In chap. 7. He pretendeth to prove, that in the Apostles times Parishes began to be distinguished under one only Bishop, &c. But what's the proof? Rome and Alexandria are all the Instances. †But, 1. his proof that Evaristus divided Parishes about An. 100 is worth nothing, as having no sufficient evidence, but fabulous reports. 2. He allegeth Eusebius, l. 2. •. 15. saying of St. Mark, that he is said first to have constituted the Churches of Alexandria. But this is no proof. 1. Because Eusebius's following words out of Philo do make it most probable, that by [the Churches of Alexandria] he meant [the Churches in and about Alexandria,] which proveth not many in the City it self. 2. If he had planted many Churches in the City, it is no proof that he varied from the practice of the other Apostles, who (as Act. 14. 23.) placed Elders (that is, saith Dr. Hammond, Bishops) in every Church: Or that the Elders of each Church had not the true Pastoral or Episcopal power of Governing the Flock, (which is all that we plead for.) And if it had been proved that Mark had been over them: it followeth not that he was not over them as an Archbishop, but as a mere Bishop only. 3. Grotius and Dr. Hammond think they prove that ⟨p. 66⟩Rome and other great Cities then had more Bishops than one, by reason of the peoples diversity in Languages, &c. As Peter of the Circumcision, and Paul of the Uncircumcision. 4. Eusebius mentioneth not this as a certainty, but with an [it's said] which is the usual note of his uncertain reports (of which he hath not a few, as is commonly confessed.) 5. Dr. Hammond is so far from believing this (that many Parishes were committed so early to Presbyters under one Bishop) that he thinketh there is no proof that any such Presbyters were in being in the Scripture times. And though we confess that Alexandria and Rome had divers Churches in them long before other places, there is no proof or probability that it was so in the Apostles days. And l. 3. c. 4. Eusebius expressly saith, [But how many and what sincere followers have governed the Churches planted by the Apostles, it cannot be affirmed, but so far as may be gathered from the words of Paul. And c. 19. he mentioneth in the singular number the Church (not the Churches) of Rome, Antioch, and Jerusalem. And l. 4. c. 11. he saith Celadion succeeded Mark in the Church of Alexandria.
In chap. 7. He pretendeth to prove, that in the Apostles times Parishes began to be distinguished under one only Bishop, &c. But what's the proof? Rome and Alexandria are all the Instances. †But, 1. his proof that Evaristus divided Parishes about An. 100 is worth nothing, as having no sufficient evidence, but fabulous reports. 2. He allegeth Eusebius, l. 2. •. 15. saying of St. Mark, that he is said first to have constituted the Churches of Alexandria. But this is no proof. 1. Because Eusebius's following words out of Philo do make it most probable, that by [the Churches of Alexandria] he meant [the Churches in and about Alexandria,] which proveth not many in the City it self. 2. If he had planted many Churches in the City, it is no proof that he varied from the practice of the other Apostles, who (as Act. 14. 23.) placed Elders (that is, saith Dr. Hammond, Bishops) in every Church: Or that the Elders of each Church had not the true Pastoral or Episcopal power of Governing the Flock, (which is all that we plead for.) And if it had been proved that Mark had been over them: it followeth not that he was not over them as an Archbishop, but as a meer Bishop only. 3. Grotius and Dr. Hammond think they prove that ⟨p. 66⟩Rome and other great Cities then had more Bishops than one, by reason of the peoples diversity in Languages, &c. As Peter of the Circumcision, and Paul of the Uncircumcision. 4. Eusebius mentioneth not this as a certainty, but with an [it's said] which is the usual note of his uncertain reports (of which he hath not a few, as is commonly confessed.) 5. Dr. Hammond is so far from believing this (that many Parishes were committed so early to Presbyters under one Bishop) that he thinketh there is no proof that any such Presbyters were in being in the Scripture times. And though we confess that Alexandria and Rome had divers Churches in them long before other places, there is no proof or probability that it was so in the Apostles days. And l. 3. c. 4. Eusebius expresly saith, [But how many and what sincere followers have governed the Churches planted by the Apostles, it cannot be affirmed, but so far as may be gathered from the words of Paul. And c. 19. he mentioneth in the singular number the Church (not the Churches) of Rome, Antioch, and Jerusalem. And l. 4. c. 11. he saith Celadion succeeded Mark in the Church of Alexandria.
- †In my Treat. of the true way of Concord, I have also disproved the Instances of Rome and Alexandria.
