Sect. VII.

[Num. 1] HAving gained so little by the several steps of his excepti∣ons, and the position remaining still firm against all, I have lesse reason to suspect what is built upon this foundation in the insuing sections: Yet against them altogether he casts one stone, before he will part, in those words,

[Num. 2] Vpon this wisely laid ground, he would perswade us, followed the division of the Bishopricks both in Antioch and Rome, but Page  63 bringing not one word of Antiquity proving this to have been the cause, yet is he so certain of it, that he will finde a colonie of Iewes even in England, for fear S. Peter should have touched a Gentile, and yet he cites S. Prosper, that both S. Peter and S. Paul founded the Church of Gentiles in Rome.

[Num. 3] What force there is in any part of this suggestion, I shall not here need to set down at large. There be three branches of it, 1. That I bring not a word of antiquity to prove (what I say) that this the cause of the divisions of the Bishopricks both in Antioch and Rome. 2. That I will finde a Colonie of Iewes in England. 3. That I cite Prosper, that both S. Peter and S. Paul founded the Church of Gentiles in Rome.

[Num. 4] For the first, I desire the Reader to review what is already said in the Tract of Schism c. 4. from §. 8. to §. 20. and I shall much wonder if he return of this Gentleman's minde, that there is not one word there brought out of Antiquity to con∣firm what I say. The short is, It is there manifested from An∣tiquity, that the Church of Antioch was founded by S. Peter and S. Paul, that there were two Churches there, one of Iewish, the other of Gentile Christians, that in those Churches at the same time sate two distinct Bishops, Euodius and Ignatius; by which means some appearing difficulties in antient writers are explained.

[Num. 5] To what is there said, I shall, instead of repeating, adde thus much more. Of Euodius, Suidas's words will be easily turned to, in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. In the reign of Claudius Caesar, Peter the Apostle ordained Euodius Bishop at Antioch. Of Ignatius the*Author of the Constitutions is ex∣presse, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ignatius was ordained Bishop there by S. Paul. Now seeing in those Acts of Ignatius which are put together by Simeon Metaphrastes, Ignatius is said to succeed Euodius, as Euodius succeeded Peter (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) and the Ano∣nymus antient writer of the Acts of Ignatius, which remains unprinted, hath the same, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉Ignatius succeeded Euodius, and seeing this ordination of Ignatius is also said by†Theodores, and by*Felix III. BishopPage  64 of Rome to have been done by the hand of Saint Peter, This seeming difference is removed by*Ioannes Malela Antioche∣nus, who thus sets down the whole matter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, When Peter went to Rome, passing by Antioch the great, Euodius Bi∣shop and Patriarch of Antioch happened to die, and Ignatius (who was, as was said, first constituted by S. Paul over the Gentiles there) received the Bishoprick (that I suppose must now be, of the Iewish Province also; over which Euodius had been in his life time) S. Peter ordaining and enthroning him, And so that is become most clear which* S. Chrysostome said of this Ignatius, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. the hands of the blessed Apostles, (in the plural, first of Paul, then of Peter) had been laid on Ignatius.

[Num. 6] The other part which concerned Rome, * was so cleared by the words of Epiphanius,* who saith of Peter and Paul both, that they were 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Apostles and Bishops at Rome, and so many other evidences produced to the same purpose, from the inscription on their tombs, by Gaius contemporary to Pope Zephyrinus, by Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, by Prosper, by the seals of the Popes, and so again by the Ecclesiastick story,* that makes Clemens S. Peters Dea∣con and successor in the Bishoprick, and Linus S. Paul's that sure there can be no need of farther proofs or testimonies from Antiquity in this matter.

[Num. 7] Whilst in the mean, other Churches are * instanced in, par∣ticularly the Churches of Asia,* wherein S. Paul and S. Iohn had all the command, and S. Peter had nothing to doe, whe∣ther in planting or governing them, which alone is sufficient to carry the whole matter against S. Peter's universal Pastor∣ship, and no word is by this Gentleman replied to that so con∣siderable a part of my probation, Onely instead of it, a farre more compendious way, that of the scornfull or fastidious scossing at my wisely laid ground, as he pleaseth to call it, and adding that I bring not one word of Antiquity &c.

Page  65 [Num. 8] As to the second branch of his suggestion, that I will finde a colonie of Iewes in England, that is no where said by me, Onely thus, that upon supposition, if the saying of Simeon Metaphra∣stes (speaking of S. Peter's preaching and ordaining Bishops in England, Neronis 12) should be thought to have truth in it, it must be extended no farther than the Iewes, which might at that time be dispersed there.

[Num. 9] Where, as my conclusion from that supposition is founded in the analogie, that as, where S. Paul and S. Peter met in any plantation, they divided their Province &c. so in reason it ought to be, where S. Peter and Simon Zelotes, or Ioseph of Arimathea met in like manner, so all that of the Iewes in England I there affirm, is onely this, that it was possible they that were dispersed in so many regions, might be, some of them, dispersed in Britannie, which how improbable soever it may appear at that time, is sure as probable, as that S. Peter preach∣ed and ordained Bishops in Britannie, and in consequence to that onely it was, that I made the supposition of the possibility of it, knowing it the affirmation of our Antiquaries, that Jo∣seph of Arimathea, or Simon Zelotes ('tis possible also that Simeon Metaphrastes might mistake Simon Peter for him and then that matter is at an end) planted the faith in this Island.

[Num. 10] As for his last suggestion, that I cite Saint Prosper, that both S Peter and S. Paul founded the Church of Gentiles in Rome, I desire the truth of it may be considered by the words which I cite from him, In ipsa Hierusalem Iacobus & Ioannes apud Ephesum, Andreas & caeteri per totam Asiam, Petrus & Paulus Apostoli in urbe Roma Gentium Ecclesiam pacatam unamque posteris tradentes ex dominicâ pactione sacrârunt, James at Jerusalem, John at Ephesus, Andrew and the rest through all Asia, Peter and Paul at Rome, consecrated the Church of the Nations. What Nations were these, sure of Jewes, as well as Gentiles, else Jerusalem could not be any part of them, no nor John's converts at Ephesus, for they were Iewes, and therefore this Gentleman did not doe well to sub∣stitute the word Gentiles for Nations, and yet could not, without doing so, have made this exception to my words.

Page  66 [Num. 11] And so much for exceptions to my first evidence against the Vniversal Pastorship of Saint Peter.