Keimåelia 'ekklåesiastika, The historical and miscellaneous tracts of the Reverend and learned Peter Heylyn, D.D. now collected into one volume ... : and an account of the life of the author, never before published : with an exact table to the whole.

CHAP. III. The Churches planted by Saint Peter, and his Disciples, originally founded in Episcopacy.

• 1. The founding of the Church of Antioch by Saint Peter; the first Bishop there.
• 2. A reconciliation of the difference about his successors in the same.
• 3. A list of Bishops planted by him in the Churches of the Circumcision.
• 4. Proof thereof from Saint Peters general Epistle to the Jews dispersed.
• 5. And from Saint Pauls unto the He∣brews.
• 6. Saint Pauls Praepositus, no other than a Bishop, in the opinion of the Fathers.
• 7. Saint Peter the first Bishop of the Church of Rome.
• 8. The difference about his next successors there, reconciled also.
• 9. An answer unto such Objections as have been made against S. Peters being Bishop of Rome.
• 10. Saint Mark the first Bishop of Alexan∣dria, and of his successours.
• 11. Notes on the observations of Epiphani∣us, and Saint Hierom, about the Church of Alexandria.
• 12. An observation of Saint Ambrose ap∣plyed unto the former business.
• 13. Of Churches founded by Saint Peter, in Italy, France, Germany, and the Isle of Britain, and of the Bishops in them in∣stituted.

OY 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, [unspec I] It is the observation of Saint Chrysostom, that the Church never thriveth better than in persecutions. And this he speaks, on the dispersion of the Disciples after the martyrdom of Stephen: than which there could not any thing fall out more fortunately, for the advancement

of the Gospel. They which were scattered abroad (saith the holy Text) upon the perse∣cution which arose about Stephen, travelled as far as Phoenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the Word to none but the Jews only. At first indeed to none but the Jews alone. The Vision had not yet appeared to Peter, to Authorize his going in unto the Gentiles; nor had Cornelius and his Houshold as yet been made partakers of the Holy Ghost. The Jews were they to whom the promises of God had first been made, who as they were dispersed into many places; so did Gods Word go after them, and found them out, either converting them unto the Faith, or else convincing them of their incre∣dulity. But in no City of the East, were they so thick set, as in Antiochia, the re∣gal seat and City of the Kings of Syria; in which by ancient priviledge first granted by Seleucus Nicanor, they were all free Denizens, and enjoyed all immunities what∣soever with the Greeks and Macedons. This made them plant here in great multi∣tudes, together with their Wives and Children, and so by consequence the greater opportunity was offered for the enlargement of the Church. News hereof being brought unto Hierusalem, and Peace by that time being setled throughout the Churches, S. Peter, as he passed throughout all quarters, is said to have come down unto Antioch also, and to have undertaken the charge thereof, as being the most famous City of the Eastern parts. It's true, the Scriptures tell us nothing of this, but the Fathers do, and negative proofs from Scripture, in a point of History, are of no Authority. Origen calls Ignatius, Episcopum Antiochiae post Petrum secundum, the second that was Bishop of Antioch after Peter; and therefore Peter must of necessary consequence be first Bishop there. Eusebius saith the same with Origen, as to S. Peters being Bishop there, and so doth Felix Pope of Rome, in the fifth Council of Constantinople, Actione prima. But not to trust to consequences only, though those clear enough; Eusebius in his Chronicon saith expresly, Petrus Apostolus Ecclesiam Antiochenam fundavit, ibique Cathedram adep∣tus sedit, that Peter the Apostle founded the Church of Antioch, and sate Bishop there. S. Hierom doth affirm the same, Primum Episcopum Antiochenae Ecclesiae Petrum fuisse, and makes it one of those things which S. Luke omitted. Luke being an attendant of S. Paul in his peregrinations, took not such special and particular notice of S. Peters actions; and therefore his omission of it is no argument that it was not so. More of S. Peters being Bishop of the Church of Antioch, see in the same S. Hierom in his Book de Ecclesiast. Scriptoribus: And in S. Gregories Epistles, lib. 6. ep. 37. Where he is said to have continued Bishop there seven years; as indeed most Authors do agree.

This founding of the Church of Antioch by S. Peter, [unspec II] and his assuming of the Bi∣shoprick or charge thereof, is by Eusebius placed in the fourth year of the 203 Olympiad, which falleth by computation into that 38 year of Christs Nativity, being the fourth year after his Ascension. But then withal, we must restrain S. Peters Bishoprick in Antioch, and his foundation of that Church, only unto the Jewish Congregations there. Preaching unto the Gentiles, was not yet thought lawful. And when it was, it pleased God to make choice of others to promote that work. Whereof when tidings came unto Hierusalem, they sent forth Barnabas that he should go as far as An∣tioch: And when he found the task too great for himself alone, he went to Tarsus, saith the Text, to seek for Saul, whom he brought with him to that City. By these the gaining of the Gentiles in that famous City was begun and finished. In this re∣gard S. Paul is to be reckoned a co-founder at the least of the Church of Antioch; and so Ignatius doth account them in his Epistle to the Magnesians, where he relateth that the Disciples were first called Christians at Antiochia, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Church whereof was founded by Paul and Peter. And this may serve to reconcile the difference which doth occur amongst the ancient Writers about S. Peters next Successor in the See of Antioch. Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Felix, whom before we spake of, do make Ignatius to be S. Peters next Successor; where by the way we have S. Peters being Bishop there, avowed by Chrysostom and Theodoret into the bargain. And on the other side, Eusebius and S. Hierom place Euodius first, and after his decease, Ignatius; wherein Ignatius doth himself concur with them, counselling or exhorting the Antiochians, to call to mind Euodius that most holy Bishop, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, who first received the government of that Church from the holy Apostles. Now for the reconciliation of this difference, taking it first for granted, as I think we may, that at first there were in Antiochia two several Congregations of converted Christians, the one of Jews, the other of the Gentiles, whereof S. Peter and S. Paul were the se∣veral heads; the Author of the Constitutions ascribed to Clemens (who in a matter of

this nature may well be credited) will give us an handsom hint, informing us that (the Apostles being to betake themselves to their other business, or the business rather of the Lord) S. Peter did ordain Euodius, and S. Paul, Ignatius, to be the Bishops there in their several charges. Upon which ground Baronius doth infer, and not improba∣bly, that the wall of separation being beaten down, and both the Congregations of Antiochia, made into one Church, Ignatius did willingly resign his present interest un∣to Euodius, whom he succeeded also after his decease. But be this how it will, cer∣tain I am that the preferment of Euodius to the See of Antioch, is placed by Eusebius in the 45. year of Christs Nativity; who having sate there six and twenty years, did leave the same unto Ignatius, Anno 71. S. John, and perhaps other of the Apostles be∣ing then alive. More than so, Chrysostom affirms expresly, not only that some of the Apostles were then alive, but that he was made Bishop by them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and that the hands of the Apostles touched his holy head. And so much for the Bishops of Antioohia, which lived and were co-temporary with the Apostles.

But to go forwards with S. Peter, [unspec III] having thus setled and confirmed the Church of Antioch, and by this Preaching to Cornelius opened a door unto the Gospel in Caesarea, and amongst the Gentiles; he followed on the course of his Apostleship, Preaching unto the Jews dispersed in the Eastern parts, as namely throughout Pon∣tus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, as himself intimates in his first Epistle. And when he was to leave those parts, and make for Italy, he left them not without a Ministery; nor did he leave that Ministery without some Bishops to govern and direct the Flock. The Roman Martyrology doth reckon in these Churches of S. Peters founding, Cornelius, the first fruits of the Gentiles, Quem B. Petrus Episcopali honore sublimavit, made by him Bishop of Caesarea. Metaphrastes, if he may be credited, as in most things, which do not tend to miracles, I think he may, relateth that S. Peter in his peregrination did ordain Bishops in the Churches of Sydon, Berytus, and Laodicea; that he made Marson Bishop of Tripolis, and Prochorus of Nicomedia; and finally, that in the Provinces of Pontus, Cappadocia, and Bithynia, he did not only plant Churches, but he founded Bishopricks. But waving these things as I find them, and the report of Agapetus in the fifth Council of Constantinople, that the first Bishop of Bizantium was of Peters founding, though of unquestionable credit: Let us repair unto the Scrip∣tures. There find we the Apostles stirring up the Pastors to have a care unto the Flock. The Elders which are amongst you I exhort, who am also an Elder, and a witness of the suf∣ferings of Christ, Feed the Flock of God which is among you. Ask Oecumenius who these Presbyters or Elders were, and he will tell you they were Bishops. And then he gives this reason of it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that Bishops are called Presbyters in the book of Acts. But Oecumenius being of a later standing, may possibly be undervalued when he speaks alone; and therefore we will stare super vias antiquas, enquire amongst the ancients, and ask their judgments in the case. And here we meet with Gregory Nazianzen, who pencelling and de∣scribing a perfect Prelate, makes amongst others, this to be a special quality belonging to him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not to constrain their people to the works of piety by force and violence, but to allure them by persuasions. For proof whereof, he instanceth in this present Text, Feed the Flock of Christ which is among you, not by constraint, but willingly, of a ready mind.

But this construction may be verified from the Text it self, [unspec IV] as well as from the Glosses of the ancient Writers▪ and that from three particular words or phrases, that occur therein. For first, Saint Peter calling himself their Fellow Presbyter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the Greek, shews plainly that they were not simple Presbyters, which he thus exhorteth, but Presbyters invested with some higher dignity, such as had some resemblance of the Apostolical function. In which regard S. John the Apostle in his two last Epistles, calls himself a Presbyter, the Elder, as our English reads it. Which word he used, as Oecumenius hath observed, either because he was grown aged when he wrote the same, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or intimating that he was a Bishop, according as the word Presbyter would bear in those former times. And why not thus, since Beza doth affirm on those words of Saint Peter, Generale esse nomen Presby∣teri, that the name of Presbyter was very general; so general as it seems by him, ut etiam ipsi Apostoli hoc nomine comprehendantur, that even the holy Apostles are com∣prised therein. And therefore Beza being Judge, S. Peter may mean Bishops here, though he calls them Presbyters. And that he meaneth Bishops, may be also gathered

from the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Feed ye the Flock which is among you. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the Greek not signifying to feed only, and no more than so; but such a feeding as implyeth a rule or governance annexed unto it, which is the proper act of Bishops. Inferiour Presbyters may 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, feed the particular Flock committed to them by the word of Doctrine: The Bishop only may 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 so feed them with the word of Doctrine, as that he also rule them with the rod of Discipline. In this respect as the Apostle joyns the Shepherd and the Bishop in a line together: So primitive Antiquity did arm the Bishop with a Crozier or Pastoral staff, to shew the union of those Offices in the self-same person. But hereof we shall speak more fully in another place: And in∣deed need not speak more of it upon this occasion, considering that there is another word behind in S. Peters Text, which putteth the matter out of question. Feed ye the Flock of God which is among you, saith the Apostle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith the Text, taking the oversight thereof, as our English reads it, doing the Office of a Bishop, as the word doth signifie. The ordinary Presbyters may be called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Seers if you will, according to the notion of that word, in the first of Samuel; the Bishops are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, such as do over-see the Seers. So then the Presbyters whom S. Peter speaks of, being such as might 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, both feed and oversee, and govern; it is apparent they were Bishops, and not simple Presbyters.

But in this point Saint Peter shall not go alone; [unspec V] S. Paul will put in for a share, and keep him company; who writing to the Hebrews, even to the very hebrews of Saint Peters Province, doth advise them thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit your selves, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, &c. If you would know of Chrysostom who these Rulers are, he will tell you that they are the Pastors of the Church, whom if you take away from the Flock of Christ, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, you utterly destroy and lay waste the whole. Next ask Theophylact, than whom none ever better scanned that Fathers writings, what he means by Pastors, and he will tell you, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that he speaks of Bishops. The very same saith Oecumenius, noting withal that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which we read submit, doth signifie 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a very punctual and exact obedience. But to go higher yet than so, Ignatius the Apostles Scholler, one that both knew S. Paul, and conversed with him, will tell us that the Rulers. or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which Saint Paul here speaketh of, were no other than Bishops. For laying down this exhortation to the Trallenses, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be subject to your Bishop, as unto the Lord; he gives the self-same reason of it, which S. Paul here doth, viz. Because he watcheth for your souls, as one that is to render an account to Al∣mighty God. The like we also find in the Canons commonly ascribed to the Apostles, which questionless are very ancient; in which, the obedience and conformity which is there required of the Presbyters and Deacons, to the directions of their Bishop, is grounded on that very reason alledged before. And for the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Saint Paul, it is not such a stranger in the writings of the elder times, but that they use it for a Bishop; as may appear by that of the Historian, where he calls Polycarpus Bishop of the Church of Smyrna, the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of that Church; Ignatius writing, as he saith, not only to the Church of Smyrna, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 but also unto Polycarpus Bishop of the same.

Where lest it may be thought that the preposition doth add unto the nature of the word, we find the same Historian speaking of the same Polycarpus in another place; where he gives notice of an Epistle written in the name of the Church of Smyrna; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of which this Polycarpus had the Government, and a Bishop doubtless. In the which place 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, is conform most fully to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of Saint Paul, differing no otherwise than the verb and participle.

Now those which in the Greek are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, [unspec VI] in all the old Translations that I have met with, are called Praepositi; Obedite Praepositis vestris, as the Latines read it; and amongst them Praepositi are taken generally for the same with Bishops. S. Cyprian thus, Ob hoc Ecclesiae praepositum prosequitur; for this cause doth the enemy pursue him that is set over the Church, that the Governour thereof being once removed, he may with greater violence destroy the same. More clearly in another place, What danger is not to be feared, saith he, by offending the Lord, when some of the Priests not remembring their place, neither thinking that they have a Bishop set over them, challenge the whole govern∣ment unto themselves, Cum contumeliâ & contemptu Praepositi, even with the reproach and contempt of the Prelate, or him that is set over them? Most clearly yet, where speaking of the insolency of a Deacon towards his Bishop, he makes Episcopus and Praepositus to

be one same thing; willing the Deacon, Episcopo, Praeposito suo plena humilitate satis∣facere, with all humility to satisfie his Bishop, or Praepositus. Saint Austin speaks as fully to this purpose, as Saint Cyprian did, Ad hoc enim speculatores, i.e. populorum Prae∣positi in Ecclesiis constituti sunt, &c. For this end are Bishops (for speculatores and Epi∣scopi, are the same Office, though in divers words) I mean the Prelates or Praepositi, or∣dained in the Churches, that they should not spare to rebuke sin. In the same work De civita∣te, he speaks plainer yet. For speaking of these words of the Divine, I saw seats, and some sitting on them, and judgment was given, he expounds it thus. This is not to be understood, saith he, of the last Judgment: Sed sedes praepositorum, & ipsi Praepositi intelligendi sunt, per quos Ecclesia nunc gubernatur, but the seats of the Praepositi, and the Praepositi themselves, by whom the Church is now governed (and they were Bishops doubtless in Saint Augustines time) must be understood. More of this word who list to see, may find it in that learned Tract of Bishop Bilson, entituled, The perpetual Government of Christs Church; who is copious in it. Beza indeed, the better to bear off this blow, hath turned Praepositos into Ductores; and instead of Governours, hath given us Leaders. Where if he mean such Leaders, as the word importeth, Leaders of Armies, such as Command in chief, Lieutenants General, he will get little by the bargain. But if he mean by Leaders, only guides and conducts, Paraeus, though he follow him in his Translation, will leave him to himself in his Exposition: who by Ductores un∣derstandeth Ecclesiae Pastores & gubernatores, the Pastors and Governours of the Church. Neither can Beza possibly deny, but that those here are called Ductores, qui alibi Episcopi vocantur, which elsewhere are entituled Bishops. But where he doth ob∣serve, that because the Apostle speaketh of Praepositi in the plural number, therefore Episcopal jurisdiction was not then in use; it being indeed against the ancient course and Canons, to have two Bishops in one Church: there could not any thing be spoken, (to pretermit the incivility of his expression) more silly and unworthy of so great a Clerk. For who knows not that the Jews being dispersed into many Provinces and Cities, must have several Churches; and therefore several Bishops, or Praepositos, to bear Rule over them?

This business being thus passed over, [unspec VII] and the Churches of Saint Peters planting in the Eastern parts, being thus left unto the care and charge of several Bishops: we will next follow him into the West. And there we find him taking on him∣self the care of the Church of Rome, or rather, of the Church of God in Rome, con∣sisting for the most part then of converted Jews. The current of antiquity runs so clear this way, that he must needs corrupt the Fountains, who undertakes to trou∣ble or disturb the stream. His being there, and founding of that Church, his being Bishop there, and suffering there an ignominious, yet a glorious death, for the sake of Christ; are such noted Truths, that it were labour lost to insist upon them. Only I shall direct the Reader to such pregnant places in the most ancient and incor∣rupted Writers, as may give satisfaction in those points to any one that will take pains to look upon them. And first to look upon the Greeks, he may find Papias and Clemens, ancient Writers both, alledged to this purpose by Eusebius Hist. Ec∣cles. l. 2. c. 14. Caius, & Dionysius Bishops of Corinth, both of good antiquity, al∣ledged in the same book, cap. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Eusebius speaking for himself, not only in the 13. Chap. of the same book also, but also in his Chronicon, in which he notes the year of his first coming to that City, to be the 44. after Christs Nativity. See to this purpose also, Saint Chrysostom in his Homily De Petro & Paulo, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, in his Epistle to Pope Celestine: Theodoret, Sozomen, and others. Next for the Latins, there is hardly any but saith somewhat in it: whereof see Irenaeus l. 3. c. 3. Tertullian in his book de praescript. adv. haeret. Lactant. lib. 4. cap. 21. Optatus, lib. 2. contr. Parmen. Hierom in his Tract. De Eccl. Scriptoribus, Saint Austin in E∣pist. 165. and other places, not to descend to later Writers of the Latin Churches, whose interest it may seem to be. To close this point, Saint Austin, whom I named last, shall speak once for all, who reckoning up the Bishops in the Church of Rome, thus begins his Catalogue: Si enim, &c. If the succession of the Bishops there be a thing considerable, quanto certius, & verè salubriter ab ipso Petro numeramus? how much more certainly, and assuredly do we begin the same with Peter, who bare the figure of the whole Church? And then goes on, Petro successit Linus, Linus succeeded Peter, Cle∣mens him, and so to Anastasius, who then held the See.

Nor can it be replyed that Peter took the Church of Rome into his Apostolical care, and had not the Episcopal charge thereof, as some now suppose. [unspec VIII] The Tables

of succession make that clear enough. Saint Peter the Apostle could have no succes∣sours, but the Bishop might. Linus, or whosoever else succeeded, nor did, nor could pretend succession to the preheminences, and miraculous priviledges, which were re∣quired necessarily unto the making of an Apostle, challenge an interest by succession, in his Pastoral Office they both might and did. The Writers of all ages since do af∣ford them that. Only the difference is amongst them, who was the first that did suc∣ceed him in his Pastoral charge. St. Austin gives it unto Linus, as before we saw: next Clemens, and then Anacletus. Irenaeus doth agree with Austin, placing Linus first, but placing Anacletus second, and then Clemens third: and so doth Epiphanius also. Optatus reckoneth them, as before in Austin. Saint Hierom sometimes ranketh them, as Irenaeus, and Epiphanius did, Linus, Cletus, Clemens; and sometimes placeth Clemens first, as Tertullian, and plerique Latinorum, most of the ancient Latin Writers had done before. I know there is much pains taken to compose this difference a∣mongst our Antiquaries, those most especially of the Papal party. But in my mind there cannot be a better course taken to effect the same, than that which was obser∣ved before in the case of Antioch. And to effect this composition, Ignatius, and some other Fathers give a ground as probable, as that which was laid down before in the former business. For first it is affirmed by Irenaeus, that S. Paul had as great an interest in the foundation of the Church of Rome, as Saint Peter had, A duobus Apo∣stolis Petro & Paulo Romae fundatae & constitutae Ecclesiae: as his own words are. The like saith Epiphanius in another language, making both of them Bishops of that Church. Next it is said expresly by Ignatins, who might well speak on certain knowledg living in those times, that Anacletus (for I conceive that Cletus, and Anacletus were the same) was Deacon to S. Peter, and Linus, Deacon to S. Paul, who doth indeed make mention of him in his second Epistle unto Timothy. This ground thus laid, why may we not conceive, as before in Antioch, that in the first planting of the Church of Rome, there were two several Churches, or congregations; that of the Circumcision being collect∣ed by Saint Peter, that of the Gentiles first drawn together by Saint Paul; each of them being Bishop, or chief Pastor of their Congregations? Secondly, that when the two Apostles perceived the time of their sufferings to draw near. Peter ordained Anacletus Bishop of the Churches of the Circumcision, and that Paul did commit to Linus the government of the Churches of the Gentiles: both whom they had em∣ployed before as Deputies and Substitutes to attend these charges, whilst they them∣selves did travel to and fro, as occasion was, and the necessities of the Church re∣quired. Thirdly and lastly, that Linus being dead, Clemens (who had before been specially designed by Saint Peter to possess his place) succeeded Bishop of the Churches of the Gentiles there, who finally surviving Cletus, or Anacletus, call him which you will, and the division between Jew and Gentile being worn away, united the two Churches in his person, as the sole Bishop of the whole. And this I am the rather induced to think, because that Epiphanius making up a Catalogue of the Popes of Rome, first joyns together Peter and Paul, next coupleth with the like conjunction Linus and Cletus: and after brings in Clemens, Euaristus, Alexander, &c. in a line successively. And yet the Tables of succession may well stand as they have done hi∣therto; first Linus, after Cletus, and thirdly Clemens: because that Linus dying first, left Cletus in possession of the Pastoral charge, and Cletus dying before Clemens, left him the sole surviver of the three, which possibly may be the reason why many of the Latins reckon Clemens for the first Bishop after Peter: whom they conceive to be sole Bishop of that Church: as indeed it was, before there was a Church of Gen∣tiles founded in that famous City. For being formerly designed by Saint Peter to be his Successour, and afterward enjoying the whole charge alone, as Peter for a season did: it might not seem improper to report him for the second Bishop; that is, the second of the whole. And then again, Clemens is placed by some next and immediately after Linus, whose successor he was in the direct line, as Bishop of the more famous Church, viz. of the Gentiles; and by some also after Cletus, whom he succeeded at the last, in the line collateral. However, be this so, or not, we have three Bishops sit∣ting in the Church of Rome between the martyrdom of Peter, and the death of John: first, Linus, who held the same twelve years: Cletus or Anacletus, who sur∣vived, and held twelve years more: and Clemens, finally, who suffered martyrdom at Rome, the next year after the decease of Saint John at Ephesus.

I take it then for a most manifest and undoubted truth, [unspec IX] not only that Saint Peter was at Rome, but that he also took upon him the Episcopal charge, and was the

Bishop of that City. The Arguments devised in this later Age to evince the con∣trary, do nothing less in my opinion, than prove the point for which they were first devised. For first it is objected, that the Episcopal charge requiring residence, could not consist with that of an Apostle, who was to be perpetually in motion. Which argument, if it be of any force, will militate as well against Saint James his being Bishop of Herusalem, as against Saint Peters being Bishop of the Church of Rome. And then will Calvin come very opportunely in to help us, who speaking of S. James his constant residence in Hierusalem, doth resolve it thus. Quanquam com∣mune illi cum reliquis collegis mandatum erat, &c. Although, saith he, the Lords Commandment of preaching to all Nations, was common unto him with the residue of the Lords Apostles, yet I conceive, that they did so divide the charge amongst them, as to leave him always at Hierusa∣lem, whither such store of strangers did use continually to resort. Id enim perinde erat ac si Evangelium longè latéque promulgasset in locis remotis; for that, saith he, was as sufficient, as if he had promulgated, or preached the Gospel in the parts remote. This if it may be used for James, will serve for Peter. Assuredly there was a greater confluence of all sorts of strangers to the City of Rome, than used to be unto Hierusalem: and there∣fore Peter being there, might spread abroad the Gospel with the greater speed; and with no less success than those others did, who did not fix themselves in a certain sta∣tion. But whereas Calvin doth object in another place, that Saint Paul writing to the Romans, and saluting many of the Saints there, makes no speech of Peter; and that writing many of his Epistles from the City of Rome, he makes no mention of him neither: this may infer indeed, that Saint Peter was then absent, when those things were done, as one that had not so immured himself in the walls of Rome, but that he travelled up and down in several quarters of the world: doing sometimes the Office of an Apostle, discharging otherwhiles the place and function of a Bishop. All the Epistles of Saint Paul which bear date from Rome, were written in the first two years of his being there: and therefore any argument derived from thence must be very weak, either to prove that Peter never was at Rome, or never Bishop of that place: being so many ancient Writers do affirm them both. And yet I would not have the Papists think that this makes any more for the Popes supremacy, because he sits in Peters seat: than it did make for Vibius Rufus to attain Tullies eloquence, or Caesars power, because he married Tullies Widow, and bought Caesars Chair; though the poor Gentleman, as the story telleth us, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did presume on both.

But to go on, the Church of Christ being thus setled by Saint Peter, [unspec X] both in Rome, and Antioch: his next great care is for Alexandria, the great and most renowned City in the parts of Africa: that so there might be no prime City in all the habitable World, to which the Gospel was not preached. In the discharge of this great bu∣siness, was Saint Mark employed; a principal and constant follower of Saint Peters, who mentioneth him in his Epistle by the name of Son. The Church which is at Babylon saluteth you, and so doth Marcus my son. The planting of this Church is thus remembred by Eusebius, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. It is affirmed, saith he, that Mark did first (of all Christs followers) pass into Egypt, and there promulge and preach the Gospel, which before he writ; and that he first did plant the Church of Alexandria: in which his undertakings had so good success, that on his very first endeavours, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the Author hath it, great multitudes both of Men and Women did believe in Christ; his holiness, and strict behaviour gaining much upon them. This Church as he first founded in the faith of Christ, so did he take upon himself the charge thereof, and became Bishop of the same. This witnesseth S. Hierom of him, Marcus interpres Petri Apostoli, & Alexandrinae Ecclesiae primus Episeopus: that Mark the interpreter of Saint Peter, was the first Bishop of the Church of A∣lexandria. The same he also doth affirm in his Epistle to Euagrius; whereof more anon. And when Eusebius doth inform us, that in the eighth year of the Empe∣rour Nero, Anianus a right godly Man, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the story calls him, succeeded Mark the Evangelist in Alexandria: he doth infer ex con∣sequenti, that Mark was Bishop there before him. So that is seemeth he sat there 19. years by this account. For he came hither Anno 45. being the third of Claudins Cae∣sar; and finished his course in the eighth of Nero, which was the 64. of our Re∣deemer. Finally, Anianus having continued Bishop here 23 years, died in the 4th. year of Domitianus, being Anno Chr. 87. and had Abilius to succeed him: after whom Cerdo did succeed, in the year 100. what time Abilius left this World, S. John the Apostle

being yet alive. So that there were four Bishops of Alexandria succeeding one ano∣ther in that weighty charge, during the lives of the Apostles: a pregnant evidence that they both instituted and approved the calling.

Now for the Church of Alexandria, [unspec XI] there are some things observed by the Fathers, which are worth our noting, and may give great light to the present business; It is observed by Epiphanius, that Alexandria never had two Bishops, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as had other Cities: which words not rightly understood have made some conceive, that anciently Bishops were the same with Presbyters, it being against the usual custom to have two Bishops in one Church or City. But if we look considerately upon Epi∣phanius, there is no such matter: all that he drives at being this, that whereas in most other Churches, for the preventing of schisms and factions amongst the people, in the electing of their Bishops, it had been ordinary for the Bishop yet in place, to conse∣crate some one or other that should assist him whilst he lived, and succeed after his de∣cease: only the Church of Alexandria never had that custom. And they that had that custom, as it seems, did not like it well: for whereas Valerius Bishop of Hippo, out of a vehement desire to have S. Austin his successour, did consecrate or ordain him Bishop, whilst as himself was yet alive. Saint Austin was resolved for his part not to do the like: it being a thing prohibited by the Nicene Council. Quod ergo repre∣hensum est in me, noli reprehendi in filio meo, as he there resolveth. So that the place in Epiphanius tendeth unto this alone, viz. to shew the reason why Athanasius could not succeed Alexander in that See, though by him designed: which was, that he being yet alive, it was against the custom of that Church to ordain another. Saint Hierom, secondly, observeth, that the Presbyters of Alexandria, unum ex se electum in excel∣siori gradu collocatum Episcopum nominabant, did use to chuse one from amongst them∣selves, whom being placed in a more eminent degree, than any of the rest, they cal∣led a Bishop. And this saith he, continued in that Church, à Marco Evangelista, ad Heraclam & Dionysium Episcopos: from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the Bi∣shopricks of Heraclas and Dionysius. Some hereupon infer, that the persons who brought in the imparity of Ministers into the Church, were not the Apostles, but the Presbyters. An inference as faulty, as was that before. All that Saint Hierom means is this, that from the time of Mark, till the days of Heraclas and Dionysius, the Pres∣byters of Alexandria had no other Bishop than one whom they had chosen out of their own body: just as a man may say, on the like occasion, that from the first foundation till the time of Sir H, Savil, the Colledg of Eaton never had a Provost but one, whom they had chosen out of their own society. Now Heraclas before he was ordained Bishop was not a Presbyter of that Church, although a Reader in the Schools of that famous City; and belike Dionysius also was. And therefore it is well observed by the Cardinal; that Hierom writing to Euagrius relateth, quid in ea Ec∣clesia usque ad haec Dionysii tempora in electione Episcoporum agi consueverit: what was the usage of the Church of Alexandria in the election of their Bishops, until the times of Dionysus. However we have gained thus much by Hierom, that from Mark down∣ward till those times, and a long time after, there wanted not a Bishop, properly so called, in that famous Church: and therefore sure they came not first into the Church, Diaboli instinctu, by the Devils instinct. as he elsewhere saith.

There is another observation in the Commentaries ascribed to Ambrose, [unspec XII] which having some resemblance unto that before, and a like sinister use being made there∣of: I shall here lay down: and after give some Annotations on it to explain the place. The Author of those Commentaries affirmeth, that Timothy whom Paul crea∣ted Presbyter, was by him called a Bishop, because the first Presbyters were called Bishops: it being the custom of the Church (for so I think the sense must be made up) ut rece∣dente eo sequens ei succederet; that he [the first] departing, the next in order should succeed. But being it was found that the following Presbyters were utterly unworthy of so high preferment, that course was altered; and it was provided by a Council, ut non ordo, sed meritum crearet Episcopum, &c. that merit, and not seniority should raise a man, he being appointed by the suffrages of many Priests, to be a Bishop, lest an unfit person rashly should usurp the place, and so become a publick scandal. These are the Authors words, be he who he will. And from hence Beza doth collect that Bishops differed not from Presbyters in the Apostles times; that there was only in every place a Pre∣sident of the Presbytery, who called them together, and porposed things needful for their consideration; that this priority went round by course, every one holding it in his turn for a week, or more, according as the Priests in the Jewish Temple had their

weekly courses; and finally, that this Apostolical and primitive order was after chang∣ed, upon the motives and inducements before remembred. Some of our modern Wri∣ters against Episcopacy have gone more warily to work than so, affirming from those words of Ambrose (or whosoever was the Author) that this Rectorship, or priority was devolved at first from one Elder to another by succession; when he who was in the place was re∣moved, the next in order amongst the Elders succeeded; and that this course was after changed the better to keep out unworthy men, it being made a matter of election, and not a matter of succession. These men come neer the point in their Exposition, though they keep far enough in the Application, inferring hence that the imparity of Ministers came in other∣wise than by divine Authority. For by comparing this of Ambrose, with that before mentioned out of Hierom, the meaning of the Author will be only this, that as in some places the Presbyters elected one of their own Presbytery to be their Bishop; so for preventing of Ambition, and avoiding Faction, they did agree amongst them∣selves, ut uno recedente, that as the place did vaike by death or deprivation, by resig∣nation, cession, banishment, or any other means whatever, the Senior of the whole Presbytery should succeed therein; as the Lord Mayor is chosen for his year in London. But after upon sight of those inconveniences, which did thence arise, it was thought fit in their election of the person, rather to look upon his Merit than his Seniority. So that for all this place of Ambrose (were those Comments his) the Bishop may enjoy a fixt preheminence, and hold it by divine Authority, not by humane Ordinances.

But to return unto Saint Peter, and to the Churches by him planted, [unspec XIII] and founded by him in Episcopacy in these Western parts; I shall in part rely on the Authority of the Martyrologie of the Church of Rome; though so fat only, and no further, as it is backed by venerable Bede, and Ʋsuardus, ancient Writers both, the latest living in the year 800. and besides them, in some particulars by other Authors of far more An∣tiquity. And these, for better methods sake, we will behold according to the several Countries, into which S. Peter either went himself, or sent forth his Disciples to them, to preach the Gospel. And first for Italy, besides the Church of Rome before re∣membred. We find Epaphroditus, (not he that is commemorated by S. Paul, in his Epistle to the Philippians, as Baronius witnesseth against himself) à beato Petro Apostolo Episcopus illius Civitatis ordinatus, made Bishop by S. Peter of Tarracina, of old called Anxur: Pancratius made by S. Peter, Bishop of Tauromenium, in the Isle of Sicily, as the Greeks also do affirm in their Menologia: Marcianus Bishop of Syracusa, to whom the said Menologies do bear record also: Hermagoras a Disciple of S. Mark, the first Bishop of Aquileia, now in the Signeurie of Venice: Panlinus the first Bishop of Luques in Tuscanie: Apollinaris, created by S. Peter the first Bishop of Ravenna, in praise of whom Chrysologus, one of his Successors, and an holy Father, hath composed a Pa∣negyrick: Marcus ordained Bishop of Atina, at S. Peters first coming into Italy: And last of all, Prosdocimus the first Bishop of Padua à Beato Petro ordinatus, made Bishop thereof by S. Peter. Next to pass over into France, we find there Xystus the first Bishop of Rhemes, and Fronto Bishop of Perigort [Petragorricis;] ordained both by this Apostle: As also Julianus the first Bishop of (Mayne Cononiensium in the Latine) of his Ordination. And besides these, we read that Trophimus, once one of S. Pauls Dis∣ciples, was by S. Peter made the first Bishop of Arles. And this besides the Martyro∣logies, and other Authors cited by Baronius in his Annotations, appeareth by that me∣morable controversie in the time of Pope Leo, before the Bishop of Vienna, the chief City of Daulphine, and him of Arles, for the place and dignity of Metropolitan. In prosecution of the which, it is affirmed by the Suffragans, or Com-provincial Bishops of the Province of Arles: Quod prima inter Gallias Arelatensis Civitas missum à Beatissimo Petro Apostolo, Sauctum Trophimum, habere meruit Sacerdotem, that first of all the Cities of Gaul, that of Arles did obtain the happiness to have Saint Trophimus for their Bi∣shop, (for so Sacerdos must be read in that whole Epistle) sent to them from the most blessed Apostle S. Peter, to preach the Gospel. For Spain, we find this testimony once for all, that Ctesiphon, Torquatus, Secundus, Caecilius, Judaletius, Hesychius, and Euphrasius; Romae à Sanctis Apostolis Episcopi ordinati; & ad praedicandum verbum Dei in Hispanias directi: Having been ordained Bishops at Rome by the Apostles, (viz. S. Peter and S. Paul) were sent unto Spain to preach the Gospel; and in most likeli∣hood were Bishops of those Cities, in which they suffered, the names whereof occur in the Martyrologie. If we pass further into Germany, we may there see Eucherius, one of S. Peters Disciples also, by him employed to preach the Gospel to that Nation; which having done with good effect in the City of Triers, Primus ejusdem Civitatis

Episcopus, he was made the first Bishop of that City. And unto this Methodius also doth attest, as he is cited by Marianus Scotus, who tells us, that after he had held the Bishoprick 23 years, Valerio Trevericae Ecclesiae culmen dereliquit, he left the govern∣ment of that Church unto Valerius, who together with Maternus, (both being Dis∣ciples of Saint Peper) did attend him thither; and that Maternus after fifteen years did succeed Valerius, continuing Bishop there 40 years together. I should much wrong our part of Britain, should I leave out that, as if neglected by the Apostle, con∣cerning which we are informed by Metaphrastes (whose credit hath been elsewhere vindicated) that this Apostle coming into Britain, and tarrying there a certain time, and enlightning many with the word of grace, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, did constitute Churches, and or∣dain Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in the same. Which action as he placeth in the twelfth year of Nero, being the 67. of our Redeemer; so he professeth, that he had his information out of some writings of Eusebius, which have not come unto our hands, but with a great deal more of that Authors works, have perished in the ruins and wrack of time. Nor is it strange that the Apostle should make so many of his Dis∣ciples Bishops, before or shortly after they were sent abroad to gain the nations to the Faith, that being the usual course in the like imployments, as may appear by Austins being consecrated Bishop, immediately after his first coming into England. The rea∣son was, as I conceive it, that if God prospered their endeavours with desired suc∣cess, they might be furnished with a power of ordaining Presbyters for their assistance in that service. And so much for the Churches planted by Saint Peter, and by his Disciples.

Notes

• Hom. in Act. cap. 11.
• Act. 11.19.
• Joseph. Antiqu. Jud. l. 12. c. 3.
• Joseph. de Bello Jud. l. 7. c. 24.
• Act. 9.31, 32.
• Homil. 6. in Lu∣cam.
• Euseb. eccl. hist. l. 3. c. 35.
• Id. in Chron.
• Hieron. in. c. 2. ad Galat.
• Ipse firmavit sedem in qua septem annis quamvis disces∣surus sedit. Greg.
• Euseb. in Chron.
• Act. 11.22. Ibid. 25.
• Ignat. ep. ad Magnes.
• Homil. de transt. Ignatii. Dialog. 1.
• Hist. l. 3. c. 16. descript. eccles. in Ignatio. Epist. ad. An∣tioch.
• Constitat. Apo∣stol. l. 7. c. 48.
• Baron. Annal. Eccle. An. 45. n. 14.
• Serm. de Ignat. Tom. 5. p. 499. edit. Savil.
• 1 Pet. 1.1.
• Februar. 2.
• Citat ap. Baron. An. 44. n. 10.
• Conc. Constant. 5. Act. 2.
• 1 Pet. 5.1. Oecumen. in 1 Pet. cap. 5.
• Nazian. in A∣p••••get.
• Oecum. in 2. Joh. ep. 1. v. 1.
• Beza Annot. in 1 Pet. c. 5.
• 1 Pet. 2.25.
• Phil. 3.17. cap. 9. v. 9.
• Heb. 13.17.
• Chrysost. in 13. ad Heb.
• Theophy. in 13. ad Heb.
• Oecumen. in locum.
• E••••eb hist. l. 3. cap. 30. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Id. l. 14. c. 14. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Oprian l. 1. ep. 3.
• Id. lib. 3. ep. 14.
• Id. lib. 3. ep. 9.
• De civitat. Dei l. 1. c. 9.
• Id. l. 20. c. 9.
• Chap. 9.
• Paraeus com∣ment. in Heb. 13.
• Beza Annot. in Heb. 13.17.
• Ex eo quod lo∣quitur Paulus in plurali mu∣mero. Ibid.
• Aug. ep. 169.
• Adv. haeres. l. 3. c. 3. Haeres. 26. Lib. 2. contr. Parmen. Hieron. de Script. Eccles. in Clement. Id. ibid. in Petro.
• Iren. l. 3. c. 3.
• Ado. haeres. 27. num. 6. Ep. ad Tral.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. E∣piph. haer. 27.
• Comment. in Act. c. 21.
• Institut. l 4. c. 6. n. 14.15.
• Dion. in Tiber. hist. l. 57.
• 1 Pet. 5.13.
• Euseb. hist. l. 2. c. 15.
• Hieron. in Proem. super Matt.
• Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 23. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Haeres. 66. n. 6. Smectymn. p. 53.
• Aug. ep. 110.
• Ep. ad Euag.
• Smectymn. p. 31.
• Euseb. hist. l. 6. c. 12.••••.
• Annal. An. 1248. n. 5.
• Hier. Comment. in ep. ad Titum.
• Comment. in Eph. c. 4.
• Resp. ad tract. de divers. mi∣nist. gradibus c. 23.
• Smectymn. p. 31.
• Bellarm. de Scriptor.
• In Annal. Ec∣cles. A. 60. Rom. Martyr. Mart. 22. April. 3. Jun. 4. Julii. 12. Julii. 12. Julii. 23. Chrys. serm. 128.
• Rom. Martyr. Apr. 28. Novemb. 7. Sept. 1. Octob. 25. Jan. 27. Acts. Martyrol. Rom. Decem. 29.
• Epist. contr. Provinc. ad S. Leonem. in fine. lib.
• Rom. Martyr. Maij 15.
• Decemb. 8.
• Ap. Mar. Sco∣tum in An. 72.74.
• Commem. Petri & Pauli ad diem 29 Junii.
• Beda hist. Eccl. l. 1. c. 27.