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. V. Of the condition and affairs of the two Patriarchal Churches of Alexandria and Antiochia.

• 1. Of the foundation and first Professors of the Divinity-School in Alexandria.
• 2. What is affirmed by Clemens, one of those Professors, concerning Bishops.
• 3. Origen the Divinity-Reader there, per∣mitted to expound the Scriptures, in the presence of the Bishop of Caesarea.
• 4. Contrary to the custom of the Alexandrian and Western Churches.
• 5. Origen ordained Presbyter by the Bishops of Hierusalem ad Caesarea, and excom∣municated by the Bishop of Alexandria.
• 6. What doth occur touching the superiority and power of Bishops in the works of Origen.
• 7. The custom of the Church of Alexandria, altered in the election of their Bishops.
• 8. Of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, and his great care and travails for the Churches peace.
• 9. The Government of the Church in the for∣mer times, by letters of intercourse and correspondence amongst the Bishops of the same.
• 10. The same continued also in the present Century.
• 11. The speedy course taken by the Prelats of the Church, for the suppressing of the Here∣sies of Samosatenus.
• 12. The Civil Jurisdiction, train and thrones of Bishops, things not unusual in this Age.
• 13. The Bishops of Italy and Rome made Judges in a point of title and possession, by the Roman Emperor.
• 14. The Bishops of Italy and Rome, why reckoned as distinct in that Delegation.

AND being come to Alexandria, [unspec I] the first thing presents it self to our observation, is the Divinity-School there being, which we must first take notice of before we look into the Church, which in this Age was furnished hence both with Religious Bishops and Learned Presbyters.* 1.1 A School, as it appeareth by Eusebius, of no small Antiquity; who speaking of the times of Commodus, saith, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that of an antient custom there had been a School for teaching of Divinity, and other parts of Literature, which had been very much frequented in the former times, and so conti∣nued till his days. According to which plat-form, first Schools, and after Universities had their consideration in the Church; from whence, as from a fruitful Seminary, she hath been stored ever since with the choicest wits for the advancement of her publique service. But for this School of Alexandria, the first Professor there, which occurs by name,* 1.2 is said to be Pantaenus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a man renowned in all parts of Learning: first a Philosopher of the Sect of Stoicks, and afterwards a fa∣mous Christian Doctor. A man so zealously affected to the Gospel of Christ, that for the propagating of the same, he made a journey to the Indies; and after his return, he took upon him the Professorship in the School aforesaid, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, opening the treasures of Salvation both by word and writing.* 1.3 And I the rather instance in him, because that under him Clemens of Alex∣andria learned his first Principles of Religion; and after him succeeded in his Chair or Office: who being by birth of Athens, and of the same family with the former Clemens, the fourth Bishop of Rome, upon his coming and abode at Alexandria, gained the sur∣name or additament of Alexandrinus. Now that Clemens was Divinity-reader in the School of Alexandria,* 1.4 is said expresly by Eusebius; where he affirmeth also, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that Origen was one of his Disciples: Who after coming to the place himself,* 1.5 was followed in the same by Heraclas, and Dionysius successively; both of them Scholars in the School of Origen, both severally and successively Readers or Doctors in the same, and both, first Heraclas, Dionysius next, Bishops or Patriarchs of Alexandria. So that within the space of half an hundred years, this School thus founded, or at the least advanced in reputation by Pantaenus, brought forth the said four famous Doctors, Clemens and Origen, Heraclas and Dionysius, all of them in their times men of great renown, and the lights and glory of their Age. And though I might relate the names of many other men of fame and credit, who had their breeding in these Schools, did it concern the business which I have in hand; yet I shall instance in no more but these, and these it did concern me to make instance of, because their Acts and Writings

are the special subject of all that is to come in this present Chapter; and were indeed the greatest business of that Age.

And first for Clemens, [unspec II] not to take notice of those many Books which were written by him, a Catalogue whereof Eusebius gives us, and from him St. Hierom:* 1.6 those which concern us most, were his eight books inscribed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which are now not extant, and those entituled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which are still remaining. In the first eight, he tells us in the way of story, that Peter, James, and John, after Christs A∣scension,* 1.7 how high soever in the favour of their Lord and Master, contended not a∣mongst themselves for the place and honour, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but made choice of James surnamed the Just, to be the Bishop of Hierusalem: that Peter, on perusal of the Gospel, writ by Mark, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.8 confirm'd the same by his authority, for the ad∣vancement of the Church that James 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.9 to whom the Bishop∣rick of Hierusalem had been committed by the Apostles, was by the malice of the Jews done to a cruel death: that John the Apostle, after Domitian's death,* 1.10 returned to E∣phesus from Patmos, and going at the intreaty of his friends to the neighbour Nations, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in some parts he ordained Bishops, in others planted or established Churches, in others, by the gui∣dance of the holy Spirit, electing fit men for the Clergy; telling withal the story of a certain Bishop, to whom the said Apostle did commit a young man to be trained up. All which he might affirm with the greater confidence, because he tells us of himself,* 1.11 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that he lived very near the Apostles times, and so might have the better light to discern their actions. And for the other eight remaining, although there is but little in them, which concerns this Subject, the Argument of which he writeth, not having any thing to do therewith: yet in that little we have mention of the several Orders, of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons in the Churchof God. And first for Bishops, speaking of the domestick Ministeries that belong to marriage, he shews that by the Apostles Rule,* 1.12 such Bishops are to be ap∣pointed for the Church of God, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as by the orderly government of their private families, may be conceived most fit and likely to have a care unto the Church. Where clearly, by his 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 he means not Presbyters, as the Apostle is conceived to mean in his Epistle to Timothy. For howsoever the Presbyters might be trusted with the charge of a particular Congregation; yet had they never the inspection, the care or gover∣nance, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of a whole Church, or many Churches joyned toge∣ther, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 may be rendred. That was the privilege and power of Bishops. So for the two inferiour Orders, we find them in another place,* 1.13 where he divides such things as concern this life, into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, matters of improvement and advantage, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, subservient only thereunto; then adds, that in the Church of God, the Deacons exercise the subservient Offices; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but that the Presbyters attend those others, which con∣duce to our amendment or improvement in the way of godliness. Out of which words if any man can gather that judging of the conversation or crimes of any members of the Church, that discipline, which worketh emendation in men, is in the power of the Elders,* 1.14 as I see some do, he must needs have a better faculty of extraction, than the best Chymist that I know of. In all that place of Clemens not a word of Judging, nor so much as a syllable of Discipline. A power of bettering and amending our sinful lives, he gives indeed unto the Presbyters: but that I hope both is and may be done by the Ministery of the Word and Sacraments, with which the Presbyters are and have been trusted. This is the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the bettering and improving power which belongs to them; and not the dispensation of the Keys, which have been always put into other hands, or if at any time into theirs, it hath been only in a second and inferiour place, not in the way of judging, in the course of Discipline.

Next let us look on Origen, [unspec III] a man of most prodigious parts both for Wit and Learning; who at the Age of eighteen years was made a Catechist, in the Church,* 1.15 and afterward a publick Reader in the Schools of Alexandria, a man in whom there was nothing ordinary, either good or ill: for when he did well, none could do it better; and when he erred or did amiss, none could do it worse. The course and method of his studies, the many Martyrs which he trained up in the School of Piety, the several Countreys which he travelled, either for informing of himself or others, belong not unto this Discourse. Suffice it, that his eminence in all parts of Learning, and his

great pains in his profession,* 1.16 made him most grateful, for a time, unto Demetrius the Patriarch of Alexandria, though after upon envy at the mans renown, he did endea∣vour to diminish his reputation. For on occasion of the Wars in Egypt, seeing he could not stay in safety there, he went unto Caesarea, the Metropolitan See of Palestine: where, though not yet in holy Orders, he was requested by the Bishop, not only to dispute in publick, as his custom was, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but also to expound the Scriptures; and that too 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in the open Church. Which when it came unto the knowledg of Demetrius, he forthwith signified by Let∣ters his dislike thereof: affirming it to be an unaccustomed and unheard of thing, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that any Lay-man should presume to Preach, or Expound Scripture in the Bishops presence. But hereunto it was replyed by Theocti∣stus Bishop of Caesarea, and Alexander Bishop of Hierusalem who was also there, that he had quite mistook the matter: it being lawful for such men as were fit and emi∣nent, to speak a word of exhortation to the People, or to preach unto them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, if they were thereunto required by the Bishop; instancing in Euelpis, Paulinus, and Theodorus, godly brethren all, who on the like au∣thority had so done before; and they, for their parts, being of opinion, that others besides them had done so too. In agitation of which business, there are these two things presented to us, first the regard and reverence, which was had, in those Pious times, unto the person of a Bishop; and then the power and authority that was vest∣ed in them. For first, it seems that men of whatsoever parts, though of great spirit and abilities, did notwithstanding think it an unfitting thing, to meddle with ex∣pounding Scripture, or edifying of the People, in case the Bishop was in place. And yet as strange and uncouth as it was, or was thought to be, the Licence of the Bishop made it lawful. But then withal we must conceive of Preaching in this place and story, not as a Ministerial Office, but only as an Academical or Scholastical exercise: ac∣cording as it is still used in our Universities, where many not in holy Orders, preach their turns and courses.

And yet indeed Demetrius was not so much out as they thought he was, [unspec IV] but had good ground to go upon, though possibly there was some intermixture of envy in it. For whatsoever had been done in the Eastern Churches; the use was otherwise in Alexandria, and in the Churches of the West: in which it was so far unusual for Lay-men to expound, or preach in the Bishops presence, that it was not lawful for the Presbyters. For in the neighbour Church of Carthage it was thus of old, in these times at least. For when Valerius Bishop of Hippo, a Diocese within that Pro∣vince, being by birth a Grecian, and not so well instructed in the pronunciation of the Latin Tongue, perceived his Preaching not to be so profitable to the common People, for remedy thereof, having then lately ordained Augustin Presbyter, eidem potestatem dedit coram se in Ecclesia Evangelium praedicandi,* 1.17 he gave him leave to preach the Gospel in the Church, though himself were present. And this, saith Possidonius, who relates the story, was contra usum & consuetudinem Ecclesiarum Africanarum, against the use and custom of the African Churches; and many Bishops thereabouts did object as much. But the old man, bearing himself upon the custom of the Eastern Church, where it was permitted, would not change his course. By means whereof it came to pass, that by this example, some Presbyters in other places, acceptâ ab Episcopis potestate, being thereto licenced by the Bishop, did preach before them in the Church, without controul. For Austin being afterwards Bishop of Hippo in the place of Valerius, ap∣plauds Aurelius the Metropolitan of Carthage,* 1.18 for giving way unto the same: commend∣ing him for the great care he took in his Ordinations, but specially, de sermone Pres∣byterorum qui te praesente populo infunditur, for the good Sermons preached by the Pres∣byters unto the People in his presence. But this permission or allowance was only in some places, in some Churches only; perhaps in none but those of Africk. For Hierom writing to Nepotian, (being himself a Presbyter in the Church of Rome) complains thereof ut turpissimae consuetudinis,* 1.19 as of a very evil custom, that in some Churches the Presbyters were not to preach if the Bishop were by. And though he was a man of great authority with Damasus and others his Successours, Popes of Rome; yet got he little by complaining, the custom still continuing as before it was. And this is clear by the Epistle of Pope Leo, in which as it is declared unlawful, to perform divers other Sacred Offices in the Bishops presence,* 1.20 without his special Precept and Com∣mand; so also is there a non licet in this point of Preaching, which was not to be done [nec populum docere, ncc plebem exhortari] if the Bishop were then present in the Con∣gregation.

So that this being then an ancient and received custom, must needs be now in force when Demetrius lived; and, as it seems by his expostulation in the case of Origen, had been no less observed in Alexandria than in Rome or Africk. There was indeed a time, and that shortly after, in which the Presbyters of Alexandria might not preach at all, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as it is in Socrates.* 1.21 Which general restraint, as it was occasioned by reason of the factions raised by Arius, or other troubles of that Church, in the beginning of the Age next following; so it con∣tinued till the times of Socrates and Sozomen,* 1.22 who lived about the middle of the sixth Century, and take notice of it. So that as it appeared before in the case of Austin, that the Bishops have a power to Licence; so it appears by that of Arius, that they also have a power to silence.

But to return again to Origen, [unspec V] the Bishops of Caesarea and Hierusalem finding how profitable a Servant he might prove in the Church of God, did at another time, as he passed through Palestine to go towards Greece, ordain him Presbyter. And this was done 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Eusebius, by the Bishops there,* 1.23 by the two Bishops formerly remembred; no Presbyter concurring in it for ought there we find. Yet when Demetrius moved with his wonted envy, did not only what he could to dis∣grace the man, but also sought to frame an accusation against those, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.24 which had advanced him to the order of a Presbyter: We do not find that he objected any thing against them, as to the Act of Ordination, but only as unto the irregularity of the person, by reason of a corporal defect of his own procuring. And on the other side, when as Demetrius saw his time, and found that some few passages in his many writings, either by him or in his name at least set forth and published, had made him liable unto danger, obnoxious to the censures of the Church; he did not only excommunicate him, which had been enough either to right the Church or revenge himself, but he prevailed with many other Churches also,* 1.25 to confirm the sentence. Ab eodem Demetrio Episcopo Alexandrino fuisse excommunicatione damnatum, prolatamque in eum sententiam à caeteris quoque Ecclesiis ratam habitam, as S. Hierom hath it. Whereas before we had his Ordination performed only by the two Bishops of Caesarea and Hierusalem, without the hands of any of the Presbyters; and yet the Ordination good and valid, the whole Church after reckoning him for a Pres∣byter without doubt or scruple; so here we find him Excommunicated by one Bishop only, without the votes or suffrages of the Presbyters, or any shew or colour of it; and yet the Church concurring with that Bishop, though his ancient Enemy, in con∣firmation of that censure. So fully was the Church persuaded in the former times, that these were parts of the Episcopal jurisdiction and authority, that there was no objection made against this last, though Origen had many friends, and those great ones too; nor nullity or invalidity in the first, although Demetrius, who by reason of his great place and power, had made him many Enemies, did except against it.

From that which doth occur concerning Origen in the Books and Works of other Writers, [unspec VI] proceed we unto that which doth occur concerning Bishops in the works of Origen. And there we find in the first place the several Orders of Bishops, Presbyters and Deacons. For speaking of those words of the Apostle, He that desireth the Office of a Bishop, desireth a good work; he tells us this,* 1.26 Talis igitur Episcopus non desiderat bonum opus, that such a Bishop desireth not a good work, who desireth the Office, either to get glory amongst men, or be flattered and courted by them, or for the hope of gain from those which believe the Gospel, and give large gifts in testimony of their Piety. Then adds, Idem vero & de Presbyteris & de Diaconis dices, that the same is to be said of Presbyters and Deacons also. Nor doth he only shew us, though that were sufficient, the several ranks and orders in the Hierarchy, but also the ascent or degrees from the one to the other, In Ecclesia Christi inveniuntur,

In the Church of Christ,* 1.27 saith he, there are some men who do not only follow Feasts and them that make them, but also love the chiefest places, and labour much, primùm ut Diaconi fiant, first to be made Deacons, not such as the Scripture describeth, but such as under pretence of long Prayers devour Widdows houses. And having thus been made Deacons, cathedras eorum qui vocantur Presbyteri praeripere ambiunt, they very greedily aspire to the chairs of those who are called Presbyters; and some not therewithal content, practise many ways, ut Episcopi vocentur ab hominibus, to have the place or name of Bishops, which is as much to say as Rabbi,

And shortly after, having en∣deavoured to depress this ambitious humour, he gives this caveat, that he who exalts himself shall be humbled, which he desireth all men to take notice of, but specially

the Deacons, Presbyters, and Bishops, which do not think those words to be spoken of them. Here have we three degrees of Ministers in the Church of God, one being a step unto the other, whereof the Bishop is Supream, in the highest place. And not in place only, but in power also, and authority, as being the men unto whose hands the keys were trusted by our Saviour.* 1.28 For in another place he discourseth thus. Quoniam ii qui Episcoporum locum sibi vendicant, &c. When they which challenge to themselves the place of Bishops, do make the same confession that Peter did, and have received from our Saviour the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, teaching that what they bind on Earth is bound in Hea∣ven, and what they loose in Earth is loosed in Heaven; we must acknowledge that what they said is true, if withal they have those things for which it was so said to Peter. For if he be bound with the Chains of his own sins, frustra vel ligat vel solvit, in vain he takes upon him to bind or loose. In the which words (not taking notice of his errour, seeming to make the efficacy of the Ministery to depend upon the merit of the Minister) we find that in the time of Origen the dispensation of the Keys was the Bishops office. This, if it should not be sufficient to declare their power, we may hear him in another place calling them Principes populi Christiani,* 1.29 the Princes of the Christian people, blaming them, such especially as lived in the greatest Cities (in which he secretly upbraids the proud behaviour of Demetrius towards him) for want of affability and due respect to their Inferiors: And writing on these words of our Saviour Christ, Who is that faithful and wise Servant,* 1.30 &c. he applies them thus, Peccat in Deum quicunque Episcopus, qui non quasi conservis servus ministrat, sed quasi Dominus.

That Bishop whosoever he be, doth offend against God, which doth not minister as a Servant to his Fellow-Servants, but rather as a Lord amongst them; yea, and too often as a sharp and bitter Master, domineering over them by violence (remember how Demetrius used him) like the Task-masters in the Land of Egypt, afflicting the poor Israelites by force.

Finally, as he doth acquaint us with their power and eminency, so doth he tell us also of their care and service;* 1.31 assuring us, that he who is called unto the Office of a Bishop, non vocatur ad principatum, sed ad servitutem totius Ecclesiae, is not invited to an Empire or a Principality, but to the Service of the whole Church. And this he keeps himself to constantly in that whole discourse (being the sixth Homily on the Prophet Esay) in which although he afterwards doth call the Bishop, Ecclesiae Princeps, yet he affirms that he is called ad servitutem, to a place of service; and that by looking to his service well, ad solium coeleste ire posset, he may attain an Heavenly Throne. And so much shall suffice for Origen, a Learned but unfortunate man, with whom the Church had never peace, either dead or living.

From him then we proceed unto his Successor, [unspec VII] Heraclas, an Auditor at first of Clemens,* 1.32 then of Origen, who being marvellously affected with the great Learning of the man, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, made him his Partner in the Chair; which after Origen was laid by,* 1.33 he managed wholly by himself with great applause. A man that had the happiness to succeed the two greatest Enemies in the world, Origen and Demetrius; the one in the Schools, the other in the Church of Alexandria; unto which honour he was called on Demetrius death, who had sate Bishop there three and forty years. On this preferment of Heraclas unto the Patriarchate, the Regency of the Alexandrian Schools, was forthwith given to Dionysius, another of Origens Disciples, who after fourteen years or thereabout, succeeded also in the Bishoprick. And here began that alteration in the Election of the Bishops of this Church, which S. Hierom speaks of.* 1.34 The Presbyters before this time used to Elect their Bishop from among themselves. Alexandriae à Marco Evangelista usque ad Heraclam & Dionysium Episcopos, Presbyteri unum ex se electum, in excelsiori gradu collocatum, Episcopum nominabant, as the Father hath it. But here we find that course was altered, though what the alteration was, in what it did consist, whether in the Electors, or the condition of the party to be Elected, is not so clearly evident in S. Hierom's words. For my part, I conceive it might be in both, both in the unum ex se, and the collocabant. For first the Presbyters of that Church had used to choose their Bishop from amongst themselves, Electing al∣ways one of their own body. But in the choice of these two Bishops that course was altered; these two not being Presbyters of the Church, but Readers in the Schools of Alexandria, and so not chosen from amongst themselves. And secondly, I take it that the course was altered, as to the Electors, to the Collocabant. For whereas hereto∣fore the Presbyters had the sole power of the Election, to choose whom they listed, and having chosen, to enthrone him without expecting what the people were pleased to do; the people seeing what was done in other Churches, begun to put in for a share,

not only ruling, but finally over-ruling the Election. What else should further the Election of these two, I can hardly tell; but that their diligence and assiduity in the discharge of the employment they had took upon them; the great abilities they shewed therein, and the great satisfaction given thereby unto the people, who carefully fre∣quented those publick Readings, had so endeared them to the multitude, that no other Bishops could content them, had not these been chosen. And this I am the rather in∣duced to think, because that in a short time after, the interess of the people in the E∣lection of their Bishop was improved so high, that the want of their consent and suffrage was thought by Athanasius a sufficient bar against the right of the Elected,* 1.35 affirming it to be against the Churches Canons, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and to the pre∣cept of the Apostles. But which of these soever it was, an alteration here was made of the ancient custom, which is as much as is intended by S. Hierom in the words al∣ledged. How others have abused this place, to prove that the imparity of Bishops is not of Divine Authority, but only brought in by the Presbyters, we have shewn before. Part I. Cha. 3.

But to go on with Dionysius (for of Heraclas and his acts there is little mention) we find the time in which he sate to be full of troubles; [unspec VIII] both in regard of Persecutions which were raised against the Church without, and Heresies which assaulted her within. Novatus had begun a faction in the Church of Rome, grounding the same upon a false and dangerous doctrine; the sum whereof we find in an Epistle of this Dionysius,* 1.36 unto another Dionysius Pope of Rome. And whereas Fabius Bishop of Antiochia, was thought to be a fautor of that Schism, he writes to him about it also.* 1.37 So when Sabellius had begun to disperse his Heresies, he presently gives notice of it to Sixtus, or Xystus Bishop of the Church of Rome; as also unto Ammon Bishop of Bernice, and Basilides the Metropolitan of Cyrenaica or Pentapolis, and to divers others. And when that Paulus Samosatenus began to broach strange doctrins in the Church of Christ, although he could not go in person to suppress the same, yet writ he an Epistle to the Bishops Assembled there, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, declaring his opinion of the point in question. And on the other side, when as the Persecutors made foul havock in the Church, and threatned utterly to destroy the Professors of it;* 1.38 he by his Letters certifieth his neighbouring Bishops in what estate Gods Church stood with him, with what heroick resolutions the Christians in his charge did abide the fury, and conquered their tormenters by their patient sufferings; so giving houour to the dead, and breathing courage in the living. Indeed what Bishops almost were there in those parts of Christendom, with whom he held not correspondence, with whom he had not mutual and continual entercourse by the way of Letters, from whom he did not carefully receive in the self-same way both advice and comfort? Witness his several Epistles, besides those formerly remembred, unto Cornelius Pope of Rome,* 1.39 com∣mending him for an Epistle by him written against Novatus; and giving notice to him of the death of Fabius, and how Demetrianus did succeed him in the See of Antioch; and also to the Church of Rome, discoursing of the publick Ministeries in the Christian Church. Witness that also unto Stephanus, the Predecessor of Cornelius,* 1.40 entituled De Baptismate; a second to the aforesaid Stephanus, about the faction of Novatus. To Dionysius Bishop of Rome, besides that before remembred from Eusebius, a second ex∣tant in the works of Athanasius. And one to Paulus Samosatenus,* 1.41 the wretched Pa∣triarch of Antiochia, of which though there is no mention in Eusebius, who tells us that he would not vouchsafe to write unto him, yet is it intimated in Nicephorus, who affirmes the contrray, and extant in the Bibliotheca Patrum, and in the Annals of Ba∣ronius. It were an infinite and endless labour to recite all those, which besides these inscribed unto the Bishops of the greater Churches, he writ and sent to others of less note and quality, as viz. to Conon Bishop of Hierapolis, the Churches of Laodicea and Armenia, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and to whom not almost either Priest or Bishop that was of any merit and consideration in the Church of Christ?

If you demand to what end serves this general muster of the Epistles of this Prelate, [unspec IX] why I have brought them thus into the field in their ranks and files, I answer that it was to let you see what was the ancient form of government in the Church of Christ, before they had the happiness to live under Christian Princes, and thereby opportunity of meeting in their General Councils. For all the Apostles being furnished by our Lord and Saviour, with an equality of power and honour; pari consortio praediti potesta∣tis & honoris, as S. Cyprian hath it;* 1.42 by consequence all Bishops also were founded in the like equality. So that the government of the Church, as to the outward form and

polity thereof, was Aristocratical. And being so, there was in manner a necessity im∣posed upon the Prelates of the Church, to maintain mutual entercourse and corre∣spondence betwixt one another by Letters, Messages, and Agents, for the communi∣cating of their Councils, and imparting their advice, as occasion was in all omergent dangers of the Church. For howsoever that the Church had followed in some things the pattern of the Roman Empire, and in each Diocess thereof (taking the Word ac∣cording to the civil sense) had instituted and ordained a Primate, to whom the final resolution of all businesses did appertain, that fell within the compass of that Diocess: Yet all these Primates being of equal power and authority, each of them absolute and independent with the bounds and limits of his own jurisdiction, there was no other way to compose such differences as were either indeterminable at home, or otherwise concerned the publick, but this of mutual entercourse and correspondence. And this, what ever is opined unto the contrary both by the Masters and the Scholars in the Church of Rome, who have advanced the Pope into the Soveraign or Supream di∣rection in all points of doubt; will prove to be the practice of the Christian Church in all times and Ages, till the Authority of all other Churches in the worst and darkest times of Christianity, came to be swallowed up in the gulph of Rome. For presently upon the death of the Apostles, who questionless had the frequent resort, the final end∣ing of all businesses which concerned the Church, a full and plenary authority to di∣rect the same;* 1.43 we find that Clemens, one of their Disciples, sends his Epistle to the Church of Corinth for the composing of some Schisms which were raised amongst them, and that Ignatius Bishop of Antioch, another of their Scholars sends the like to Rome, for their confirming in the faith. Besides which, as he travelled towards Rome, or rather was haled thither to his Execution, he dispatched others of his Epistles unto other Churches, and one amongst the rest unto Polycarpus Bishop of Smyrna, commen∣ding unto him the good estate of the Church of Antioch.* 1.44 The like we find of Dionysius Bishop of Corinth, a right godly man, of whose Epistles to the Lacedemonians, Athe∣nians, Nicomedians, and those of Crete; as also to the Churches in Pontus, nay to that of Rome, conducing either to the beating down of Heresies, or to the preservation of peace and unity, or to the confirmation of the faith, or rectifying of what was amiss in the Churches discipline, there is full mention in Eusebius.

Thus when Pope Victor by his rash perversness had almost plunged the Church in an endless broil;* 1.45 the Bishops of these times bestirred themselves by publique writings to compose the quarrel; particularly Irenaeus and Polyerates, the one the Metropolitan of the Gallick, the other of the Asian Churches. And when that many of the Bishops se∣verally had convocated Councils and Synodical meetings to make up this breach; upon the rising of the same they sent out their Letters,* 1.46 signifying what they had Decreed, advising what they would have done by all Christian people.* 1.47 For though Eusebius in∣stanceth in none but the Bishops of Caesarea and Hierusalem, (in the records of which, in two Churches, he had been most versed) which sent out these Synodical Epistles; yet being so many other Metropolitans had called Synods also to the same intent, I doubt not but they took the same course as the others did in manifesting their Decrees and Counsels. Nay so exact and punctual they were in the continuance of this mutual amity and correspondence, that there was almost no occurrence of any moment o•• consideration,* 1.48 not so much as the death of some eminent Prelate, and the succession of a new; but they gave notice of it unto one another, ending their Letters of congra∣tulation unto the party so advanced: Examples of the which in Ecclesiastical Histories are both infinite and obvious. By means of which continual intercourse there was main∣teined, not only an Association of the several Churches for their greater strength, nor a Communication only of their Councils for the publick safety, but a Communion also with each other,* 1.49 as Members of the Mystical Body of our Saviour Christ. And this is that Optatus speaks of, when having made a Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome, from S. Peter down unto Siricius, who then held that place; or, as his words there are, Qui noster est Socius, who was his Partner or Associate in the common Government of the Church: He adds, Cum quo nobis totus orbis commercio formatarum in una communionis societate concordant, with whom the whole world doth agree with us in one communion or so∣ciety, by Letters of intercourse and correspondence. For Literae formatae, or communi∣catoriae, were these Letters called, as in the 163 Epistle of S. Austin, where both names occur.

This as it was the usage of the former times, so was there never more need to uphold the same, than in the latter part of this present Age. So mighty a distemper had pos∣sessed

the Church, that no part almost of it was in a tolerable constitution: and there∣fore it concerned the Bishops to be quick and active, before the maladies thereof be∣came incurable. In that of Carthage, besides the faction raised by Felicissimus, which had no countenance from the Church; there was an erroneous doctrine publickly re∣ceived about the Baptism of Hereticks. The Church of Alexandria, besides the heat she fell into concerning Origen, was much disquieted by the Heresie of Sabellius, broach∣ed within the same. And that no sooner was suppressed, or at lest quieted for the present, but a great flame brake out in the Church of Antioch, which beginning in the House of Paulus Samosatenus before remembred, had like to have put all the Church into combustion. Rome in the mean time was afflicted more than all the rest, by the Schism raised, and the false doctrines preached therein, by Novatianus: and that not for a fit only and no more but so, but in a constant kind of sickness, which disturbed her long. In this distemper of the Church, the Bishops had no way to consult her health; but by having recourse to their old way of mutual commerce and conference: which being it could not be performed in person, must be done by Letters. And so accordingly it was. Witness those several Letters written by St. Cyprian to the Bishops of Rome: viz. from him to Stephanus, Epist. 71. to Lucius, Epist. 58. and to Corne∣lius, Epist. 42, 43, 47, 54, 55, 57. to the Church there, Epist. 23, 29. and from the Church of Rome and the Bishops of it, unto him again, Epist. 31, 46, 48, 49. In all of which they mutually both give and take advice, as the necessities of their affairs, and the condition of the Church required: Nor was the business of the Church of Carthage, in agitation between Cyprian only and the Roman Prelates; but taken also into the care and consideration of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria,* 1.50 who writ his judg∣ment in it, and advice about it, to Stephanus then Pope of Rome, who held against St. Cyprian, or indeed rather for the truth, in the point in question. What the same Dionysius did, for the suppressing of the faction of Novatus, raised in Rome at first, but after spreading further over all the Church, we have in part beheld already, by his Epistle unto Fabius of Antiochia who was suspected to incline that way; and that in∣scribed unto Cornelius, written about that business also, which before we spake of. And we may see what Cyprian did in recompence of that advice and comfort which he had from Rome, in his own afflictions, by the great care he took for the composing of her Schisms and troubles when she fell into them; by his Epistles to that only purpose: as viz. those unto Cornelius,* 1.51 intituled Quod ordinationem Novatiani non rece∣perit, De ordinatione ejus à se comprobata, Quod ad Confessores à Novatiano seductos li∣teras fecerit: The Letters of those seduced Confessors to him, and his congratulation unto them upon their return to their obedience to the Church; Cornelius writing unto him touching the faction of Novatian, and their wicked practices, with his Re∣ply unto Cornelius. Thus also when Sabellius began to broach his Heresies within the jurisdiction of Alexandria; he did not only signifie the same to the Bishop of Rome, which by the Cardinal is used I know not how, for a prime Argument,* 1.52 to prove the Popes Supremacy: but unto divers other Bishops, as before was shewn, to whom assuredly he owed no obedience. This as he did, according to the usage of the Church, at that time in force: so took he other courses also for the suppression of that Heresie, both by power and pen. For finding upon certain information 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that diverse Bishops of Pentapolis,* 1.53 being within the Patriarchat of Alexandria, began to countenance and embrace the said desperate doctrines, and had so far prevailed therein, that there was hardly any mention in their Churches of the Son of God; he knowing that the care and oversight of the said Churches did belong to him, first laboured by his Messengers and Commissioners to dissuade them from those lewd opinions; and when that would not do the deed, he was constrained to write unto them an Epistle, in which he throughly confuted their erroneous Tenets. By which as we may see the care and piety of this famous Prelate, triumphing in the fall of Heresie; so we may see the power and emi∣nency of that famous See, having the governance and superintendency of so many Churches.

But that which was indeed the greatest business of his time, [unspec XI] and which the Church was most concerned in, was that of Paulus Samosatenus, the sixteenth Bishop of the Church of Antioch, great in relation to the man,* 1.54 one of the three prime Bishops in the Christian Church; and great inference to the danger which was like to follow. When one of the main Pillars of a Church is foundred, the whole edifice is in danger of a present ruin. And therefore presently upon the apprehension of the mischief likely

to ensue, in case there was no speedy course taken to prevent the same, the Bishops of all parts repaired to Antioch, not only those which were within the jurisdiction of that Patriarchate, but such as lived far off; and in all possibility, might have kept their Churches from the infection of the Heresie, being so remote. For thither came Firmilianus Bishop of Caesarea,* 1.55 in Cappadocia, Gregory surnamed Thaumaturgus, Bishop of Neo-Caesarea in Pontus, and Athenodorus his brother, another Bishop of that Pro∣vince, Helenus Bishop of Tarsus, Nicomas Bishop of Iconium, Hymenaeus Bishop of Hie∣rusalem, Maximus Bishop of Bostra, Theoctecnus Bishop of Caesarea, the Metropolis of Pa∣lestine; and so many others, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that the number of them was in∣numerable. Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria was required also to be there,* 1.56 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but he excused himself by reason of his age and weakness. And well indeed he might do so, being then very ill at ease, and dying whilst the Synod was in preparation.* 1.57 But what he could not do in person, he performed by his Pen: writing not only to the Fathers, who were there assem∣bled, which Eusebius speaks of; but to the Heretick himself, a Copy of the which we have both in Baronius and the Bibliotheca, as before was said. As for the other Dionysius the then Pope of Rome, I find not any thing that he did, to quench the flame.* 1.58 For though Baronius being sensible how much it might redound to this Popes disgrace, that he alone should be a looker on in so great a business, wherein the honour of our Lord and SAVIOUR was so much concerned; hath fained a Council to be held at Rome at the same time, and for the same intent, and purpose; yet there is no such thing in Athanasius whom he cites to prove it; neither doth Bi∣nius, though in other things he takes up much of his Commodities on the Cardinals word, speak the least word of such a Council. It may be that the Popes then being, had so much work cut out at home by the Novatian faction there; that they had little leisure to attend a business so remote and distant: which is the best excuse I can see for them. And yet welfare the Cardinal and his Binius too. For though the Pope was neither there, nor had so much as sent his Letters for ought we can find; and that the Synodical Epistle written by the Fathers,* 1.59 was inscribed to this Dionysius Ma∣ximus Bishop of Alexandria, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and to all o∣ther their Colleagues, the Bishops, over all the World, and to the Presbyters and Deacons, and the whole Catholick Church,* 1.60 as the Title runneth: yet they will needs inscribe it to the Pope, none else; Ad Dionysium Romanum Pontificem scripserunt, so saith Binius, Synodicam ad Dionysium Papam scriptam: So Baronius hath it; and both ridiculously false.

But to return again unto the Council, the issue of the whole was this; that Paulus was deposed from his place and dignity; Domnus succeeding in the seat. And where∣as Paulus notwithstanding his abdication,* 1.61 still kept possession of his House, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the House belonging to his Bishoprick. as the story hath it: the Empe∣rour Aurelian, being made acquainted with it, did determine thus, that it should be delivered unto them, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to whom the Bishops of Italy and Rome should adjudg the same.

Now in this business there are these two things to be considered; [unspec XII] the man thus sen∣tenced, and those to whom the last part of the Sentence was to be put in execution: both of them yielding matter worthy of our observation, for the present business. For Paulus first, the Fathers of the Council laying down the course and passages of his behaviour,* 1.62 do describe him thus: that being born of mean and ordinary paren∣tage, he had amassed great sums of money, and full heaps of Treasure: which he had gotten by bribery and corruption, from those that were in Suits and differences, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and had repaired to him to be righted in their several causes: next, that he never went abroad in publick, but that he was attended by a Cuard; some of them going before him, others following after, to the great scandal of the Gospel: And last of all, that he had caused a Throne of State to be erected for him, not such as did become one of CHRISTS Disciples, but high and lofty, such as the Princes of the World (or rather secular Princes) did use to sit in. Which passages (for I omit the rest that follow, as not conducing to the story which I have in hand) as they do manifestly set forth unto us the extream pride, and base corruptions of the man: so do they also give us no obscure light, whereby we may discern the customs of the Church in these particulars.

For first, I find it not objected against Paulus, that he did deal sometimes in such Suits and differences, (matters of secular business out of question) as were brought before him:* 1.63 but that he took bribes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and received

money of such men as came for Justice, and yet abused them too, and did nothing for them. So that it is not faulted by the Fathers, for ought I can see, that he made himself a Judg amongst his brethren, or took upon him to compose such differences, as were brought before him (which certainly was no new matter in these times:) but that he was corrupt and base, not Ministring, but selling Justice to the People; perhaps not selling Justice neither, but making them pay dearly for an unjust Sen∣tence.

The next thing I observe is this, that Paulus is not charged by the Synod for being well attended, for having many followers waiting on him, according to the great∣ness of his place and quality. Their words as in Eusebius they are laid before me, will bear no such meaning: though some indeed, to raise an Odium on the Prelacy,* 1.64 do expound it so, as if a great part of his pride and insolency consisted in that numerous train which attended on him in the Streets. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.* 1.65 He did not stir abroad without a Guard, saith the Original, Magna satellitum stipatus turba, saith the Translator of Eusebius, Cum satellitio publicitus ingrediens,* 1.66 as the Translator of Nicephorus hath it. Now whether we look upon this passage in the Greek, as given us in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or in the Latin Satellitium, or Satel∣litum turba: I must profess my ignorance to be such in both the Languages, that though I find it charged on Paulus, that he was guarded when he went abroad with a band of Spear-men; I find it not objected that he was Attended by a Train of ser∣vants.

Last of all for his Throne, the charge consists not as I take it, in the thing it self, for Bishops were allowed their Thrones in the Primitive times; but in the raising of it to a greater height than had been accustomed. Cassiodore,* 1.67 I am sure doth expound it so: Intra Ecclesiam vero tribunal in alto altius quam fuerat extrui, & thronum in ex∣celsioribus collocari jubet, secretarium quoque sterni & parari, sicut judicibus seculi solet.

He caused his Tribunal in the Church to be built much higher than it had been former∣ly, and his Throne to be placed more aloft than before it was, and a Closet also to be trimmed and furnished, as secular Judges used to have.

By which it seemeth, ta∣king the Authors words as they lie together,* 1.68 that it was not the Throne but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the state and exaltation of the Throne, that gave the scandal. A Throne he might have had, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as other Bishops Christs Disciples used to have be∣fore. But he would have his Throne exalted, adorned and furnished like a Closet, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, after the manner of Kings and Princes: Or if the Seat or Throne here spoken of, were a Tribunal, as it is said by Cassiodore; we must not look upon him in the Church, but in the Consistory: in which he would have nothing ordi∣nary like to other Bishops, but all things suted and adorned like the Bench or Judgment-seat of a Civil Magistrate.

As for the men to whom the execution of the Sentence was committed, [unspec XIII] which is the next thing here to be considered, Eusebius tells us that they were the Bishops of Rome and Italy. And possibly the Emperour might commit the judgment of the cause to them, because being strangers to the place, and by reason of their absence not ingaged in the business, or known to either of the two Pretenders; they might with greater equity and indifference, determine in it. This is more like to be the reason, than that the Emperour should take such notice of the Popes authority, as to conceive the Judgments and Decrees of other Bishops to be no further good and valid, quam eas authoritas Romani Pontificis confirmasset,* 1.69 than as they were confirmed by the Bishop of Rome, as fain the Cardinal would have it. If so, what needed the Italian Bishops to be joyned with him? The Pope might do it of himself without their ad∣vice, indeed without the Emperours Authority. This was not then the matter, whatsoever was; and what was like to be the matter we have said already. And more than that I need not say, as to the reason of the reference, why the Emperour made choice rather of the Western than the Eastern Bishops to cognisance the cause, and give possession on the same accordingly. But there is something else to be considered, as to the matter of the reference to the point referred; as also to the persons who by this Sovereign Authority were enabled to determine in the cause proposed.

And first as for the point referred, whereas there were two things considerable in the whole proceedings against Paulus; viz. his dangerous and heretical Doctrine, and next his violent and unjust possession: the first had been adjudged before in the Council, and he deposed for the same. With that the Bishops either of Rome or Italy had no more to do, than to subscribe unto the judgment of the Synod: or be∣ing

being a matter meerly of spiritual cognizance, might in a like Synodical meeting, with∣out the Emperors Authority as their case then stood, have censured and condemned the Heresie, though with his person possibly they could not meddle, as being of ano∣ther Patriarchat. But that which here I find referred unto them, was a mere Lay-fee, a point of title and possession, and it was left unto them to determine in it, whether the Plaintiff or Defendant had the better right to the house in question. This was the point in issue between the parties, and they upon the hearing of the cause, gave sen∣tence in behalf of Domnus; who presently upon the said award or sentence, was put into possession of the house, and the force removed by the appointment of the Em∣perour. And it is worth our notice also, that as they did not thrust themselves into the imployment, being a matter meerly of a secular nature: so when the Emperor re∣quired their advice therein, or if you will make them his Delegates and High Com∣missioners; they neither did delay or dispute the matter, nor pleaded any Ancient Canons, by which they might pretend to be disabled from intermedling in the same. A thing which questionless some one or other of them would have done, there being so many Godly and Religious Prelates interessed therein, had they conceived that the imployment had been inconsistent with their holy calling.

A second thing to be considered in this delegation, [unspec XIV] concerns the parties unto whom it was committed, which were as hath been said before, the Bishops of Italy, and of the City of Rome. In which it will not be impertinent to examine briefly why the Bishops of Italy,* 1.70 and the Bishops of Rome, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as by Nicephorus it is given us in the plural number, should be here reckoned as distinct, since both the City of Rome was within the limits and bounds of Italy, and Italy subordinate, or rather subject to the City of Rome, [unspec 242] the Queen and Empress of the World. For resolution of which Quaere, we may please to know that in the distribution of the Roman Empire, the continent of Italy, together with the Isles adjoyning was divided into two parts, viz. the Prefecture of the City of Rome, conteining Latium, Tuscia, and Picenum, the Realm of Naples,* 1.71 and the three Islands of Sicily, Corsica, and Sardinia, as before was said, the head City or Metropolis of the which was the City of Rome.

And secondly, the Diocess of Italy containing all the Western and broader part there∣of from the River Magra to the Alpes, in which were comprehended seven other Provinces, and of the which the Metropolis, or prime City was that of Millain, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as in Athanasius.* 1.72 So that that Church being in the Common-wealth, according to that maxim of Optatus, and following the pattern of the same, in the proportion and fabrick of her publick Government, the Bishops of the Diocess of Italy were no way under the command of the Patriarch or Primate of the Church of Rome, but of their own Primate only, which was he of Millain. And this division seems to be of force in the times we speak of, because that in the subscriptions to the Council of Arles,* 1.73 being about 40 years after that of Antioch; the Bishops of Italy stand divided into two ranks or Provinces, that is to say Provincia Italiae, and Provincia Ro∣mana, the Province of Italy, of which Orosius the Metropolitan of Millain subscribeth only, and then the Province of the City of Rome, for which Gregorius Bishop of Porto subscribeth first. In after Ages the distinction is both clear and frequent, as in the Epistle of the Council of Sardica extant in Athanasius,* 1.74 and an Epistle of the said Atha∣nasius written unto others. So that according to the Premisses this conclusion follow∣eth, that the Popes or Patriarchs of Rome had no Authority in the Church more than other Primates, no not in Italy it self, more than the Metropolitan of Millain, as may appear, should all proofs else be wanting by this place and passage, by which the Bi∣shops of the Diocess of Italy (taking the word Diocess in its civil sense) were put into a joynt commission, with the Bishops of the Patriarchat of Rome with the Pope himself. Which tending so expresly to the overthrow of the Popes Supremacy, as well Christopher∣son in his Translation of Eusebius, as the great Cardinal Baronius in his Application of the place, are fain to falsifie their Author. For whereas in the Text we have that he of the Petenders was to have possession, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to whom the Bishops of Italy,* 1.75 and the City of Rome should adjudge the same: Christopherson translates it thus, Quibus Christiani Italiae & Ʋrbis Romae Episcopi tribuenda praescriberent; Baronius with less ambiguity, Cui Italiae Christiani, & Ʋrbis Romanae Episco∣pi dandam praescriberent; to whom the Christians of Italy and the Bishops of the City of Rome should think fit to give it. And for a further testimony of this equality betwixt Rome and Millain, we may note also on the by, that each Church had its proper and peculiar customs; Rome neither giving Law to Millain, nor she to Rome. Witness

that signal difference betwixt them in the Saturdays fast, which in those times was kept at Rome, but not at Millain; according to that memorable saying of Saint Ambrose, quando Romae sum, jejuno Sabbato; quando hic sum, non jejuno Sabbato:* 1.76 In∣deed the Church of Millain might well stand on her own Prerogatives, as being little inferiour unto that of Rome, either in the condition of her founder, or the Antiquity of her foundation: S. Barnabas the Apostle being generally reported for the first Bishop here, to whom Anathalon succeeded, Gaius after him,* 1.77 and so successively Bishop after Bishop, till these very times. Thus having prosecuted the affairs of this second Century from the Church of Carthage, unto that of Alexandria, from thence to Antioch; and on occasion of Samosatenus Bishop of this last, being forced to take a journey over unto Rome and Italy, we will next look on the condition of these Western Churches, and the estate wherein Episcopacy stood amongst them for this present Age.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Eus. hist. Eccl. lib. 5. c. 10.
• * 1.2

  Id. ibid.
• * 1.3

  Id. l. 5. c. 11.
• * 1.4

  Id. l. 6. c. 5.
• * 1.5

  Id. li. 6. cap. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.6

  Euseb. hist Ecc. l. 6. c. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.7

  Id. l. 2. c. 2.
• * 1.8

  Id. ib. c. 14.
• * 1.9

  Id. Ibid. cap. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.10

  Id. l. 3. c. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.11

  Id. l. 6. cap. 11. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.12

  Clement. Alex∣and. Stroma. lib. 3.
• * 1.13

  Id. ibid. li. 7.
• * 1.14

  Smectymn. p. 38.
• * 1.15

  Hieron. de Script. Eccl. in Origine.
• * 1.16

  Euseb. bist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Id. ib. c. 13. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.17

  Possidon. in vit. Aug. c. 5.
• * 1.18

  Aug. Ep. 77.
• * 1.19

  Hieron. ad Ne∣potianum.
• * 1.20

  Leon. Ep. 88.
• * 1.21

  Socrat. hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 21.
• * 1.22

  Sozom. hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 19.
• * 1.23

  Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 17. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. &c. 7.
• * 1.24

  Id. l. 6. c. 7. n.
• * 1.25

  Hier. in Apo. l cont. Ruffinum.
• * 1.26

  Origen in Mat. cap. 15.
• * 1.27

  Orig. tract. 24. in Mat. c. 23.
• * 1.28

  Id. Tract. 1. in Matth.
• * 1.29

  Id. in Mat. 19. Tractat. 12.
• * 1.30

  Id. in Mat. 24. Tractat. 31.
• * 1.31

  Id. Homil. 6. in Esaiam.
• * 1.32

  ••••s••b. hist. l. 6. c. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.33

  Id. c. 20. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.34

  Hieron. ad Eva∣grium.
• * 1.35

  Atha. in Epi. ad Orthodoxos.
• * 1.36

  Eus. hist. Ec. lib. 7. cap. 7.
• * 1.37

  Id. l. 6. c. 36. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Id. l. 7. c. 5. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Id. l. 7. c. 21. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Id. l. 7. c. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.38

  Id. l. 6. c. 34. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.39

  Id. li. 6. c. 38.
• * 1.40

  Id. l. 7. c. 2. Id. l. 7. c. 4.
• * 1.41

  Athanas. opera graec. lat. Tom. 1. p. 558. Euse. l. 7. c. 24. Nicephorus, Ecc. hist. l. 6. c. 27. Biblio. Patr. T. 3. edit. Col. Bar. An. 265. Euseb. bist. l. 6. cap. ult.
• * 1.42

  Cyprian de Ec∣clesiae unitate.
• * 1.43

  Ruseb. hist. Ec. l. 3. c. 12. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Id. c. 30. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.44

  Id. l. 4. c. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.45

  Id. l. 5. c. 23.24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.46

  Ib. c. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.47

  Ib. c. 25. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.48

  Id. l. 6. c. 28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. Id. l. 6. c. 10.16. & Cyprian. E∣pist. 42.
• * 1.49

  Optat. de Schi. Donat. l. 2.
• * 1.50

  Euseb. hist. Ecc. l. 7. cap. 2.
• * 1.51

  Cypr. Ep. 41. Id. Ep. 42. Id. Ep. 43. Id. Ep. 50, 51. Id. Ep. 48, 49.
• * 1.52

  Baron. in An∣nal. Eccl. Anno 260. n. 62.
• * 1.53

  Athan. de sen∣tent. Dionys.
• * 1.54

  Euseb. Eccl. hist. l. 7. c. 22. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.55

  Id. Ibid.
• * 1.56

  Id. ibid.
• * 1.57

  Id. ibid.
• * 1.58

  Baron. Annal. Eccl. Anno 1272. 18.
• * 1.59

  Euseb. hist. Ecc. l. 7. c. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.60

  Bin. Annot. in Concil. Tom. 1. p. 161. Baron. in An∣nal. An. 272.17.
• * 1.61

  Euseb. hist. Ecc. l. 7. c. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.62

  Id. ibid.
• * 1.63

  Id. nbid.
• * 1.64

  Smectymn. p. 55.
• * 1.65

  Id. ibid.
• * 1.66

  Niceph. Eccl. hist. l. 6. c 30.
• * 1.67

  Cassiodor. hist. tripart. l. 7.
• * 1.68

  Euseb. hist, Ecc. l. 7. c. 24. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• * 1.69

  Baron. in An∣nal. Anno 272. n. 18.
• * 1.70

  Niceph. hist. Eccl. l. 6. c. 29.
• * 1.71

  Vide chap. 3. of this 2. Part.
• * 1.72

  Athanas. in Epist. iad soli∣tar. vitam a∣gentes. Optat. de Schis. Dona. l. 2.
• * 1.73

  Conc. Tom. 1.
• * 1.74

  In Athanas. Apolog. 2. Atha. ad soli∣tar. vitam a∣gentes.
• * 1.75

  Euseb. hist. Eccl. l. 7. c. 24 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Baron. in An∣nal. An. 272. n. 18.
• * 1.76

  In Aug. Ep. 86. in fine.
• * 1.77

  Baron. Annet. in Martyr. Rom. Junii 11. Martyr. Rom. Sept. 25.27.