Canonum Vindicatus, thofe which are called the Apoftolical Canons were all made in Provincial Councils, which were held in the three first Centuries before the Empire became Chrif tian. That fuch Synods were held in the third Century is, I conceive too evident to hear a Difpute. St. Cyprian who lived in this Age talks of thefe Synods in every part of his Book, and particularly in his 71ft Epiftle mentions a Synod held long before by his Predeceffor Aggrippinus of all the Bishops in the Province of Africa and Numidia, which thofe that place at the lateft fay was held A. D. 215. But (a) Dr.(4) Hift. Lit. Cave proves it was ancienter, and places it in par. 11 p. 42. the latter end of the former Century, which immediately fucceeded the Apoftolical Age. However a (b) learned Gentleman tells us(6) Kenner of that to say Provincial Councils were held from the Eccles. Syn. very beginning of Chriftianity, is more than is pro- P. 169, 170, bable, or indeed poffible to be true. Prefuming there were no Councils Provincial till Bishops who had their Seats in the Metropolis of a Province began to be looked upon as Metropolitans, or chief Directors of all the other Bishops within that Civil Diftrict. It must be acknowledged that altho' the fettlement of the Authority of Metropolitans as to this point may feem to have been a work of fome time, yet it was of no long time, for matter of Fact (the best Argument in this Cafe) fhews that it was done in the very next Age after the Apoftles, and that in Africa, which was not the most ancient Chtiftian Church, fo that it might be earlier in other places, and for ought appears to the contrary might be fettled by the Apostles themselves. But be that as it may be, my Position holds good that the neighbouring Bishops had a Right to

meet

meet and actually did meet from the beginning of Chriffianity, tho' there were then no Metropolitans. It is certain that the Apoftles and Elders met fo in the Synod fo often mentioned, tho' we no where find that any particular Perfon was appointed to Summon them. Thofe who defired Satisfaction in the Point to be determined, made their Application to the rest, and defired a Meeting about it, which the others confented to, and being met in the Church whereof St. James was Bishop, he prefided in the Affembly. Of the fame nature no doubt were the firft Councils of the Church: Thofe who had Matters to be propofed, fent to fome of the Neighbouring Bishops, defiring them to meet upon that Occafion, and they yielded thereto. As when a Church had loft its Bishop the Pref bytery of that Church fent to defire fome Neigh bouring Bishops to come and join with them in the Election of another and to Confecrate him. If an Herefie arofe, which a fingle Bishop found himself unable to fupprefs, he defired his Neighbours to meet with him, and join in the Condemnation of it. Such things as these we find to have been tranfacted Synodically in the Apostles Days. Thus Matthias was Elected into the Place of Judas, and † the Seven Dea cons were appointed to take care of the Treafury of the Church, and to relieve the Poor by a Synod of the Apostles. Thus the matter of Circumcifion and Obfervation of the Law of Mofes was determined in a like Affembly, and fhall we think that for an Hundred Years together this Custom was dropped, and then revived again? For before the end of the next Century we find thefe Synods very frequent in the Controverfie about Eafter, and upon other

other Occafions held by feveral Primates or Metropolitans tho' they had not then that Name. Now it is certain that the Authority of Metropolitans to convene Synods could not be fettled in fo fhort a time, unless they were either appointed by the Apostles themselves, or elfe that there had been frequent Synods of Neighbouring Bishops who found it neceflary to fix upon this Method to make their Conventions Regular and Orderly. Now which of thefe ways foever it was (for I conceive there can be no third) by which Metropolitans obtained a Power to convene Synods, it will appear that other Synods, as well as Diocefan, are as ancient as Chriftianity it self, tho' by reafon of the scarcity of Authors in the times immediately following the Apostles, we have not fuch Authentick Proofs of fuch Affemblies as might be defired: For that was an Age of continual Perfecution, fo that if the Acts of thofe Synods were recorded they were foon loft or destroyed. Besides, if Metropolitans had not then a fettled Power to convene them, which is very probable, there was no Perfon whofe proper Business it could be to preferve the Register of their A&s, their Meetings being not fixed to a certain Place, nor under the Prefidency of any certain Perfon. Therefore unlefs they had written each one a Synodical Epifle at the end of their Seffions to give fome other Churches an account of their Proceedings, as the Apoftles did, I cannot fee how the Memory of them should be preferved but by private Authors, of which that Age yields fo few that we need not wonder we have no account in them of their Synods.

f

Anothe

Another Argument to convince me that this was the Method of holding Synods in that early Age of the Church, is, because I find it was not only used by the Apostles before that Age, but alfo by the Bishops of the fucceeding Age upon particular Occafions, even feveral Years after we have an Account of Synods held by Metropolitans. Thus the two Famous Synods Lab. 7. c. 28.30. of Antioch, related by Eufebius were held, wherein Paulus Samofatenus was Tried and Depofed. For upon this Occasion the Bishops of feveral Provinces met together, as Firmilian Bishop of Cefarea in Cappadocia, Gregory, and Athenodorus Bishops of Pontus, Helenus of Tarfus, Nicemas of Iconium, Hymenaus of Jerufalem, Theotunus of Cafarea in Palestine, befide many other as well Bishops as Priefts. It is true Firmilian, who prefided in the first of these Councils was a Metropolitan, but Antioch was out of his Province,and many of the Bishops which Affembled with him were not his Suffragans, so that he could not act in that Place' by virtue of any Metropolitical Right, but must have been only a Chair-man chofen by the Affembly. It is plain therefore that this Synod could not Affemble by virtue of any Metropolitical Summons, but must come together as Neighbouring Bishops, at the Defire of those who found themselves grieved by the Herefie and Tyranny of Paulus. Yet this Synod was acknowledged by all the Bishops of the World to have been then agreeable to the Rights and Conftitution of the Church. Which is a plain Argument that Bishops might and did meet fo before the Bifhips, who had their Seats in the Metropolis of a Province, began to be looked upon as Metropolitans or Chief Directors of all the other Bishops within that Civil District. For if

there

there had been no fuch Custom from the beginning of Chriftianity for Neighbouring Bishops to meet at the Defire of thofe that required their Advice and Affiftance, Paulus who was himself a Metropolitan, would have excepted against this proceeding, and not have fubinitted to the first Synod as Eufebius fays he did, and promised to renounce his Errors. Neither would all the other Bishops of the Church have acknowledged the Proceedings of this Synod to be juft, as it is manifeft they did, even after the time that Synods had been ordinarily held by the Metropolitans for Fifty or Threefcore Years. So thefe two Councils were certainly held by the Ancient, Primitive, and Divine Right of the Church, antecedent to that of the Metropolitans, and which was not then fully given up to them. If then fuch Synods were held (as appears from most evident Mat ter of Fact) both in the first and the third Centuries; it is unreasonable to suppose they were not held in the fecond Century, because we have no account of them, when it is evident that the continual Perfecutions destroyed almost all the Records of that time. However there are Authors which do mention feveral Synods in that Century, but because they did not live very near that Age their Credit is fufpected: Yet one of thofe Councils is fpoken of by St. Hilary who lived not above two hundred Years after it is faid to have been Affembled. This is a Sicilian Synod faid to have B2z. Nov., 3. been held A. D. 125, which was within Twenty Col. Concil. p. 3 Years after the Death of St. John the Apostle. And this Synod he makes to have been affembled after the manner I have been speaking of, not by any Metropolitan but by the Bishops of Lilybaum and Panorm., who desired the other

Y 2

Bifhops