A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Book 2 · Chapter 2

A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath · Book 2 · Chapter 2

p. 20CHAP. IJ. Prouing by other Arguments that the ancient Churches which had Bishops, were not Parishes, but Dioceses.

ANd thus much may suffice to hauehave spoken of the names, about which the testimonies which I hauehave brought, hauehave beene almost so many euidences for the Diocesan, and against the parishionall Bishops.

Now I proceede to other arguments; desiring the Reader to remember that the question is concerning such Churches, as were endued with power of Ecclesiastical gouernment and iurisdiction, to wit, whether in the Apostles times, and the ages following, they were Parishes, as we cal them, or Dioceses. And first I will shew they were not Parishes, and after, that they were Dioceses.

For, if Parishes, then the Parishes either in the Countries, or Cities were such: but neyther the p. 21parishes in the Country, nor in the Citie, had a Bishop of their owne and a Presbytery. Which is so euident a truth to them that hauehave read the Councels, Histories, and Fathers of the antient Church, that it is to be wondred, how men of learning and reading, being also men of conscience, can deny it. But seeing it is denied, I must be content to proue it, viz. that regularly, lawfully, ordinarily Bishops and Presbyteries were not placed in the seuerall parishes. For these words I hope may be added with the Refuters leaue, seeing neither it can be preiudicious to mee what was at any time vnlawfully done, nor aduantagious to him, vnlesse hee will vrge a reformation, according to the paterne of the Churches (if there were any such) which were irregularly, extraordinarily, and vnlawfully gouerned.

First therefore for Country parishes, because I maintaine the negatiue, and the proofe of the affirmatiue lieth vponupon my aduersary, I challenge him to produce some proofe, if he bee able, within 400. yeeres after Christ, of Country parishes lawfully, regularly, ordinarily furnished with power of ecclesiasticall gouernment, and gouerned by their owne Bishoppes, such as they speake of, assisted with their Presbyteries. Which if hee bee not able to performe, (as I am well assured hee is not) hee must acknowledge his parish Bishoppe to bee of the same stampe. with his lay-presbyters, that is to say, a meere counterfet. But not expecting his proofe, J will prooue, that neither they had Bishoppe of their owne, nor yet Presbyteries. As touching the former, it cannot be denied, but in some places the Presbyters of parishes growing ambitious, hauehave desired to bee Bishoppes of their parish, and their people vaine glorious hauehave seconded their desire. But in all well ordered Churches, their presumption hath been resisted, and their vaine desires frustrated. I doe confesse, that in Africke, which alwaies bringeth forth some noueltie, and from whence all T. C. his newes in this cause doe come, some parts of the diocesse being very populous, hauehave obtained a Bishoppe of their owne. But p. 22when?Conc. Carth. gr. c. 54. & 101. when the charge was so great, as that by it selfe it seemed to deserue a Bishop. And how? First, with the leaue of the Bishop of the city, in whose diocesse it was. Secondly, with the approbation of the Metropolitane and the prouinciall Synode. Thirdly, hee which obtained the honour of beeing a bishoppe was aduanced to a higher degree, then himselfe had before, or other country pastors hauehave, and was ordained a Bishop by the Metropolitan and two other Bishops at the least.

§. 2. Decrees of the councils of Africke.But it shall not bee amisse both to recite the decrees of the Africane councels in this behalfe, though, touched before; and also to acquaint you with the determinations of godly Bishoppes, and canons of holy Councels elsewhere.

Conc. Carth. 2. c. 5.In the second councell of Carthage it was decreed, that the Dioceses (meaning, as I hauehave said, parts of any diocesse in the Country) which neuer receiued Bishoppes of their owne, may hauehave none; and that diocesse which sometimes had, may still hauehave a Bishoppe of their owne. And if in processe of time, the faith increasing, the people of God being multiplied, shall desire to hauehave a gouernour of their owne, that then they may hauehave a Bishoppe with his leaue, in whose power the diocesse is.

Conc. Carth. 3. c. 42. et. 43. Carth. gr. 54.In the third Councell of Carthage it is said, that it had beeen determined in many Councels, that the people which be in the parishes or diocesses held by the Bishoppes, which neuer had a Bishop of their owne, should not receiue gouernours of their owne, that is to say, Bishoppes, but with the consent of the Bishoppe, foreign, by whom from the beginning they hauehave been inioied. But forasmuch as some hauing obtained this honor abused it tyrannically, and withdrew themselues schismatically from the communion of other Bishops: and forasmuch as also certaine Presbyters lifting vp their neckes against their BB. vsed indirect meanes to allure their people, that themselues might be made Bishoppes; therefore it was ordained, that such a people in the paroecia ▪ or diocesse, which is subiect p. 23to the antient Bishoppe, and neuer had a Bishoppe of their owne, should not obtaine a proper Doctor, meaning Bishoppe. And as touching those which had attained to this honour vnlawfully, and withdrew themselues from the synods of Bishoppes, it was determined that they should not onelyonly lose their diocesse, but also their owne Church. For it is fit the Bishops which are vnited to all their brethren, and to the whole synod, should iustly retaine not onelyonly their owne Cathedra or See, but also that they should possesse such dioceses. And whereas some llIbid. c. 46. Carth. gr. c. 57.being made Bishops in part of other mens dioceses, with their leaue and consent, did incroach vponupon parts of the diocesse not granted vntounto them, it was concluded, that he which in the diocesse is preferred to be Bishoppe, by the consent of the antient Bishoppe, who holdeth the mother or cathedrall Church, shall only retain that people vntounto which he was ordained. Finally, in another Councell mmConc. Afr. c. 65. Carth. gr. c. 101of Africke, it was decreed, that such people as neuer had B. of their own, should in no wise obtaine a B. vnlesse it be by the decree of the whole synod of eueryevery prouince, and of the primate, and also by the consent of him vnderunder whose diocesse the said Church is placed.

Out of which canons, we may obserue these things. First, that the Country churches belonged to the iurisdiction of the Bishop in the Citie.

Secondly, that euer from the beginning, they hauehave belonged to the Bishop of the Citie.

Thirdly, that those parts of dioceses, which then had no Bishop of their owne, neuer had.

Fourthly, that the number of Bishopricks was not wont to be diminished, or the circuits of them inlarged, but contrariwise, if there were cause, the number was increased, and the circuits or dioceses lessened.

Fifthly, that when a new Bishopricke was to be erected, it was erected in some Bishops diocesse, but not without his leaue and liking, and also approbation of the Primate and Prouinciall synod.

p. 24Sixthly, that when a new Bishopricke was erected, that part wherein it was erected, was taken, as before I noted nnCart. gr. c. 54., foreign, from all the parts iointly possessed, and as it were from the body of the rest.

Seuenthly, that hee which was preferred to such a Bishopricke was not a parish Bishoppe. For besides his owne Church, hee had a diocesse. Neither were they appointed according to the new conceit to eueryevery parish, but to such populous parts of dioceses, as might seeme worthy of a Bishop.

Eighthly, that when a new Bishopricke was erected, the Presbyter who obtained this honour, was anew ordained thereto as Bishoppe, and so placed in a superiour degree of the Ministerie, then that which hee had when he was the Pastor or Presby…er onelyonly of a parish.

§ 3. Decrees of Fathers.To these canons wee might adde the decrees of ooClem. ep. 1. ad Iacob.Clemens and ppAnaclet. ep. 3. c. 2.Anacletus, ordaining that Bishoppes should not bee ordained in Villages or Townes, or small Cities, lest the names of Bishoppes should grow vile: but in such places Presbyters were seuerally to bee placed in each of them. But I need not the testimonies of such as are supposed counterfet: and yet it is to bee confessed, that the Epistle of Clemens was aboue one thousand two hundred yeeres agoe translated by Ruffinus; and that which in this point either of them decreed, agreeth with the generall and perpetuall practise of the Church, from the Apostles time to our age. But to let them passe: the Epistle of Leo qqLeo ep. 87. ad episc. Afr. c. 2.the Great, is without suspicion, which he wrote to the Bishops of Africke, requiring that this among all the statutes of the Canons be obserued, that not in any places or townes, Bishops should be consecrated, nor where heretofore they hauehave not been, seeing where the lesse people or smaller companies are, the care of Presbyters may suffice. But episcopall gouernment is onelyonly to be set ouer greater people and more frequent or populous Cities, lest what the decrees of the holy Fathers inspired of God hauehave forbidden, the height of priesthood should be giuen to villages and parishes, or obscure and solitary townes, and the episcopall p. 25honour whereto more excellent things ought to bee committed, it selfe should grow vile or contemptible, by the multitude thereof.The decrees of councels.

The canons whereof he speaketh (that I may also come to them) were the Canons of the councels held at Sardica and Laodicea. The councell held at Sardica not long after the councell at Nice, assembled by the authority of the two Emperors Constans and Constantius, celebrated by 341 BB. as Balsamo saith, among whom some of the chiefe had bene present at the councill of Nice, as Hosius and Athanasius &c. which also confirmed the faith before concluded in the councel of Nice, at that time much oppugned by the Arians …this councell, I say, determined rrConc. Sardic. c. 6.that it is simply ssforeign.vnlawfull to constitute a Bishop in a village or small ttforeign.City, vntounto which euen one onelyonly Presbyter doth suffice. For it is not needfull that Bishops should bee placed there, lest the name & authority of a Bishop grow into contempt. But the Bishops of the prouince (being assembled as before was said by the Metropolitan) must ordaine Bishops in such Cities as where before had beene Bishops. But if there shall any Citty bee found so abounding with multitude of people, that it may seeme vvorthie of a Bishopricke, let it hauehave a Bishop.

For that of Laodicea, though it were but a prouinciall Synode, yet the decrees thereof were receiued into the ancient Code of canons, and were confirmed by the generall councell uuCon. Constant. in Trull. c. 2.held in Trullo. In that councill xxConc. Laodicen. c. 56. alids 57 foreign (for so Balsam and some manuscripts and latin translations, read) foreign.therefore it was decreed, that Bishops ought not to bee placed in villages and countrey townes, but visitors: and that those which before that time had beene ordained, might doe nothing without the consent of the Bishop, who is in the Citty: foreign.

The same hath Photius, yyPhot. Nomecan. lit. 1. c. 19.Ne sit omnino in parua ciuitate vel vice Episcopus.

To these we may ad the decree of the councell of Toledo: which though it were of latter times then the councels before mentioned,zzConc. Tolet. 12. c. 4. yet was held aboue 9. hundred yeares p. 26agoe, beeing ratified and confirmed by Eringius the King: which I doe the rather mention, because whereas the Bishop of Merida zzConc. Tolet. 12. c. 4.by the commandement of their late King Bamba, had ordained a Bishop in a monastery standing in a small towne, the said councell finding it to be a nouellous attempt, contrary to the canons of the councels and practise of the Church, decreed that there should not continue in the place aforesaid an Episcopall See, neither should any Bishop afterwards bee placed there. As for him, that was ordained not by his owne ambition, but by the Kings compulsion; they grant to him this fauour, to bee remooued to the See of some Bishoppe deceasing. And in the end they make this generall decree: If any man shall cause a Bishop to bee made in those places, where a Bishop neuer was, let him be anathema in the sight of God almighty: So Burchardus readeth decret. lib. 5. c. 32.and moreouer let both the ordainer and the ordained lose the degree of his order, because hee hath presumed to ouerthrow not onelyonly the decrees of the ancient Fathers, but also the Apostolicall ordinances.

This therefore is my first argument against parish Bishops in the countrey:

That which was iudged vnlawfull by the canons of approoued councils, and decrees of godly Bishops, was neuer lawfully, regularly, ordinarily practised:

But the placing of Bishops in countrie parishes, was iudged vnlawfull by the canons of approoued councels, and decrees of godly Bishops, as I hauehave shewed:

Therefore the placing of Bishops in country parishes was neuer lawfully, regularly, ordinarily practised.

§. 4. That Chorepiscopi or country BB. vvere not parish BB.It may be, that my aduersary, who is ready to catch at euerie syllable, will from the canon of the councill held at Laodicea before cited, obiect, that before that time, there were Bishops placed in country townes: and thereupon p. 27conclude, that therefore there had beene, before that time, parishionall Bishoppes. To this obiection I answere, by denying the consequence, or the proposition which is vnderstood, viz. that the country Bishops (which had beene before ordained) were parish Bishops. For those Bishops, because they were placed foreign the Countries, were called foreign, as you would say, Countrie-Bishops, to distinguish them from the other Bishops, whose See was in the Citie. Now these Chorepiscopi were not in all Dioceses, much lesse in all parishes; nor assigned, where they were, to one parish (as they were Bishoppes) but where the Diocesse was large, were ordained in some places remote from the citie, to supply the absence of the Bishop, in some such circuits as our rurall Deanries are, wherein diuers parishes were contained. These Chorepicsopi at the first, had Episcopall ordination, by the imposition of the hands of three Bishops, insomuch that of the three hundred and eighteene Bishoppes assembled at the Councill of Nice, there were fifteeene Countrie-Bishoppes: For which fifteene, if all pastors of parishes had beene Countrie-Bishoppes, there might hauehave beene, I doubt not, fifteene hundred, if not fifteene thousand: But when these Countrie-Bishoppes, beeing but the Bishoppes suffraganes, and substitutes, placed in the Countrie to supplie the Bishoppes roome, and to exercise some matters of lesse moment appertaining to the Episcopall function, began to encroach vponupon the Bishoppes right, and to vsurpe Episcopall authoritie, and jurisdiction beyond their commission; they were by little and little restrained; and when they would not be kept within their compasse, their order (at least as they were Bishops) beeing but an humane-ordinance, deuised for the ease of the Bishoppes in the citie, was in most places abolished.

But forsomuch as that which is recorded concerning these p. 28countrie Bishops, doth giuegive great light to this present controuersie, it will not be vnprofitable, nor, I hope, vnpleasing to the reader, if I acquaint him with that which is written concerning them.

First therefore in the councel of Neocesaria, wherunto among other BB. two Chorepiscopi subscribed, we find this difference betweene country presbyters & country Bishops: foreign aaConc. Neocaes. c. 13.foreign, Presbyters or Ministers of the countrey may not offer foreign, in the cathedrall Church of the City, the Bishop or Presbyters of the citty beeing present, neither may they at the time of prayer deliuer the bread nor the cuppe: but if they bee absent, and one of them alone bee called to prayer, then hee may, because hee is of the same Church or Diocesse, as some note. foreign bbIbid. c. 14., but countrey Bishops, who are indeede after the manner of the 70. yet beeing honoured as fellow Ministers, they doe offer. VponUpon which words Balsamo ccTheod. Bals. in Conc. Neocaesar.noteth two things. First, where the councell saith they were as the Seuentie, it seemeth to deny that they had power to ordain ministers and deacons. Secondly, that among other vses, for which they were appointed, they were ordained to distribute the money to the poore, which appertained to them. Besides, we may obserue that both the country Bishops and country Presbyters, belong to the diocesse of the Bishop in the city (which heereafter wil more clearely appeare) and that the countrey Bishop was in a degree of honour superiour to country Ministres, and yet inferiour to the Bishops.

The councel of Ancyra ddConc. Ancyr. c. 13.which is more ancient thē the former, and both of them elder then the councill of Nice, perceiuing the country Bishops to encroch vponupon the Bishops right, determined eeforeign &c.it to be vnlawfull for contrey Bishops to ordaine Presbyters or Deacons.

The councell of Antioch, ffConc. Antio. c. 8. the Latins call them for matas literas.though it gaue liberty to countrey Bishops which were blamelesse, to send canonicall letters (as the manner of Bishops among themselues, in those times was) which it denied to country presbyters: yet for so much as the Chorepiscopi stil presumed p. 29to ordaine, alleging that they might lawfully doe it, because they had beene ordained as Bishops. Jt therefore determined, ggCon. Antioc. c. 10.that Bishops placed in the Townes and Countries, called Chorepiscopi, although they had receiued the ordination of BB yet they should know their owne measure, and gouerne the Churches subiect vntounto them, and content themselues with the care and ouersight thereof: and hauing authoritie to ordaine Subdeacons and Exorcists, should satisfie themselues with preferring of them, and not presume to ordaine Presbyters or Deacons, without hhforeign.the Bishop in the Citie whereunto both himselfe and the Country are subiect. But if any shall presume to transgresse this decree, hee shall be depriued of that honour which hee hath. And whereas they pretended that they had episcopall ordination, and therefore as BB might ordaine Ministers; to take away that pretence, it determined also, that the Country B. should be ordained (not of the Metropolitan and two or three other Bishops, as a Bishop, but as other Presbyters or Ministers) of the Bishop of the City, vntounto which he is subiect. So that whereas before Chorepiscopi were Suffragan Bishops, afterwards (according to this decree) they were but Presbyters in deede, though they had the title of Bishops; neither were they acknowledged for any more by the Fathers and Councels of latter times.

There is an Epistle which goeth vnderunder the name of Damasus, iiDamas. epist. 4. de Chorepiscopis.the Author whereof supposeth, that Chorepiscopi are but Presbyters, because they are found kkConc. Neocaesar. c. 14.to hauehave beene ordained at the first after the example of the 70. But now because they are not necessarie in regard of their diligence towards the poore, and because they presumed aboue that which was lawfull for them to doe, therefore they are remooued from Episcopall offices. Wee know (saith hee) there were but two orders among the Disciples of Christ, that is to say, of the 12. Apostles, and 70. Disciples: whence this third came, we know not; for neither are they Bishops, because they be not ordained of three Bishops, but only of one; neither may Bishops by the Canons bee placed in Country townes; neither may they be in the Citie, because in one Citie there may be but one Bishop. Neither will they bee called Presbyters, but will be accounted more then Presbyters. Whether p. 30Damasus were Author of that Epistle, I know not; but this I am sure, that Leo llLeo epist. 88.the great in his Epistle to the BB. of Germanie and France, doth shew himselfe to bee of the same iudgement, a good part of his Epistle differing little from the aforesaid Epistle, which beareth the name of Damasus. And this iudgement of Leo was so approued of the Councell of Ciuill, mmC. Hispal. 2. c. 7.whereof Isidore was President, that it followeth the same almost word for word.

§. 5. The second argument taken from Country Bishops.Now because my Aduersarie shall not say, that what I hauehave alleged concerning Country Bishops, is impertinent, hee shall vnderstand, that as the maine question concerning dioceses in the primitiue Church is from hence most manifestly prooued, as you shall heare in due place; so this present question which wee hauehave in hand concerning parish Bishops. For surely if there were any parishionall Bishops in the Countrey, then the Countrey Bishops were such: but they were not such, for they were set ouer diuers parishes. Againe, if the Chorepiscopi were subiect to the Bishop of the Citie, and the Countrey whereof they were Bishops was part of the diocesse belonging to the Bishop of the Citie; then much more the Presbyters of parishes (who were inferiour, and in some things subiect to the Chorepiscopi, as the Bishops substitutes) were subiect to the Bishop; and their parishes, being but a part of the Country whereof the Chorepiscopi were called Bishops, were but a part of the diocesse. So farre were either the parish Presbyters from being Bishops, or their parishes from being entire Churches, endued with the power of ecclesiasticall gouernement. But the former is true, as hath beene proued, therefore the latter.

That the Chorepiscopi were superiour to them, it is apparant, because not onelyonly they had some iurisdiction ouer diuers parishes, but for a time had episcopall ordination, and had authoritie to ordaine Subdeacons, and to place Readers in parishes, as also they might send Formatas, or Canonicall Epistles, which the Presbyters might not doe. Likewise, when Bishops were at any time conuerted from heresie, nnCon. Nic. c. 8.though they were not permitted to be Bishops of p. 31the City, yet they were gratified with the name and authoritie of Chorepiscopi. In the time of Theodosius and Valentinian, a certaine Bishop had beene ordained by two Bishops only: but this ordination the Councell of Rhegium ooConc. Rhegiens. c. 1.2.3.4.pronounced void, and censured the ordainers. As for the partie ordained, because hee had of himselfe renounced the Bishopricke, they thought good to follow the example of the Councell of Nice, and to gratifie him with the name and title of a Chorepiscopus; but so, as that hee should not ordaine, nor exercise any other episcopall function, but only confirme Nouices, and consecrate Virgins, and in all things behaue himselfe as inferiour to a Bishop, and as superiour to a Presbyter. And this was my second argument, whereby I hauehave prooued, that Countrey parishes had no Bishops.

Neither had each of them a Presbyterie,§. 6. Parishes had not Presbyteries. but seuerall Presbyters assigned to them, as sufficient for such a charge as was determined by the Councell of SardicappConc. Sardic. c. 6., and by the iudgement of Leo qqLeo epist. 87.. Yea not Presbyters only did seuerallie gouerne parishes, as with vsus, but sometimes Deacons also were by themselues set ouer charges. You heard before diuers testimonies of the Presbyters of parishes, as namely that rrConc. Carth. 4. c. 102.of the Councel of Carthage, Presbyter qui Paroeciae praest, &c. the Presbyter which gouerneth the parish. The like is presupposed of Deacons in the Councell of Eliberis, ssConc. Eliber. c. 77.which is supposed to be as ancient as the Councell of Nice: If any Deacon ruling a people, shall without a Bishop or Presbyter baptize any, &c.

Againe, if parishes besides their Presbyter or Pastor had a presbytery, then was it either of the Ministery, or of the Laitie. But Presbyteries of Ministers were only in Cities, and Cathedrall Churches, and not any examples can bee alleged of Presbyteries in the Country, no not to assist the Chorepiscopi, much lesse to assist the Presbyters of parishes: and Presbyteries of Lay men were neuer heard of till this last age: Therefore the seuerall parishes had not Presbyteries.

Moreouer, Churches endued with power ecclesiasticall p. 32sufficient for the gouernment of themselues,The parishes had not the power of Ecclesiasticall gouernment. hauing also a Bishop and Presbyterie, had the power of ordination, as themselues also teach.

But Countrey parishes had not the power of ordination.

Therefore Countrey parishes were not indued with power ecclesiasticall, neither had they a Bishop or Presbyterie of their owne.

For the Assumption, let the Refuter consider with mee, what course was taken in Countrey parishes, when their Minister was departed. Among themselues they had ordinarily none; or if by chance they had, they could not ordaine him, but were (as sometimes it happened in Cities) to offer him to the Bishop to be ordained. Vniuersities they had none from whence to fetch a learned Minister: out of other dioceses they were not to bee supplied, vnlesse first it did appeare, that their owne Bishop was not able out of his Clergie to furnish them. To the Bishop of the Citie therefore they did resort, who out of the Clergie belonging to the Cathedrall Church, (wherein, as the Nurserie of the diocesse, diuers were brought vp in the studie of diuinitie) did supply their want, assigning some one of his Clergie vntounto them. But if there were none fit, (as sometimes their store was drawne drie, by supplying the wants of many) they might not ordaine a Minister of another diocesse, whom they called another Bishops Clerke, without his leaue and dimissorie letters: for that in the Canons was condemned as a great wrong; and such ordinations were to be disanulled. If therefore the Bishop neither had of his owne, nor knew not readily where to be supplied out of a neighbour diocesse, with the consent of his neighbour Bishop, he sent to the Metropolitan, ttConc. Carth. Gr. c. 54. siue Carth. 3. c. 42.who either out of his owne Clergie, or some other in the Prouince, was to supplie them. And this, as it is euident to them who hauehave read any thing concerning the state of the ancient Churches; so is it confessed by Caluin. Each City (saith he) uuIustit. l. 4. c. 4. §. 2.had a College of Presbyters, who were Pastors and Teachers; for both did they all discharge the office of teaching, p. 33&c. to the people, and also that they might leaue seede behinde them, they were diligently imploied in instructing the younger sort of the Clergie. To eueryevery Citie a certaine region was attributed, which should receiue their Ministers from thence, and be accounted of the body of that Church.

It is therefore euident, that Countrey parishes had not each of them a Bishop and Presbyterie, nor that power of ecclesiasticall gouernment which they talke of.

And much lesse had the parishes in the Cities.§ 7. The parishes of the Cities had not seuerall Bishops. For it was neuer almost heard of, that there were at any time more Bishops (so properly called) then one in a City, where notwithstanding were many Presbyters, when schisme or heresie was not the cause of setting vp a second or third against the one only lawfull Bishop: excepting that in the same Church sometimes a second either hath beene permitted the title of a Bishop without episcopall authoritie, or else ordained as a coadiutor to the first. And when there hauehave beene more then one by schisme or heresie, yet neither the orthodoxall and Catholike Bishop, nor yet the schismaticall or hereticall Bishop, was a parishionall Bishop, but each of them was Bishop of all that were of the same faith with them, in the Citie and Countrey adioining, there hauing beene diuers times in the Cities onelyonly more parishes then one, not onelyonly of the true Christians, but also of the heretikes and schismatickes, as before was noted concerning Antioch.

I shall hauehave occasion to speake more of this point when I shall xxLib. 3. cap. 3.intreat of the singularitie of preheminence which the Bishop in eueryevery diocesse had for terme of life. A few testimonies therfore shal suffice in this place. In the Church of Rome there were many not onelyonly Presbyters besides the one onelyonly lawfull Bishop, but also diuers parishes and titles soone after the Apostles times, whereunto Presbyters were assigned seuerally, the Bishop being the Superintendent ouer them all. About the yeere 250. Cornelius aaEuseb. lib. 6. c. 43.being chosen Bishop of Rome, Nonatianus a Presbyter of Rome discontented with the election, by the instigation of Nonatus a fugitiue Bishop lately come out of Africke, p. 34not only broached the heresie of the Nouatians, or Catharists, but procure… three simple B shops fetched from the vttermost parts of Italie, to ordaine him B…shop of Rome: hauing also inueigled by his subtilties, certaine famous men, that had beene Confessours to bee of his partie, and to ioine with him in the schisme against Cornelius. Of this fact, what was the iudgement of Cyprian, of Cornelius, and other B…shops, and finally of the Confessours themselues, you shall in few words heare. For when Nouatianus had sent his Messengers, as to other chiefe B…shops, so to Carthage, to procure the approbation of Cyprian, hee disswadeth them from the schisme, telling them bbCypr li. 2. epist. 11.that a B…shop being ordained, and approoued by the testimonie and iudgement of his fellow B…shops, and of the people, another may not by any meanes be ordained. And writing to some of those Confessours, hee signifieth his great griefe, ccLi. 3. epist. 2.because he vnderstood that they, contrary to the order of the Church, contrary to the law of the Gospell, contrarie to the vnity of Catholike discipline, had thought it meet, that another B. should be made, that is to say, which is neither right nor lawfull to bee done, that another Church should be erected, the members of Christ dismembred, &c.

Cornelius hauing called together diuers Bishops besides his owne Clergie, deposed the Bishops who ordained Nouatianus: and writing of these matters to Fabius ddEuseb. l. 6. c. 43.the B. of Antioch, he saith, this Patron of the Gospell forsooth (meaning Nouatian) did not know that in a Catholike Church foreign, there ought to bee but one B. in which notwithstanding he could not be ignorant, but that there are 46. Presbyters, and 108. more of the Clergie.

The Confessors eeEpist. Cornel. ap…d Cypr. l. 3. epist. 11.afterwards acknowledging their fault, among other things in their submission confesse, that as there is but one God and one Lord, so in a Catholike Church there ought to be but one Bishop.

Now whereas Cornelius testifieth, that there were besides the Bishop, who ought to be but one, 46. Presbyters in the Citie of Rome, and 108. others of the Clergie: if any man (notwithstanding it bee also testified by diuers, p. 35that there were diuers Churches in Rome, whereunto seuerall Presbyters were assigned) will needes hold, that the whole Church of Rome was but one parish, and that all these Presbyters and Clerkes attended but one particular ordinary congregation; I cannot let him from being so absurd. Howbeit, this is certaine, that in the next age, in Optatus ffContr. Parmen. l. 2.40. & quod excurrit basilicas, &c.his time, when there were in Rome aboue fortie parish Churches, whereunto seuerall Presbyters were deputed, there remained still but one only Bishop.

The like is to be said of Alexandria, wherein (as Epiphanius ggHaeres. 69.testifieth) were before the time of Constantine many parish Churches, all which (at least so many as were Catholike) were vnderunder one Archbishop, foreign, and ouer them seuerally are Presbyters placed, for the ecclesiasticall necessities of the inhabitants, who might each of them bee neere vntounto their owne Church, &c. Now (saith Epiphanius) besides the Church called Caesaria, which was burnt in Iulians time, and reedified by Athanasius, there are many others, as the Church of Dionysius, of Theonas, of Pierius, of Serapion, of Persaea, of Dizya, of Mendidius, of Amianus, of Baucalis, and others. In one of these was Colluthus Presbyter, in another Carpones, in another Sarmatas, and Arius hhforeign.in another, namely, that which is called Baucalis.

The same is testified by Nicetas Choniates, iiL. 5. Orthod. fid. c. 1.affirming, that in Alexandria there were of old many Churches subiect to the B. of Alexandria, committed seuerally to Presbyters, as that which is called Baucalis, and those which hauehave their names from S. Dionysius, Theonas, &c. and that Arius being the gouernor of the schoole in Alexandria, was by Achilles the B. (the predecessour of Alexander) set ouer the Church called Baucalis. And although there be not the like euidence for multitude of parishes in other Cities immediately after the Apostles times; yet is it not to be doubted, but that in eueryevery City when the number of Christians was much increased, the like diuision of parishes was made, vntounto which, not BB. but seuerall Presbyters were appointed: there remaining in each Citie but one Bishop, as the p. 36practise of all Churches in the Christian world from the Apostles times to our age doth inuincibly prooue.

§ 8. The Churches which had Bishops set ouer them were dioceses.But now suppose, that the Church of each Citie had beene but one parish, which is most false; yet forsomuch as to eueryevery Citie there was as Caluin truly saith, a certaine region allotted, which belonged to the Bishops charge, and was from the Presbyterie of the Citie to receiue their Ministers; who seeth nor, that the charge of a Bishop was not a parish, but a diocesse? And that is the second thing which J promised to prooue.

For, Churches containing within their circuit not onelyonly Cities with their Suburbs, but also whole Countries subiect to them, were dioceses.

But the Churches subiect to the ancient B…shops in the Primitiue Church, contained within their circuit not onelyonly the Cities with their suburbs, but also the whole Countries subiect to them.

Therefore they were dioceses.

The assumption is prooued by these reasons: first, The circuit of a Bishops charge was anciently diuided into these parts, the Citie with the suburbs, and Country subiect to it. For proofe whereof, you heard before two most plaine testimonies: The former, in one of the Canons of the Apostles kkCa…. Apost. 34.(so called) charging the Bishop with his owne Paroecia, and the Countries which be vnderunder it: The other in the Councell of Antioch, llConc. Antioch. c. 9.which reciting the same words, addeth this reason: For eueryevery Bishop hath authoritie ouer his owne Paroecia, and doth foreign, that is, performe the dutie of a Diocesan, hauing a prouident care or superintendencie of the whole Countrey which is vnderunder his Citie, so that he may ordaine Presbyters and Deacons, and order all things with iudgement. To the same purpose is the diuision of Churches subiect to each Bishop, into the Church of the Citie called mmCont. Carth. Gr. c. 54.72.foreign, or N…trix Ecclesia, and all other parish Churches within the diocesse called foreign. And hence ariseth the distinction of Presbyters subiect to the same Bishop that others were nnConc. Neo… sar. c. 13.foreign, Presbyters of the citie, or as in some Latine p. 37Councels they are called ooCont. Agat…. c. 22., Ciuitatenses, others foreign, Countrey Ministers, or dioecesan…, Ministers of the diocesse.

Secondly,The second reason. neither was the iurisdiction ouer the parishes in the Countrey by vsurpation of the latter Bishops, but a right from the beginning, belonging to the very first Bishoppes of the Citie. For euidence whereof, call to mind what before was prooued, that dioceses were not wont to be enlarged, or the number of Bishoppes lessened; but contrariwise those parts of the Country which euer had a Bishop, were still to retaine him; and those which neuer had, if they were so populous, as that they seemed to deserue a Bishopricke, a Bishop was with the consent of the ancient Bishoppe of the Citie, and the authority of the prouinciall synod, and the Metropolitane set ouer them. This is sure, that all Countries were vnderunder their seuerall Cities, and whosoeuer were from the beginning Bishopps of the Cities, were Bishops also of the Countries belonging vntounto them. Neither might the Bishop of one Citie encroach vponupon the Country, or parishes subiect to another Citie; but they were to bee gouerned by them, to whom they had belonged from the beginning. Jn the generall Councell of Ephesus ppCont. Ephes. p…st. aduent. epist. Cyp., when complaint was made, that the Bishop of Antioch had encroached vponupon them of Cyprus, for the ordination of their Metropolitan, who euer from the Apostles times, were in that and other matters of greatest moment, ordered by their owne prouinciciall synods, his attempt was censured qqforeign.as an innouation contrary to the ecclesiasticall lawes, and Canons of the holy Apostles. And therefore this generall decree was made by the Councell for all dioceses and prouinces, that no Bishop shall take vponupon him any other prouince or countrey foreign, which for the time past, and from the beginning hath not been vnderunder him or his Predecessors. And againe, that to eueryevery prouince or countrey their right should be kept pure and vnui…lable, which had belonged to them for the time past, and from the beginning, according to the custome antiently receiued. Likewise in the Councell of Carthage rrConc. Carth. gr. c. 54., that the people in the p. 38Country which neuer had a Bishop of their owne, should not receiue a Bishop, but by the consent of the Bishop, by whom (and his antecestors) they hauehave bin foreign, from the beg…nning possessed. And where some had schismatically seized vponupon some part of a diocesse, and being guilty of their wrong, would sequester themselues from the meetings and synods of the Bishops, it was decreed, that the lawfull Bishop should inioy, not only his See, but also such dioceses. And againe, it was demandedssIbid. c. 57., what course should be taken if a Bishopricke being erected in a part of the diocesse, by the consent foreign, of the Bishop who hath held the dioceses from the beginning, the new Bishop should encroach vponupon other parts of the diocesse, which were not intended to him. Answer was made, that as that part which he had, was taken foreign, out of the company of parishes ioyntly possessed, and as a member foreign, out of the body of many by the consent foreign, of the Bishop who had authority or power: so the new Bishop should not encroach vponupon any other.

The great councel of ChalcedonttConc. Chalced. c. 17., determined, that countrey parishes should vnremoueably remaine to the Bishops which held them. Which Canon was renewed in the councell of Constantinople uuin T…lo. c. 25., with this addition, if the said Bishops held them quietly and without contradiction for the space of thirty yeeres.

§ 9. The third. reason.But nothing doth more euidently proue, that in the primitiue Church dioceses were subiect to Bishops, then the antient institution of country BishopsxxConfessed by Caluin. Inst. l. 4. c 4. § 2. & Bez… de grad. c. 24., called ch…repiscopi. Who where the country seemed larger, then that the Bishop by himselfe could performe all episcopall offices, were for the more ease of the Bishops, and commodity of the country Churches, appointed in certaine places as their suffragans or vicegerents, and to performe vnderunder them, and for them, some episcopall duties of lesse moment: but yet so, as the chorepiscop… might doe yyConc. Ancyr. c. 13.nothing of weight without the appointment of the Bishop,Conc. Antioch. c. 10. neither might he ordaine without the Bishop of the citie, foreign, vntounto which both himselfe and his Country is subiect.

p. 39Fourthly,The fourth. reason. this truth is also demonstrated, partly by the perpetuall successions of Bishoppes in all the Apostolicall Churches, singularly succeeding from the Apostles times, to the latter ages, plainly euincing that euen in the greatest Cities and Churches, where there hath alwaies been a great multitude of Presbyters, there hath been but one only lawfull Bishoppe at once successiuely; and partly by the vniuersall consent of all Churches, not onelyonly in former ages both catholike and hereticall (for euen the Nouatians, the Donatists, the Arians, &c. retained the gouernment of the true Church by Bishops) but also of all almost at this day being established in peace, retaining for the most part the antient distinction of Churches, according to dioceses and prouinces, which hath continued euer from the first conuersion of them: not any one example being to be produced in the whole world, neither in, nor since the Apostles times, vntill our age, of any Church gouerned according to the new-found parish discipline. Yea the Church of Geneua it selfe, which hath been a paterne to others, though it hath abolished the episcopall gouernment, notwithstanding it remaineth a diocesse vnderunder their one onelyonly Presbytery, as well as it was wont vnderunder their one onelyonly Bishoppe: the authoritie and iurisdiction of their Presbyterie beeing not confined to any one parish (nor any one parish allowed a Presbytery) but is extended to all the parishes both in the citie and territory thereto belonging, hauing the same circuit that the Bishop was wont to hauehave.

Finally, it may be alleaged, that as with vsus Bathe and Wels, Couentry and Lichfield, London and Co…chester, so in the primitiue Church more cities then one, with the countries thereto belonging, hauehave sometimes made but one diocesse. For when to the general Councell of EphesusaaExempl. libelli syn. Ephes. oblati ab Euprepio & Cyrillo Episcopis., petiton was made by certaine Bishops; that whereas it had bin an antient custome in the prouinces of Europe, that diuers Bishops should hauehave each of them two cities vnderunder them, as the Bishop of Heraclea had both Heraclea and Panion, the Bishop of …yze had also Arcadiopolis, the Bishop p. 40of C…la Callipolis, the Bishop of Sabsadia, A phrodi…ias, and the latter of these Cities neuer had a proper Bishop of their owne, but euer from the beginning were subiect to the aforesaid Bishops: and whereas now they feared some innouation, they referred the cause to the Councell. The Councell therefore determined, that there should not then, nor afterwards bee any innouation, but the aforesaid Bishops should according to the antient custome, which hath the force of a law, retaine the said Cities. And likewise it may be added, that some whole nations in the primitiue Church were subiect to one Bishop, not as the primate or Patriarch, for that was ordinary (so was Ignatius bbIgnat. epist. ad Rom.Bishop of Syria, Liberius ccSocrat. l. 4. c. 12of Italy, Cyprius ddNazianz. encom. Cypr. Conc. Const. Trull. c. 2.of Africke, Diodorus eeTheodor. l. 5. c. 4.of Cilicia, Basil ffSozum. l. 5. c. 1….the Great of Cappadocia, &c.) but as hauing one onelyonly Bishop: as the nation of the ScythyansggSozum. lib. 6. c. 21. hauing many cities, townes, and castels, had all of them by antient custome one only Bishop, which was the Bishop of their chiefe citie Tomis.