our Kings have the same authority in their Territories that the Roman Emperour had in the Empire § 19. The Reason of all supreme power of Kings And the reason of all this is clear not only from the supreme authority of Kings in all sorts of causes even those of the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the King is as it were the common directer and ruler of the Church both in title and reality Demetrii Chomateni Resp ad Const Cab Jur. Graec Rom l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ye are Bishops of the Church for those things which are celebrated within it but for external things I am constituted overseer or Bishop by God saith Constantine the Great in an assembly of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I am King and Priest saith Leo Isaurus to Gregory the second Nec tamen eo nomine à Pontifice reprehenditur and was not for this reprehended by the Pope see J. C. de lib. Eccl ap Goldast Monarch t. 1. p. 686. So Socrates the historian of the Emperours in general after their receiving the faith of Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the affairs of the Church depended on them in Prooem l. 5. And by Optatus l. 2. it is noted and censured as a Schismatical piece of language in the Donatistâ— Quid enim Imperatori cum Ecclesiâ And all this according to the principles of civil policy acknowledged by Aristotle Pol. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the King hath power of those things that belong to the Gods and by Diotogenes in Sâ—obaeus that a perfect King ought to be both a good Captain and a Judge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yea and a Priest also And accordingly among the ancient Roman regal Lawes this is one Sacrorum omniuÌ„ potestas sub Regibus esto Let the power of all sacred things be under the Kings and so in the practice Caius Caesar in Suetonius c. 13. was both Augur and Summus Pontifex Galba tres Pontificatus gerebat Ibid Gal. c. 8. Claudius is by Josephus called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the greatest High-priest and Tacitus makes it his observation Deûm nunc munere summum Pontificem summum hominum esse Annal l. 3. The same appears among the Jewish Kings in Scripture David ordering the courses of the Priests Solomon consecrating the temple Hezekiah 2 Chron 29. 2 Kin 18. and Josiah 2 Kin 22. ordering many things belonging to it And so S. Paul appealed from the judgement of the chief Priests to the tribunal of Caesar see G de Heimberg de usurp Pap so in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the whole third book is made up of Justinians i. e. the Emperours constitutions de Episcopis Clericis Sacris concerning Bishops Clergy men and sacred offices And the Canons of Councels have mostly been set out and received their authority by the Emperours and accordingly in the Theodosian Code we shall find many of those which are now called Papal decrees Church as well as Civil as might be proved at large if here it were needful and cannot be reasonably so confined as not to belong to a matter of this nature but peculiarly from that which hath been already noted and expressely ordered Can. 17. of the Councel of Chalcedon even now cited of the Ecclesiastical division of Provinces c and Ecclesiastical division of Provinces following the Civil following the civil For 1. it being certainly in the power of the King to place his Praetoria or courts of Assizes where he please and 2. it being the known original of Metropoles and divisions of Provinces as Strabo saith Geogr. l. 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Provinces are variously distributed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because the Romanes divide them not by tribes or families but after another manner in relation to the cities where they set up their courts of Assizes and again it being most reasonable that as any new accident raises one city to a greater populousnesse or depresses another so for the convenience of the people one should be made the seat of Judicature the other cease to be so and no man so fit to passe the judgement when this should be as the King and 3. the very same reasons of convenience moving in the Church as in the State the Bishops and over them Metropolitanes and Primates having their judicatures and audiences which in all reason must be so disposed of as may be most for the convenience of administration that they and all under them may do their duties with most facility and to greatest advantage and lastly there being no obstacle imaginable from any contrary constitution either of Christ or his Apostles against which the Prince can be said to offend either directly or interpretatively as I suppose is already clear from the refutation of the plea from S. Peters universal Pastorship whensoever he shall think fit to make such changes the Conclusion is rational as well as evident just that it should be so as well as cleare that elsewhere it hath oft been so de facto and appointed by the Canon of Chalcedon de jure that the King may erect a Primacy when he please and so it is certain that King Ethelbert at the time of Augustines planting the faith did at Canterbury the seate of his Kingdome Imperit sui totius Metropolis saith Bede l. 1. c 25. conquently remove it from any other place at his pleasure Had it not been for this there is no reason assignable why this nation being in Constantines time under three Metropolitans the Arch-bishop of York and the Primacy belonging to that city as being then the Emperours seat where Septimius Severus and Constantius Chlorus died and the Praetorium of the Diocese of Britannie the Arch-bishop of London and the Arch-bishop of Caerusk in Monmouthshire either 1. there should be as there was an addition of two Provinces more Valentia and Flavia Caesariensis or 2. the Metropolitical power should be removed from London to Canterbury as also from Caerusk to S. David's as hath been said and the Primacie from Yorke to Canterbury § 20. This Power of Kings if taken away by forein laws c. resumable Now what is thus vested in the Regal power cannot be taken away by forein laws or by prescription be so alienated but that it remains perfectly lawful for the Prince to resume it sect 21. That laws made at Rome doe not take away the liberty of another national Church to make contrary laws thereunto and that by such obviation no Schisme is incurred we finde delivered in the Councel of Carthage Can 71. according to Balsamon's division And though the Canon be not set down by Binius yet both he and Baronius acknowledge that what was contain'd in that particular Canon was the main occasion of the Synod And the Antiquity thereof is considerable those Canons being made say Baronius and Binius Anno 401. § 22. So likewise that a Law though made by a General Councel and with the consent of all Christian Princes yet
it is evident that there were other Episcopal Sees in that Asia beside those seven named in the Revelation and those afterward appear to have been subject to the Metropolis of Ephesus which alone of all the seven continued till Constantin's time the rest being destroyed § 17. From these manifest footsteps of Metropolitical power in Scripture it is easie to descend through the first times and find the like In Ignatius As when Ignatius the Archbishop of Antioch the Primitive Martyr in his Epistle to the Romans styleth himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pastor of the Church which was in Syria that whole region belonging then to that Metropolis of Antioch Agreeable to which is that of the author of the Epistle to the Antiocheni whosoever it was inscribing it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church of God in Syria that belongs as a Province to that of Antioch In the Bishop of Rome what his Province So the Epistle to the Romans is inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Church which hath the Presidencie in the place of the Region or Province of the Romans which gives the Bishop of Rome a Metropolitical power over all other the Bishops of that Province the Vrbicarian region as it was styled and * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 7. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syn. Sardic Epist ad Alex. ap Athan. Apol. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athan. Epist ad solit vit agent Ex Provinciâ Italiae civ Med ex Prov. Romanâ Civitate Portuensi Syn. Arelat 1. in nominibus Synodo praefixis distinguished from the Province of Italy properly so called confined to the seven Provinces of the civil jurisdiction of the Vicarius Italiae and the Ecclesiastical of the Archbishop of Milan the chief Metropolis thereof Of the circuit or compasse of this Province of the Bishop of Rome many learned men have discoursed excellently out of the Antient Surveys of the Provinces particularly that very learned Frenchman so rarely skilled and judicious in Antiquity Jacobus Leschaserius in his little tract de Region Suburbic but none with more evidence of conviction then our Modest countreyman M r Brerewood who thus describes the antient jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome that it contained all those Provinces of the Diocese of Italy which the old Lawyers term Suburbicarias of which there were ten three Islands Sicily Sardinia and Corsica and the other seven in the firm land of Italy taking up in a manner all the narrow part of it viz. all Italy Eastward but on the West no farther extended then to the River Magra the limit of Tuscanie toward the Tyrrhene sea and to the River Esino antiently Asius toward the Adriatick Sea For at that River Esino met both the Picenum Suburbicarium and Annonarium the former of which belonged to the Prefecture of Rome of which that city was the Metropolis And the later with all the other Provinces in the broader part of Italy seven of them in all to the Diocese of Italy of which Milan was the Metropolis Hist Eccl. l. 1· c. 6. Thus Ruffinus in his Paraphrase rather then translation of the Nicene Canon saith that the Bishop of Rome was thereby authorized Suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum Sollicitudinem gerere to take and manage the care of the suburbicarian Churches and there is no reason to doubt but that he that lived so neer after that Councel and was of Italy knew competently what he affirmed of that matter And it being evident that in all other places the Ecclesiastical jurisdictions were proportioned to the temporal of the Lieutenants and that the Suburbicarian region and the so many and no more provinces in them pertain'd to the Praefecture of the city of Rome It must follow that these were the limits of the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of that Bishop also But this by the way in passing § 18. In Alexandria Eccl. Hist l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So when of S. Mark it is affirm'd out of the ancâ—ent records by Eusebius that he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 first constituted Churches in the plural in Alexandria and under the title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Province of Alexandria put them all into the hands of Anianus in the 8 th of Nero Ibid. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is evident that Alexandria was a Metropolitical or Patriarchal See to which all Aegypt did belong § 19. In S. Cyprian So S. Cyprian the Bishop of Carthage to which the whole Province of Africk pertained is by the Councel of Constantinople in Trullo Can. 2. called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Archbishop of the Region of Africk And accordingly he often mentions the many Bishops in his Province Vniversis vel in nostrâ Provinciâ to all the Bishops in our Province Ep. 40. And Latiùs fusa est nostra Provincia habet etiam Numidiam Mauritanias duas sibi cohaerentes Our Province is extended farther hath Numidia and the two Mauritania's annexed to it Ep. 45. in each of which there being a Church and consequently a Bishop in every city as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 14.23 is all one with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every city Act. 16.4 they were all subject to this Metropolitane § 20. The subjection of Bishops to Archbishops By all this and much more which might be added it is manifest that as the several Bishops had Praefecture over their several Churches and the Presbyters Deacons and people under them such as could not be cast off by any without the guilt and brand of Schisme So the Bishops themselves of the ordinary inferior cities for the preserving of unity and many other good uses were subjected to the higher power of Archbishops or Metropolitanes § 21. Of Archbishops to Primates c. Nay we must yet ascend one degree higher from this of Arch-Bishops or Metropolitanes to that supreme of Primates or Patriarchs the division of which is thus cleared in the division and Notitia of the Roman Empire Original of Primates Constantine the Great instituted four Praefecti Praetorio two in the East as many in the West Of the Western one at Rome another at Triers this last then called Praefectus Praetorio Galliarum These Praefects had their several Vicarii who in their power and name judged the Provinces As for example The Praefectus Praetorio placed at Triers had three Vicarii or Lieutenants one placed at Triers a second at Lions a third at Vienna from the greatnesse of whose authority and the resort of all other cities and Provinces to them for justice sprang the splendor and dignity of those cities where they resided and the dependence of large Provinces and many other cities on each of them This whole circuit which was thus subject to or dependent on any such Lieutenant was by the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the style devolving from the civil to the Ecclesiastical divisions as the former both of cities and of Territories and of Metropoles
or Mother cities the chief in every Province had done the Bishop being answerable to the Defensor civitatis and the Archbishop to the Praesident in every Province from thence it came that every such Metropolis which was the seat of any Vicarius or Lieutenant General was over and above 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Bishop thereof Primas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Patriarcha a Primate Exarch or Patriarch and all that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is larger then a Province the joynt administration of many Provinces with the several Metropoles and Metroplitanes contained in it was subjected to him Eccl. Hist l. 5. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Thus S. Irenaeus being Bishop of Lyons is by Eusebius affirm'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have the over sight or Government of the Provinces of France either those only that were under that Primate or perhaps of all France Ibid. c. d. of which Lyons was then in the Ecclesiastical account the first Exarchate for so saith the same Eusebius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lyons and Vienna but first Lyons were famously known to be beyond all others in those parts the principal Metropoles of France And again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 these were the most splendid illustrious Churches there To which first times I conceive belongs that verse of Guilielmus Brito in Philippeide Et Lugdunensis quo Gallia tota solebat Vt fama est Primate regi placing all France under the Primate of Lyons or affirming it from tradition ut fama est that it was wont antiently to be so placed which was not well understood or taken notice of by the learned Jos Scaliger In Notit Galliae p. 8â—2 when he affirms it nuperum novitium ex beneficio Romani Pontificis indultum a privilege lately granted to the Bishop of Lyons by the Pope quod Primatem sese vocari gaudeat that he calls himself Primate which privilege if not title did so long since belong to Irenaeus the Bishop of that Diocese § 22. I shall not need inlarge on this subject or set down the several Primates and Dioceses belonging to them It is known in the ancient notitiae of the Church that beside the three Patriarchs of Rome Alexandria and Antioch to which title afterward Constantinople and Jerusalem were advanced there were eleven Primates more there being fourteen Dioceses or joynt administrations of many Provinces for so the word anciently signified not in the modern sense of it one city and the territory The Primates power equal to that of the Patriarch the jurisdiction of an ordinary Bishop for which they then used 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seven in the East and the Praefecture of the city of Rome and six more in the West into which the whole Empire was divided And though the Patriarchs had in Councels the praecedence or deference in respect of place either because these three cities had the honour to disperse Christianity in a most eminent manner to other cities and nations or from the great dignity of the cities themselves * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Chalced. Can penult Rome being the seat and first city of the Empire and thereupon thus dignified saith the Councel of Chalcedon and Alexandria by †Or. 32. ad Alexandrin see Aristid Or. de Rom. Laud. Dio Chrysostome and others affirmed to be the second and Antioch the third saith Josephus yet it is certain that the power and jurisdiction of Primates was as great as of Patriarchs and the Office the same see Anacleâ—us Epist ad Episc Ital. and Gratian Dist 99. and many times in Authors the very titles confounded as appears by Justinian who commonly gives Primates the names of Patriarchs of the Dioceses And if it be now demanded whether there were not anciently some Summum Genus some one Supreme either of or over these Patriarchs I answer that if we respect order or priority of place again then the Bishop of Rome had it among the Patriarchs as the Patriarchs among the Primates that city of Rome being Lady of the World and the seat of the Empire But if we respect power And no power but of the Prince above them or authority there was none anciently in the Church over that of Primates and Patriarchs but only that of the Emperour in the whole Christian World as of every Soveraign Prince in his Dominions as may appear by the ancient power and practice of congregating or convoking of Councels Provincial by the Metropolitan Patriarchal by the Patriarch or Primate National by the Prince for the first 1000 years through the whole West and General by the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socrat. l. 5. Prooem Ex Superioribus habetur Imperatores Sanctos congregationes Synodales Universalium Conciliorum totius Ecclesiae semper â—â—cisse Ita ego perlustrans gesta omnium Universalium usque ad octavum inclusivè Basiliitempore celebratum verum esse râ—peri Cusan de concord Cathol l. 3. c. 16. and c. 13. See S. Hierom in Apol. ad Ruffin l. 2. where speaking of a pretended Synod he adds Quis Imperator hanc Synodum jusserit congregari Emperor when for the conserving the unity or taking care for the necessities of the Church those last remedies appeared seasonable But this of General Councels being extraordinary and such as the Church was without them for the first three hundred yeers and are now morally impossible to be had we need not farther to ascend to these but content our selves with those standing powers in the Church the uppermost of which are Archbishops Primates and Patriarchs to whom the Bishops themselves are in many things appointed to be subject and this power and subjection defined and asserted by the Ancient Canons The Primitive Power of Primates c. and the most ancient even immemorial Apostolical tradition and Custome avouched for it as may appear Concil Nicen. 1. Can. 4.6 Concil Antioch c. 9.20 Concil Chalced. C. 19. In the Sixt Nicene Canon where the jurisdiction of all Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis is affirmed to belong to the Patriarch of Alexandria and order is taken that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or privileges of eminency which belong to the Bishop of Rome of Antioch and Metropolitanes of all other Provinces shall be conserved intire to them the Introduction is made in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Let the Ancient customes be in force The very form which S. Ignatius useth concerning Apostolical customes which were to be solicitously retained in the Church and seems there particularly to refer to those orders which S. Mark had left in Aegypt Lybia and Pentapolis subjecting all the Bishops there to the Patriarch by him constituted in Alexandria § 23. So in the 9 th Canon of the Councel of Antioch where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Bishop presiding in the Metropolis is appointed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to undertake the
force 1. the matter of fact that thus it was in England 2. the consequence of that fact that it were Schisme supposing these Successors of S. Peter were thus set over all Christians by Christ 3. the matter of fact again that S. Peters Successors were thus constituted Vniversal Pastors by Christ This again of two branches 1. that S. Peter was so constituted 2. that the power instated on S. Peter devolved on the Bishops of Rome I shall endevour to expedite this matter by granting and not requiring the pretenders farther to prove the two first branches and leave the issue of the debate to their manifesting the truth or our manifesting the falshood of the last mentioned but indeed the principal fundamental part of the contention as it consists of two branches one as it respects S. Peter the other as it respects his Successor in the See of Rome wherein if the Romanists pretensions shall appear to have truth in them we must be acknowledged by breaking off from our submission to that See to be formally Schismaticks according to the grounds allready laid and acknowledged by us But on the other side if their pretensions herein shall appear to be false or unsufficiently proved and manifested there is no other branch of the argument be it never so true which can give the conclusion any authority with any pondering rational man it being in the power of any weak link to destroy the usefulnesse of the whole chain and consequent to the falsenesse or inevidence of any one proposition that the conclusion shall not be inferred by that arguing § 4. The Supremacy of S. Peter examined And first for the pretension as far as it respects S. Peter and must be managed by evidences and so concluded either on one side or the other I shall begin with offering my evidences for the Negative § 5 Evidences against it First from his being Apostle of the Circumcision peculiarly And first it is evident by Scripture that this Apostle was the Apostle of the circumcision or Jewes exclusively to the uncircumcision or Gentiles which were generally anothers Province By Apostle here I understand a Commissioner of Christs endued with authority by him and this Commission given to him as to all the other Apostles indefinitely and unlimitedly not restrained by Christs words to any particular Province but extending equally to the whole world what therefore is done in this kind is by Subsequent act of the Apostles themselves who are testified to have done that which it had been very unskilful and improvident and consequently unreasonable not to have done viz. distributed their Vniversal great Province inro several 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. 1.25 distributions or Lots or lesser Provinces one or more to goe one way the other another which is there called by S. Peter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to go to his own or proper place or assignation for the witnessing the Resurrection and proclaiming the faith or Doctrine of Christ to the world § 6. Now if the circumcision or Jewish Christians were peculiarly S. Peters Province the lot or division assigned unto him agreeable unto which it is that both his preaching in the Acts is to the Jewes in Judaea and Samaria and his Epistles are both of them addressed to the Jewes of the dispersion and none else then it is not imaginable how he should be the Vniversal or Supreme Pastor or Bishop of the whole world For the Christians of that age of the world being either Jewes or Gentiles the Jewes again either those that remained in their countrey or those that were dispersed in other regions there was but one portion of one of these which can reasonably be placed under S. Peters Jurisdiction The Jewes that were in Judaea were all immediately subject to the several Bishops in each city and all they to their Metropolitane James the Bishop of Jerusalem Of this James the brother or neer kinsman of Christ many a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. in 1 Cor 15.7 ex Sentententiâ Chrysostomi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Photius Epist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Nicephorus l. 2 c. 38. of the Ancients affirm that he was by Christ after his resurrection constituted Bishop there b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others that it was done by Christ and his Apostles c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb ex Clement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 5 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hegesippus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ap Euseb l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb l. 2. c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 vide Athan. in Synops Epiph. Haer. 78. Nyssen de Resur Or. 2. Hieron in Gal. 1. in Catal. Euseb in Chron. p. 43. others the more ancient that the Apostles constituted him in that See Peter James and John the three most honoured by Christ conferring this honour upon him whereupon in this his See he is named before Peter and John Gal. 2.9 and hath the Principal place in the Councel at Jerusalem where S. Peter is present and accordingly gives the Sentence Act. 15.19 upon which the Rescript is grounded v. 22. From all which as it appeareth that the Jurisdiction in that Metropolis which had extended very far among the Jewes not only to all Judaea but even to Syria and Cilicia and other regions saith Agrippa in a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philo as hath formerly been mentioned belonged to James the Just and not to S. Peter So it is as evident that it was not by S. Peter alone intrusted to him which might conclude some peculiar transcendent power of S. Peter there but by S. James and S. John together with S. Peter which quite takes off all pretension of his to the singular Supremacy there § 7. The Gentiles were not S. Peters Province So again for the uncircumcision or Gentile Christians they were not S. Peter's Province but peculiarly S. Paul's by S. Peter's own confession and acknowledgment Gal. 2.7 who is therefore styled the Apostle of the Gentiles Rom. 11.13 and that without any commission received or consequently dependence from S. Peter as he declares and contests it Gal. 1.12.17 having his assignation immediately from Christ v. 16. Accordingly whensoever those two great Apostles came to the same city the one constantly applied himself to the Jewes received disciples of such formed them into a Church left them when he departed that region to be governed by some Bishop of his assignation and the other in like manner did the same to the Gentiles § 8. Thus we know it was at Antioch where S. Peter converted the Jewes and S. Paul the Gentiles and certainly S. Paul no way Subordinate or dependent on him as appears by his behaviour toward him avowed Gal. 2.11 and acordingly in Ignatius his Epistle to the Magnesians we read of the Church of Antioch that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 founded by S. Peter and S. Paul not by one or