither 28. To these I reply 1. That oâ— Paul's onely one the second is expresly directed to all the Churches of Achaia and yet the former is without that expresse direction already sufficiently cleared and not here denied to belong to the same Churches and the same reasons hold for this of Clemens which was written to them to whom â—aul wrote and not to the Church of Corinth but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church ad acent the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the territorie that belonged to it And therefore secondly That this is more than an insinuation of an intention to extendâ—t â—t to those other Churches Thirâ—ly That the concernments of the Epistle are no way restrained to the particular Church of Corinth but by common to the other Churches of Achaia Fourthly that the difference or rather sedition doth no way appeare to be peculiar to the Church of that one City The one or two if they signifie strictly no greater a number than two might yet as probably be in any one or two other Cities of Greece as in that one of Corinth And there is no probability of reason to conclude that the Errors about the Resurrection c. had spread no farther than that one City 29. Lastly for his opinion that I might more probably have adhered to my former conjecture concerning the two different Assemblies of of Jewish and Gentile Christians in one citie All that I need say is that though I still adhere to that conjecture as far as ever and no way feare what he threatens that any use which I shall repent of will or ever can be made of this concession yet I never thought fit to apply it to this matter both because here is no need of such aids and I may have leave to think the Prefacer would not have suggested it to me if there had and that if he had had any way to wrest the former hold from me he would not thus have attempted it by diversion and because as I am not sure that there ever were two such distinct Coetus at Corinth under distinct Bishops onely from the authority of Dionysius Bishop of Corinth that there were two parts of their first plantation one from Paul another from â—eter so if there ever were yet they might before this time of Clement's writing be made up into one body as I know the Jewish and Gentile Church at Rome that had been under different Governours were now united under Clement 30. And therefore to conclude this matter I desire every man may be allowed liberty to use his own arguments and answers and to take his owne time to produce and apply them and that till what hath been said be refuted I may be permitted to think that the whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bishops or Elders in this Epistle of â—lement are the singular Governors of the severall cities of Achaia 31. What he saith by the by of Act. 20. 8. and Act. 14. 23. that those two places must be excepted from the universall negative that there were never more Bishops than one in a city he cannot but know how little force it hath against me who have manifestâ—d out of Irenaeus that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders or Bishops â—ct 20. were the Bishops of Asia not of the one city of Ephesâ—â— and that the Elders ordeined in every Church Act. 14. were the Bishops ordeined at Lystra Iconium and Antioch and not any plurality of Presbyters in one city 32. Having now done with all the three former particulars wherein Ignatius and Clement Episcopacy and Presbyterie were concern'd there remains onely that which is personal to me in relation to Grotius but that consisting of several branches of which it will presently appear how many or rather how few of them have any degree either of weight or of truth in them 33. The first is very light and unconsiderable that in interpreting all in every place 1 Cor 1. 2. Grotius saith the same with me And would not any man believe this assertion of the Prefacer take it on his word and not think it needfull to examine it but resolve it is so much the better and that thereby it
the Church at Corinth and through Achaia might be numerous both Paul and Peter having labour'd there succesfully yet for some tâ—me there were not any where so many but that the Bishop and his Deacon or Deacons might be sufficient for them 13. So likewise the being a Metropolis is no argument that there should be Presbyters by this time constituted there for supposing as I doe and my grounds have been largely set down that the Apostles conformed their models to the Governments and forms among the Nations where they came at their first planting the Faith in any region it must follow that the Church of Corinth as soon as it was formed into a Church with a Bishop over it was also a Metropolitan Church in relation to all other Cities of Greece which either then did or should after believe as Jerusalem was to all the Cities of Judea or as Philippi being a prime Citie or Metropolis of Macedonia and the first where Paul planted the Faith was straightway a Metropolitical Church how few or how many Christians there were in it it matters not 14. And therefore for his change of the scene from Corinth and Clement's to Philippi and St. Paul's Epistle it will bring him no advantage The case between them is exactly parallel There was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Province of Macedonia saith St. Luke of which Philippi was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Metropolis just as Corinth was of Achaia and this Citie being the first in that region wherein St. Paul planted the Faith it was certainly a Metropolitical Church and Epaphroditus was the Metropolitan of that Province the first day he was Bishop of it The truth of which is so evident that the jeere of the Metropolitical Infant might seasonably have been controverted into a more serious and decent expression there being no reason imaginable why if the Apostles did institute Metropolitical Churches as here is not one serious word of objection against all that hath been said to assert it those Churches should not at their first institution call it their infancie if you will be Metropolitical Churches For as to that of the whole countries being supposed to be converted and divided into Dioceses that is not consequent or necessary to my assertion for as Clement saith of the Biâ—hop and Deacon in each City at the first planting of the Faith that they were constituted in relation to them not onely which did but expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who should afterward believe so the Church and Bishop in the Metropolis when that was first converted might very well be Metropolitical in respect of the other Cities of that Province which should afterward receive the Faith 15. As we know when Augustin came first over into England and preacht the Faith and converted Christians first at Ethelbert's seat and the Metropolis of that Province he was by being made Bishop there made Metropolitan also That sure was Bede's meaning when he saith of it lib. 1 c. 27. Venit Arelas ab Archiepiscopo ejusdem civitatis Ethâ—rio Archiepiscopus Genâ—i Anglorum ordinatus est He came to Arles in France and by Etherius Archbishop of that Citie was ordained Archbishop to the Nation of the English and if as a learned Antiquarie thinkes Bede spake after the use of his own time and that the word Archiepiscopus was not in use here then at Augustine's coming hither yet for the substance of the thing wherein I make the instance and all that I contend from thence there can be no doubt but that he being at first made Bishop of the Metropolis was thereby made also Metropolitan 16. As for the divisions into Dioceses how little force that hath against all that I have said or thought in this businesse whether of Bishops or Metropolitans I have spoken enough to that in the Vindication to the London Ministers c. 1. sect 19. and to that I refer the Prefacer 17. And so still I am free enough from quarrelling with my self in the least or from being ingaged in any endlesse labour to reconcile the contradictions of my answers which as farre as my weak understanding can reach are perfectly at agreement with one another If the labour of shewing they are so prove fruitlesse I know to whom I am beholding for it even the Task-master whom I have undertaken to observe and in that guise of obedience shall now proceed briefly to answer every of his questions and I hope there cannot now need many words to doe it 18. To the first concerning the Institution of the second order that of Presbyters for the when I answer I know not the yeare but evidently before the writing of Ignatius's Epistles in Trajan's time and in all probability after the writing all the Bookes of Scripture and for ought I can discerne of Clement's Epistle as farre as concerns either Rome or Corinth 19. For the by whom and by what authority I answer I think they were first instituted by St. John in Asia before his death and shall adde to my reasons elswhere given for it this farther consideration that Ignatius in all his Epistles to the Churches of Asia Ephesus Smyrna Trallis Magnesia Philadelphia makes mention of them within few years after John's death though in his Epistle to the Romans he doth not And if this be so then also it appears by what authority viz. such as John's was Apostolical Or if this should not be firmly grounded as to the person of St. John yet the reason why they were not at first instituted as well as Deacons being but this because there was no need of them yet and the power given by the Apostles to the first Bishops being a plenarie power so far that they might communicate to others what was committed to them either in whole or in part and those accordingly in the force thereof constituting Presbyters in partem officii the authority still by which they were instituted will be Apostolical and so if as this Prefacer gives order they be let goe to the place from whence they came they will not be much hurt they are but remitted to the society of the Apostles and Apostolical persons by this 20. To the second concerning the meaning of my words Diss 2. c. 29 21. when I say that Hierom's words of Churches being governed by common consent of Presbyters are to be understood of the times of the Apostles and whether all those Presbyters were Bishops properly so called I answer that my meaning was that if Hierome be reconcileable to himself that must be his meaning that in the Apostles times the Churches were first governed by common consent of Presbyters and after in the Apostles times too upon the rising of Schismes a Bishop was every where set over them that according in Hierome's notion all those Presbyters were not Bishops but such as out of whom after one was chosen in every Church to be a Bishop 21. That this was the truth of the fact I no where
one of the two following heads of discourse and therefore I am now to hasten to them Onely to be sâ—re to have neglected nothing that can expect to be considered in the least It is here presently visible 1. how causelesly Ignatius is quarrell'd with for mentioning the Orders of the Church upon no occasion when the designe of his Epistles being to preserve truth and peace among the Churches he had no better and more compendious way to doe it than by requiring their subjection to their Governors and thereupon he so constantly inculcates it and this is a very important occasion and that which alwayes makes it very seasonable and pertinent whensoever it is done by him 6. Secondly How fallaciously the discourse proceeds which supposeth Clemens to call those Presbyters which ought to signifie as among us the word now signifies collegues and fellow-rulers in the same Church whom before he had called Bishops adding that he plainly asserts Episcopacy to be the office of Presbyters and that their Spirituall Governors were the Presbyters of the Church and a plurality of Presbyters in the same Church whereas all this while he knowes that Clement saith that the Apostles instituted Bishops and Deacons in all Cities and Regions and that these are by us cleared to be singular Bishops and that to prevent contentions they left a list of successors to that singular office in each Church and that these singular Bishops are oft called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elders not onely before but after Clemens even by those that appeare and are acknowledged to assert the three Orders and consequently that Clement may well be allowed to style them so in whose time for ought appears there were none of that second order now vulgarly called Presbyters yet erected either at Rome from whence or at Corinth or in all Achaia to which he wrote this Epistle 7. Thirdly How infirme a way of arguing it is to say that Clement doth not in the least intimate any singular person promoted above his fellows and that had there been any such at Corinth it had been impossible he should be thus pass'd by in silence when he knowes that the Apostles constituting Bishops and Deacons and what followes on that account is by us insisted on and confirmed to be more than an intimation of it and when the whole purport of the Epistle is to preserve the authority of the Governors of the severall Churches under that Metropolis whom he knowes we contend and prove to be the singular Bishops and must not forgoe that pretension till it be confuted 8. To proceed to the second head of discourse his asserting the Bishops mentioned in Clemens to be bare Presbyters For this it is certaine that he makes no tender of any other argument or appearance of proofe but onely the mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he renders Presbyters in the plural whom therefore he concludes to be many Presbyters in the same Church But 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Elder signifies Bishop in Scripture in Clemens in Polycarpe in those of the Antients after them that are knowne to assert the singular Bishop above Presbyters in each Church And this having been said and cleared in the Dissert is not in the least attempted to be disproved by him 9. Secondly These many Elders are not all or more than one said or intimated by Clement to be in one City For the Epistle as was shewed in the Dissert is I suppose most certainly may have been addrest by Clement not to the single Church of that one City of Corinth but to the Churches of all Achaia or Greece of which Corinth was the chiefe being the Metropolis 10. That it was not so is barely said but largely proved in that place Dissert 5. cap. 2. first from the title of the Epistle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where it is on each part the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or whole province as of Rome so of Corinth the Region and territory that belonged to either of those Metropoles which in that age was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the adjacent region exprest by Ignatius by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the place of the region of the Romans by Polycarpe in the same kind speaking of Philiâ—pi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Church adjoyning or belonging to Philippi and by Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Province belonging to Corinth of which Dionysius was Bishop or Metropolitan 11. Secondly this was proved by the analogie held between this Epistle of Clemens and the Epistle of Saint Paul inscribed to the Corinthians For I demand was not this Epistle of Clement written to the same Church or Churches to whom Saint Paul's two Epistles had been addressed That it was is more than probable by the Common title and other Characters in the Epistle it selfe incline to it As that he refers them to the Epistles of Saint Paul written to them and that upon the like occasion of divisions and factions so early crept in among them So pag. 61. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Take saith he the Epistle of Saint Paul consider what he saith to you in the beginning of his preaching to you certainely it was by inspiration from God that he wrote to you concerning himselfe and Cephas and Apollos because that then ye had partialities and inclinations to one more than to another but that partiality brought lesse sinne unto you Here still it is the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you that before and now were guilty of this sinne of carnality admiration of person faction and now at length sedition and so the same Churches now and then to whom these Epistles on that occasion were addrest and there is no circumstance producible that restrains one more than the other 11. Now of the Epistles of Paul it is evident they were not confined to the one City of Corinth but to all the Churches of Achaia so it is specified of the secondâ— of them 2 Cor. 1. 1. To the Church of God which is at Corinth with all the Saints which are in all Achaâ—a And though this be not expresly said of or in the first Epistle or in this of Clement yet the relation that one hath to the other will conclude it of those also and the phrase which there we find superadded to the Church of Corinth 1 Cor. 1. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to all that are called by the name of Christ all Christians in every place and the like forme at the conclusion of this The Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and with all every where that are called by God hath in all probability the same importance for that being universal and extended beyond Corinth must not yet be interpreted of all Christians in the world for that would make each of these a Catholick Epistle and would conclude the Apostle to have received an Epistle from the Catholick Church to which this returne was made c. 7. 1. and
Apostles and their successors not by the people or the whole congregation cannot finde entrance with him And secondly from the recurring of such kind of Rhetorick as this so soon I might very probably conclude that his whole confidence was placed in this one Topick which is ordered both to lead the van and also to bring up the reere to be the reserve as well as the forlorne hope And then upon this view of his reply I desire it may be indifferently considered whether my arguments were not as valid to confirme my answer as his mirth and repetitions and bare negations without any attempt of proof were of force to assert the contrary 20. Next he promises to attend to my arguments but cannot hold his countenance againe they must be styled learned arguments â—orsooth to have spoken as he thought had been more like a serious person that meant to attend to arguments And the first that he attends to is that Corinth was the Metropolis of Greece in a politicall sense and acceptation of the word where the Proconsull had his residence and this he grants but for my consectary from thence that Epistle inscribed to the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 should be conceived sent to the Christians of all Aâ—haia all the strength thereof saith he from the insinuatian of such a state of things in the Church of God is nothing but a pure begging of the thing in question 21. But first certainly this cannot be that fallacy called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the begging of the question It is the â—…erring of that which is there proved both before and after before both as that signifies long before and immediately before long before viz. Dissert 4. c. 5. the erection of Metropoles and Metropolitanes in the Church had been demonstrated Immediately before it had been mentioned as a praecognâ—scendum that Corinth was such an one which if granted it must follow that there was a Metropolitan Arch-bishop at Corinth of whom all the Bishops in Greece were dependent So againe this was proved after by the consent betwixt this and Paul's Eâ—istles those were written to all the Christians of all Achaia and then why should not this be resolved to be so written also And how then can the question be here said to be begged by me If this of Corinth's being a Metropolis in the politicall sense were not sufficient to inferr this conclusion first that might then have been said the consequence denied and traill made what was or what could be farther said to prove it but that method was not here thought safe it was easier to say the strength of the consectary is nothing but a pure begging of the question which yet I never heard said of a conclusion inferred from praemisses and after farther undertaken to be proved I desire to consult Aristotle in his discourse of that fallacie and he shall finde it was not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on my side a begging of the question but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on his a denying the conclusion 22. This for the forme of his reply Secondly then as to the matter of it I did and still doe thinke it a concluding argument which I there used and being briefly set downe 't will be more explicitely this An Epistle addrest to a Metropolitical see under the title of the Church adjacent to such a chiefe City or Metropolis is addrest to all the Cities and Churches that relate to that Metropolis But Corinth was such a City and this Epistle was so addrest to it That Corinth was such a Metropolis was apparent and is not denyed as to the politicall acceptation of it And if it were so also in the Ecclesiastick there is no farther difficulty And if my supposing and not farther proving of this in that place were the infirme part of the discourse and begging of the question I must answer that I had no reason to expect it should be esteemed so having long before on occasion of the Angels in the Revelation entre 〈◊〉 into a discourse of Metropolitical Cities and shewed that not onely in the political but Ecclesiastical acceptation there were such in the Apostles and so in Clement's time 23 This was there manifested in many instances 1. in Antioch the Metropolis of Syria and Cilicia and all the Churches of those regions the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Antioch and dependent on that Secondly in Rome the Metropolis of the Roman Province or Vrbicarian region Thirdly in Alexandria the Metropolis of Egypt whereupon Marke is said by Eusâ—bius to have lonstituted Churches in the plural there all which under the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the province of or belonging to Alexandria as here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were by Saint Mark committed to Anianus or Ananias and the Government administred by him all the rest of the Churches there planted by Mark relating to this as to the Metropolis Fourthly in Gortyna the prime Metropolis of Crete the Arch-Bishop whereof in the Epistle of Dionysius Bishop of Corinth Ann Ch 175. is styled Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Church adjacent to i. e. the province of Gortyna and of all the rest in Crete Fifthly in Philippi the Metropolis of one Province of Macedonia Act. 16. 12. to which purpose it is that in the Epistle said to be written by Ignatius to them of Tarsus we finde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Churches in the plural of the Philippians salute you Sixthly in the several Churches of Asia mentioned Rev. 1 each of them a Metropolis over some other â—ities and Ephesus the prime of all the Proconsular Asia And this forme or this state of things in the Church of God is there by three Canons of the three great Councels Nice Antioch Ephesus testified to be the ancient primitive Apostolical state 24. This being then done at large and thereby the Primitive constitution of Metropolitical Churches competently asserted it seemed to me sufficient but to re-mind the Reader that Corinth was one such Metropolis of Achaia or Greece and accordingly that upon that account in the Ecclesiastical as well as Political acceptation the Epistles of Paul inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Corinthians were meant to all the Churches of Achaia and not onely to that one of Corinth And what error I have committed herein I confesse I am not yet able to discerne or divine or what there is behinde that wants farther proof 25. The onely thing I can yet thinke of is that in this Praefacer's judgement I have not made it sufficiently appeare by that one evidence of Corinth's being a Metropolis where the Proconsul of Achaia kept his residence Act. 18 12 15. i. e. a Metropolis in the Political acceptation that it was also a Metropolis in the Ecclesiastical notitiae and then it may be fit perhaps farther to adde something to cleare that and put it out of question not onely in thesi that the Church generally thus corresponded with the state according
To the Church of God dwelling in Syria which is in Aâ—tioch now if thiâ— be so I shall confesse it is possible we may bâ— in more errors than one and that we much wâ—nt the learned Doctors assistance for oâ—r information the words themselves as they are used by the worshipâ—ull writer of that Epistle will scaâ—ce furnish us with this learned and raâ—e notion they are at length 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 foâ— so he â—iâ—st opens his mouth with a lye 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Wâ—at is here more expressed than that thâ— lâ—tter passage is â—estâ—â—ctâ—ve of what went beâ—ore was spoken of its â—esidence iâ— Syâ—iâ— wiâ—â— reference to the name of Christian fiâ—st given to the Dâ—sciples in thâ—… place I know not and therefore it is most certaine that the Apostles in stâ—…uted Metrâ—politan Archbishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. The large transcripts of the Latine sections being the foundation of his whole insuing discourses it is a litle necessary they should be made intelligible to all to whom the confutation of them is addrest This I shall be content to doe foâ— him and the plaine English is this 4. According to the image of the civil government among the Jewes and the like againe in their Temple foremention'd the Apostles appeare to have disposed of Churches every where and in all their plantations to have constituted a subordination and dependance of the Churches in the inferâ—…r Cities to those in the Chief or Metropoles An example of thâ—â— we have in the story of the Acts concerning Syria and Ciâ—â—cia and the severall Cities thereof in relation to Aâ—tioch tâ—â— Metropolis For when the question Act. 15. 2. was referred and brought to Jerusalem from the Church peculiarly of Antioch â—ap 14. 26. and 15 3. and the decree of the Councel returned to them by whom the question was proposed i. e. to the Church of Antioch ver 22. yet in the Epistle in which that decree was contained we finde the brethren through Syria and Cilâ—cia i. e. all the Christians of that Province to be expressâ—d and joyned with those of Antioch ver 23. And after when that Decretal Epistle was delivered to the Church of Antiâ—ch ver 30. Paul and Sylas went over Syria and Cilicia ver 41 42. and as they went they delivered to every City the Decrees of the Councel c. 16. 4. which is an evidence that the Churches of those Cities related either immediately to Antioch or as Antioch it self did to Jerusalem and were in subordination to it as to the principal Metropolis of so wide a Provincâ— according to that of Philo that Ierusalem was in his time the Metropolis not of Judea alone but of many other regions in respect of the Colonies which is sent out of the Jewes that dwelt in theâ—… naming Syria Cilicia divers others 5. What is here said may be divided into two branches one concerning the Cities of Syria as relating to Antioch the other concerning Antioch it selfe and other Cities relating to Jerusalem The latter is mentioned incidentally the former is it which was proposed for the example to testifie the Apostles distributions and the plaine story of the Acts seemed to me to manifest it fully that the Churches of the inferior Cities of Syria c. related to Antioch as to the Metropolis And the matter also being farther cleare by all Ecclesiastick writers which make Antioch the Metropolis of Syria I gave a tast thereof out of Ignatius's Epistle to the Romanes who being the known Bishop of Antioch setled there by the Apostles calls himself Pastor as elsewhere Bishop of the Church in Syria And so the Antient writer of the Epistle to the Antiochians under Ignatius's name but none of those which we receive from Polycarps collection hath these words in his inscription 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church of God which is at Antioch lying together in Syria making Syria to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Province of which Antioch was the Metropolis 6. The same is after manifested of other chief Citâ—es Rome Alexandria Gortyna in Crete and the seven Churches of Asia and the plain words of the three Councels forementioned which devolve the whole businesse oâ— the rights of Metropoles to their first plantations And of all these there is not one word replyed save onely what concernes Rome and Alexandria To those two we shall come in the next Section But in this I am to consider what he hath to object to the severaâ— proofes concerning the Church of Antioch being as I conceive it manifest a Metropoliticall Church in the Apostles times 7. And first it seems I must define what I meane by this dependence and subordination of inferiour Churches to their Metropolis And I shall doe it in my owne words not in his for they are very obscure 1. I meane by inferiour Churches the severall Churches in the severall lesser Cities with the region adjoyning administred and governed each of them by the Bishop of each such lesser City-Church and his officers under him 2. By the Metropolis I meane the Church of the chiefe City of that Region or Province and such say I was the Church of Antioch in respect of Syria 3. By the subordination and dependence of the inferiour to the Metropolis I meane not any inferiority of order and dignity nor a dependence onely as to counsel and advice and mutual Communion but an inferiority of powâ—r in many things which the Apostles left not to the Bishops of the inferiour Cities but reserved to the Metropolitanes To this purpose the 34th Apostolick Canon is cleare 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishops of every Nation must know their Primate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Zonaras and account him as the head of them and the powers that thus belong to him are knowne in the antient Councels by the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 privileges and praeeminencieâ— which are proper to such and for which even immemorial and Apostolical tradition and custome is vouched by them Such as receiving accusations against and appeales from inferiour Bishops ordeining of them as Tituâ— is appointed to doe through Crete and as the sixth Canon of Nice saith that he that is made Bishop without the Metropolitan shall not be deemed a Bishop For this I againe referre the Reader to the Discourse of Schismâ— pag. 60. c. and there to that ninth Canon of the Councel of Anâ—ioch the same in effect with the 34th Apostolical â—anon forementioned where the Bishops of inferiour Cities are interdicted doing without the Metropolitan any thing which is there styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. as is there explain'd where in more Churches than one are concerned equally The Bishops power extending to the administration of affaires in his owne Diocesse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whatsoever belongs to his Diocesse say both those Canons but things of a more forraigne nature which belong not to the particular Bishop ratione officii 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
had gone through Phrygia and Galatia they came to Mysia c. So that he could not well have multiplyed more mistakes in so few words and all to make up his hypothesis that the Decree of Ierusalem had no more reference to Antioch and the regions whereof that was the Metropolis than to all those other Churches which yet if it be extended no farther than to Asia it selfe will by Philo's words be interpretable of the Province subordinate to Ierusalem 30. What remains to this head is made up of contumelie and reproach of my audaciousnesse with reflexion onely upon a supposition of mine that after this time the Churches were small and thinne and few in number and so that of Philippi was seven yeares after this which is designed as a prejudice to my hypothesis concerning Metropolitan Churches so early But to the former of these the reproaches I have nothing to return but my thankes to the latter I have answered formerly that the smallnesse of the number of Christians nothing hinders the dependence of one Church upon another See Vindic. to Lond. Minist chap. 1. sect 16. numb 14. And so much for the evidence out of the Acts. 31. Next he comes to my proof out of Ignatius who say I being Bishop of Antioch doth yet in the Epistle to the Romans call himself Pastor of the Church of Syria The words wherein he so styles himselfe he sets down in the Greek and instead of translating them as they should be translated Remember in your prayers the Church of Syria which in stead of me hath Christ for their Pastor viz. now that he was carryed from them to his Martyrdome he takes advantage of the Readers unskilfulnesse in that language and formes my proof into a ridiculous argument Because he recommends to them that particular Church in Syria which by his imprisonment was deprived of its Pastor therefore without doubt he was a Metropolitical Bishop and then is very pleasant with his Tityre tâ—… patâ—… 32. But would not a little sadnesse and justice have done better and then it had been most cleare that Ignatius his saying that Christ was now their Pastor instead of him must necessarily imply that he was formerly their Pastor and whose Pastor was hee expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Pastor of the Church in Syria where it is evident that the whole Church in Syria not that particular Church onely of Antioch is by him supposed to be under his Pastorall care the same thing being before in the same Epistle exprest in words no way lyable to misunderstanding 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God hath vouchsafed or dignified the Bishop of Syria calling himself Bishop of Syria and so not of Antioch onely This hath been formerly cleared against all exception and need not be here farther repeated 33. There remains the testimony of the Author of the Epistle to the Antiochians which I vouched not as the genuine writing of Ignatius but onely as an antient Writer according to the genuine in this matter Hence I am cryed out on as forsaken of all faire and honest means and like Saul trying the Witch of Endor c. But this is but ordinary style a flourish of his Rhetorick and need not stay us to consider it that which follows is more to the purpose that I make this counterfeit speak as if Syria were in Antioch not Antioch in Syria and here askes What other sense can be made of the words as by me transcribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church of God dwelling in Syria which is in Antioch and then triumphs in this discovery 34. But certainly the Witch was not so contrary to a wise woman the counterfeit author so perfect a changeling as here he is set out to be Certainly the Greek as transcribed by me lyes thus in the construction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church of God which is at Antioch with this farther denomination added to it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 adjacent or lying together in Syria or allowing them the same position in English which they have in Greek To the Church of God lying together in Syria the Church or that which is at Antioch but taking all the words together of which I there onely gave the abstract to the Church pitied by God chosen by Christ lying together in Syria which first received the sirname of Christian the Church which is at Antioch And so he may discerne it possible to make sense of these words a very little skill in that language being sufficient to enable one to joyne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the not very remote as well as with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the immediate Antecedent And so this leaves it clear as the day 1. That Antioch was believed by that Author to be in Syria not Syria in Antioch and 2. That Syria was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Province belonging to Antioch the Metropolis and that is a proof as far as his authoritie will bear that the Apostles instituted Metropolitans and so of the very thing in earnest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was to be demonstrated 35. And if this authority were not so great as the former of the true Ignatius had been yet first he was an antient Writer and so acknowledged and secondly one that imitated antient style and calls himself Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the known title of Ignatius by which he was condemn'd by Trajane and so though he feign'd a person yet did it decently and so testifies his opinion that this was the style of Ignatius's dayes or else would not have discovered himself by using it Thirdly his testimony added to Ignatius's and in concord with it will not certainly take off the forâ—e from Ignatius's And fourthly if this be finally reprobated there be several more behind of Scripture and the Antients concerning Gortyna in Crete and seven Metropolitical Churches in Asia and a reference to the Archbishop of Armagh's discourse on that subject and passages collected out of the Canons of the Antient Vniversal Church and no one word offer'd to be replyed to all this which makes it very impertinent to goe about farther to confirme this assertion which else I might doe and for brevities sake referre the Reader to Frigevillaeus Gautius Par. 1. c. 4. the subject of which Chapter is Primates esse jure Divino That Primates are by Divine right Sect. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Casaubon's Censure of that phrase Numb 1. NExt he comes to examine Sect. 11. and that one small testimony from the inscription of Ignatius's Epistle to the Romans Before I proceed to which I shall confesse to the Prefacer that he hath mâ—st an opportunitie of great rejoycing For the truth is in the end of sect 10. there lay a passage wherein though I affirm'd not but onely past my conjecture crediderim c. yet I now by a last reading over of Ignatius's Epistles discern my self to have mistakenâ— For in