A Defense of the Sermon Preached at the Consecration of the Bishop of Bath, Book 2 · Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. Answering the Refuters arguments.
ANd first, because you shall know what he meaneth to conclude, he propoundeth the question; which is, saith he, whether in the Apostles times and the age following, that is, the first two hundred yeeres, the visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernment, were parishes or no. In which question, seeing he & his consorts restraine the times of the primitiue Church to the first two hundred yeeres; the Reader will I hope expect, that he should conclude, that fo… this whole terme at the least, the churches were each of them but a parish, and that in all this time there were no dioceses.
His argumentation containeth two ranckes of instances: the former taken out of the scriptures; the latter out of the Fathers. The former he concludeth thus:
The Refuters first argumēt.If the Churches of Corinth, Ephesus and Antioch (being visible Churches indued with power of ecclesiasticall government) were each of them but one parish (vnderstand for the whole terme of 200. yeeres) then the other visible Churches … with the like power, were also each of them (during the same terme) but one parish.
But the Churches of Corinth, Ephesus and Antioch, (being visible Churches endued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernment) were each of them but one parish (for the first 200. yeeres.
Therefore the other visible Churches endued with the like power, were also (for the like terme) each of them but one parish.
The proposition I will be content to yeeld to my aduersarie, so it may be lawfull for me to vse the like: for then I would conclude thus:
If the Churches of Alexandria and Rome were not parishionall Churches in the first 200. yeeres, neither were the Churches of other Cities.
But the antecedent is true: therefore the consequent.
The consequence is the same with his, and grounded on the same hypothesis: viz. that all Churches endued with power of ecclesiasticall gouernment, were at the first of the same nature and constitution.
The former part of the assumption, concerning Alexandria, I will manifestly prooue when I come to the third point, concerning Diocesans: viz. that it was not one parish, but contained diuers parishes, euen in the first 100. yeeres. Concerning Rome, I hauehave proued already, that within the first 200. yeeres it was diuided into many parishes: and therefore although there bee not so good euidence for other Cities in particular, yet the like is to bee concluded of them, seeing they were all of the same constitution.
Passing by therefore his proposition, I take hold of his assumption, and doe plainely denie, the Churches he speaketh of, or any other, which had a Bishop and Presbyterie, to hauehave beene for the first two hundred yeeres, no more but parishes: for J doubt not, but it is easier to proue that within this terme, not onelyonly the Presbyters and people in the said dioceses, but also the Bishops in the same Prouinces, were subiect to the Bishops of these three Cities. For as it is euident of Antioch, by the testimonie of Ignatius, who calleth himselfe the Bishop of Syria; so no reason can bee alleged why the Bishops of Ephesus and Corinth, who in the third centurie, and in the ages following, were Metropolitans, were not so in the second; or if they were Metropolitans in the third, and in the ages following, (as most certainely they were) why they should not hauehave beene Diocesans at the least in the second.
The assumption (hee saith) appeareth plaine by the proofe of the particulars.§ 2. Whether the Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, and Antioch were each of them but a parish. But what doth he prooue of the particulars? Are his syllogismes so soone come to an end? His chiefe proofes be, that in the Apostle Pauls time each of them vsed to assemble in one Congregation. Was this your assumption? You that are so strict in exacting syllogismes and direct proofes, should not hauehave sought to carrie away the matter, as it were, in the cloudes. Yea but that which he prooueth, doth prooue the assumption. That shall thus bee tried by his owne forme of argumentation:
If those Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, and Antioch, in the Apostle Pauls time, were each of them no more then ordinarily assembled in one place, then were they for the first 200. yeeres each of them but one parish.
But the Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, and Antioch, in the Apostle Pauls time, were each of them no more then ordinarily assembled in one place. Therefore for the first 200. yeeres they were each of them but one parish.
The proposition is omitted by the disputer, as taken for granted: but therein he hath plaied the sophister; for he that meaneth truly, doth not vse to omit any part of his argument, but that which is certaine, or confessed. But the consequence of this proposition is worse then naught: for if hee had onelyonly said thus, If in the Apostles times they were each of them but one Congregation, therefore for 200. yeeres they were so; the consequence had beene starke naught: or if he had onelyonly said, If in the Apostles time they were each but one Congregation, then were they each one parish; that consequence also had beene naught: but when he saith, If in the Apostles times each was but one Congregation, therefore for 200. yeeres each of them was but a parish; that consequence is, as I said, worse then naught.
That the first of the two consequences is naught, it is euident: for though at the first conuersion of any great City, and for a while after, the number vsually was so small, that they might hauehave assembled in one place; yet it is certaine, that within 200. yeeres, their number was growne to bee almost innumerable, as hath beene shewed, and therefore too great to make one ordinarie congregation. This one exception (if no more should bee added) ouerturneth all his dispute.
As touching the second: though it should bee granted, that each of these Churches in the Apostles time, did ordinarilie assemble together in one place; yet would it not follow, that therefore each of them was but a parish; and much lesse (which is the end of all this disputation) that all Churches endued with ecclesiasticall power should be but parishes; and consequently, that eueryevery parish should hauehave a Bishop and presbyterie. The reasons of my deniall of these consequences I hauehave before set downe at large, Chap. 3. § 5. and 6. and therefore this disputation I hauehave sufficiently ouerthrowne already. For a surplussage I adde these two reasons:
First, If these Churches, because they were each of them but one Congregation, were parishes before the diuision of parishes; then were they such Churches, as after the diuision, parishes were. This consequence may not be denied, especially by them who would hauehave all parishes framed to the constitution of the first Churches. But they were not such: for the parishes, after their diuision, had not a Bishop and presbyterie, but only a Presbyter assigned to them: neither was the Pastor thereof superintendent ouer others, neither was any of them intended to bee a mother Church. Secondly, if that assumption was false which denied parishes to hauehave beene distinguished in the Apostles times, then these Churches were not onelyonly many congregations, but many parishes also.Page 60. But he said before, that that assumption had no truth in it. These two iust exceptions I hauehave against his consequence. If against the former it bee obiected, that some of his testimonies doe seeme to prooue, that after the Apostles times these Churches were each of them but one congregation: I answer, that his maine argument and proofes thereof, doe speake of the Apostles time. Those which are extended further, shall bee further examined.
§ 3. Whether the Churches of Corinth, Ephesus, and Antioch, were each but one congregation. His proofe out of Scripture.Now I come to his assumption; for though I doe not denie, but that at the first, and namely in the time of the Apostle Paul, the most of the Churches so soone after their conuersion, did not each of them exceed the proportion of a populous congregation; yet I cannot yeeld to all his proofes. His proofes be either allegation of Scriptures, or other testimonies.
His Scriptures for Corinth, are out of the first epistle to the Corinthians, and Rom. …6.1. for Ephesus, Act. 20.28. for Antioch, Act. 14.27. Now let vsus consider the date of his testimonies, and then what is testified in them.
The date of them is ancienter then Paul his going to Rome, which was in the yeere 5…. or …6. Which I do note, to shew to what time his proposition is to bee restrained: as if hee had said,In respect of Antioch hee might hauehave said 45. If before the yeere 55. or …6. they were but one congregation, then they were no more vntill the yeere 200.
The thing that is testified for Corinth, 1. Cor 11. is such, as might bee written to the Church of England, as verse 18.Corinth was situated in Isthmo, betweene two seas, hauing on either side a port, the one Cenchreae, seruing more properly for Asia; the other Lechaeum, seruing for Italie and other parts of Europe: Strab. l. 8. Ad pag. 67. When you come into the Church, I beare there bee schism…s among you: vers. 20. When you come together in the same place, this is not to eat the Supper of the Lord: vers. 33. When you come together to eat, expect one another. Rom. 16. There is mention of the Church of Cenchreae, whereof mention hath beene made now thrice, to no purpose, vnlesse it bee against himselfe: for if C…nchreae were a parish subordinate to the Church of Corinth, as most certainly it was, it selfe hauing not a Bishop or presbyterie, but a Presbyter assigned to it; this will proo…e, that the mother Church of Corinth was diocesan, (as all Cathedrall Churches bee) and that parishes distinguished from the Cathedrall, as children from the mother, were such as that of Cenchreae.
That which is testified for Ephesus, Act. 20.28. is such as vponupon like occasion might by all. in his visitation be applied to a… the ministers of a diocesse; that they should attend the stocke, &c. For must the word stocke, which may be extended, either to the vniuersall, or nationall, or prouinciall, or diocesan Church; must it needes signifie onelyonly the congregation of a Parish? & yet he, that breathes nothing but nouelties, saith it is a new conceit, to suppose a Diocesan flocke. But this calumny of nouelty I hauehave by plentifull testimonies of antiquity (before cited) wiped cleane away.
As touching Act. 14.27. cited for Antioch; where it is said, that Paul and Barnabas gathered together the Church, to relate vntounto them, what God had done by them, since they had laid their hands vponupon them, and had commended them to the grace of God: it is apparant; that not all the Church consisting of husbands, and wiues, their children and seruants, but some of the chiefe and principall, perhappes not many, perhappes not any, besides those of the Clergy, were called to that meeting.
These were his proofes out of the Scripture.§ 4. His testimonies out of humane writings. His other testimonies are out of Eusebius, Ignatius, and some of our owne Writers, all which testimonies are scarse worth the mentioning. Eusebius calleth the Churches of Corinth, Ephesus and Antioch foreign. Of the ancient vse of this word, sometimes signifying the whole Diocesse, sometimes the whole City and Suburbes, I hauehave spoken sufficiently heretofore, as also of that which hee obiecteth, concerning the Parish in Ephesus . Wherto I adde, that Eusebius, as he vsed the preposition foreign, so sometimes foreign to the same purpose.
Ignatius writing to the Church of Ephesus aIgnat. ad Eph., the multitude whereof hee calleth foreign (as if he had of purpose noted it to be a Church consisting of many multitudes or congregations) exhorteth them, as one might in like manner the faithfull in London, (though diuided into many congregations) to come oft together to bforeign.giuegive thanks and glory to God: for when you come oft together into one place, the power of Satan is weakened, &c.
His other testimony out of Ignatius, is out of his Epistle to Hero, where he calleth the Church of Antioch foreign, the Synagogue, that is, the church or congregation of the Lord. The word being vsed in the same signification with Ecclesia, whereof I spake before. But whether Ignatius were Bishop onelyonly of one Congregation, or parish, let his own words testifie. Remember me saith he, cEpist. ad Magnes.(in his Epistle to the Magnesians) in your praiers, and the Church which is in Syria, whereof I am not worthy to be called the Bishop. And in the Epistle to the Romanes towardes the latter enddIgna. ad Ro., Remember in your praier the Church in Syria, the which, in stead of me, hath the Lord to bee her pastor, who saith I am the good shepheard. Or, if these words bee not plaine inough, hee calleth himselfe in the eAd Rom.same Epistle, foreign, the Bishop of Syria. Now let my aduersarie tell mee, what maner of Parish Syria was. And let me heare also, what he can obiect against these two Epistles of Ignatius to the Magnesians, and Romanes. For euen they fP…rk. problem., which suspect his Epistle to Her…, which the refuter citeth, and foure others, acknowledge these two to bee no bastards Eusebius gEuseb. l. 3. c. 35.36.mentioneth both. And that to the Romans, he not onelyonly mentioneth, but also citeth a good part thereof.
Thus leauing that most pregnant, and authentique euidence of Ignatius to my aduersary to muse vponupon; J come to his testimonies of our new writers, all which (excepting two testimonies of Tindall) he most childishly alleadgeth, to proue, that the Churches of Ephesus, and of other the like Cities, were each of them but a Parish; because they call a Church a Congregation; vsing the word Congregation in as ample sense, as before I proued the word Ecclesia (whereof that is the English) to bee vsed. The auncient English Bibles, neuer almost vse the word church; but in stead thereof doe vse the word congregation, not onelyonly where is mention of particular Churches, but of the vniuersall or catholicke Church. As Mat. 16. VponUpon this rocke I will build my congregation. Eph. 1. Hee hath made him head of the Congregation, which is his body. Eph. 5. Yee husbands louelove your wiues as Christ loued the congregation. And so in the Communion Booke, both in the Praiers & translation there vsed. As in the Praier for the King, before the Epistle; hauehave mercy on the whole congregation. In the solemnization of Matrimony, out of Ephes. 5. I speake of Christ and the Congregation.
But you shall heare his particulars; First Tindall translateth the word Ecclesia by congregation: thus, to the angell of the congregation of Ephesus, &c. 2. Iohn Bale translateth and expoundeth the word Candlesticke and Church, by Congregation.
The reasons why the first Translaters of the Bible into English in these latter times did auoid the name Church, and insteed thereof vsed Congregation, doe seeme to hauehave been these two. The first, because Church or Kyrk, being deriued from the Greeke foreign, or, foreign, doth more properly signifie the place of meeting, then the congregation it selfe, which is meant by ecclesia: and therefore the word Congregation thought to be the fitter translation. The second, because the Papists had abused the word Church, whether it were generally vsed, to signifie the Romish Church; or particularly, to import the Romish clergy. So saieth Tindal; Because the clergy had appropriated to themselues the name Church, Tindal. pag. 250.therefore I translated the word Ecclesia, by this word Congregation. For when the people vnderstood, that by Church was meant the company of men professing the faith of Christ, the name Church is eueryevery where vsed, as the translation of ecclesia.
Thirdly, Yea, but D. Fulke iustifying the translation of Ecclesia, Eph. 5.23. by congregation, argueth plainely, that he held the Church of Ephesus to consist but of one particular congregation onelyonly. Which allegation sheweth extreame want, either of iudgement, or honesty: for what church or congregation is there mentioned? the Church of Ephesus, or the vniuersall Church of Christ? when it is said, as Christ is the head of the Church? VponUpon which words, when the Rhemists had noted it as a corruption of the first English Bibles, which did not vse the word Church, but congregation in stead thereof. D. Fulke answereth;D. Fulk. in Eph. 5. …. 2. that the Translator rather vsed the word Congregation then Church, to auoide ambiguity, because this word Church is commonly taken for the house of the assembly of Christians: and that the people might know, that the Church is a gathering together of al the mēbers into one body, which in the name of church doth not appeare. But after the people were taught to distinguish of the word Church, and to vnderstand it for the mysticall body of Christ, the latter translations vsed that terme; not that the other was any corruption; or the latter, any correction; but to declare, that both is one. Is it not plaine, that he by congregation vnderstandeth the vniuersall Church, which is a gathering together of all the members into one body, but of the Church of Ephesus speaketh neuer a word?
Ad pag. 68.In the 4. place the notes of M. Perkins sermons on the Apocalypse, taken from his mouth, are alleadged▪ wherein it is said, that the seuen Churches were particular congregations, meaning thereby (that which I doe not deny) particular churches, and that eueryevery particular congregation is a Church, and hath priuiledges of a Church belonging to it, which is also true.
Fiftly, the great Church Bible readeth thus; Iohn to the seuen Congregations. Lastly, D. Bilson saith, that the church is neuer taken in the old or new Testament for the Priests alone, but for the congregation of the faithfull. From which allegations to inferre, that each church is but one particular congregation, is (as I said) most childish.
But those 2. out of Tindall, the one, that a Bishop was the gouernour but of one congregation:Tindal. pag. 135.250. the other, that hee was the ouerseer but of a Parish, to preach the word to a parish: was not a childish mistaking, but a wilfull misalleadging of the Author, who in the former place hath no such thing. Or if hee hauehave any where, he vseth the word Congregation in as large a sense as Ecclesia, wherof it is the translation. In the latter, speaking of such a Bishop as is described, 1. Tim. 3. that is, of such a one as (in his conceit) was but a Presbyter; hee saith, by the authority of the gospell, they that preach the word of God in eueryevery Parish, and (performe) other necessary ministeries, hauehave right to challenge an honest liuing: Vid. infr lib. 4. c. 7. § 9.Neither is the Refuter content once to hauehave falsified the testimony of this holy Martyr; but againe in the end of his booke hee alleadgeth him to the same purpose.
After hee hath thus doughtily proued his Assumption concerning these 3. Churches,§ 5. His second rancke of instances. he bringeth a new supply of testimonies out of Ignatius, Tertullian, and Eusebius concerning others. Ignatius exhorteth the Magnesians,Ignat. ad Magnes. that they would all come together into one place to praier; all , as with vsus, that belonged to the same congregation. And perswading the Philadelphians to vnity,Ad Philadelph. exhorteth them, that they would vse one faith, one preaching, one eucharist, because the body of Christ is one, and his bloud one, one cup, and one bread, one Altar for the whole Church, and one Bishop with the Presbytery and Deacons: for there is but one God the Father, &c. one faith, one baptisme, and one Church, which the Apostles hauehave founded from one end of the world to another, &c. In which words, none fauoureth the Refuters conceit, but that of one altar seruing for the whole Church: the word Altar being expounded for the Communion Table, which is not likely, and too much sauoureth of popery. But by one altar, is meant Christ, who sanctifieth all our sacrifices or oblations, and maketh them acceptable to God: as Ignatius expoundeth himselfe in his Epistle to the Magnesians; all as one, runne together into the Temple of God, foreign, vntounto one Iesus Christ as it were vntounto one altar. Ignat. ad Magnes.But that which he alleageth out of the same Epistle, that they were to gather themselues together into one place to chuse their Bishop:Ad Philadelph. if it were rightly alleaged, would proue, not their ordinary and parishionall, but extraordinary and panegyricall meeting to such an end: but this needed not: their Bishop at this time was come to Ignatius in his iourny towards Rome, as appeareth by the beginning of the Epistle, as it were vponupon an honourable ambassage from the Church, as were the BB. of other Churches. But he saith, it becometh you as being a Church of God, to doe as other Churches hauehave done; that is, as he sheweth in the words following, to appoint a Bishop, that he may … Antioch performe the …mbassage of God, that it may be granted to them being gathered together into one place, to glorifie the name of God From whence also the Re…uter gathereth, that a Bishop is Gods Ambassador to a people that are together in one place. Which is true, so oft as he preacheth. But Ignatius meaneth nothing lesse, then that they should appoint the Bishop of Antioch; but onelyonly willeth them to send a Bishop, as it were vponupon ambassage thither.Ignat. ad S…yrn. His meaning is more plainly expressed in his Epistle to the S…yrneans, where he writeth to the same purpose, that seeing the Church of Antioch after his departure had some peace, (the persecutors contenting themselues to hauehave taken him who was their ringleader from among them) he exhorteth them to ordaine foreign, a sacred Ambassador, who when he should come into Syria, should reioice with them, because they had peace.
Tertull. apolog. c. 39.Tertull… also is made to speake for them, as though he said the Christian Churches were all one body, and came all together into a company and congregation. By which testimony, if it were truely alledged, all Christian Churches, as they are one body of Christ, so all should meet together to make one parish. His words be these: I will now set forth the practises of the Christian party: That hauing refuted the euils (obiected) I may declare the good. We are a body consenting in the knowledge of religion, in the truth of discipline or doctrine, and the couenant of hope: We come together into a company and cōgregation. Which words may be verified of the Christians of these times, which in eueryevery Church are diuided into seuerall congregations.
Eusebius.Out of Eusebius hee hath nothing to alledge, but that which before I came to his arguments I sufficiently answered; that he calleth the Church of Ierusalem the parish of Ierusalem, the Church of Alexandria, the parish of Alexandria, &c.
To which J answere, that Eusebius indeed calleth each of the Churches by the name foreign, but he calleth none of them a parish, as we vnderstand the word parish. In the place which hee quoteth concerning Ierusalem, Eusebius saith,Eus. l. 3. c. 11. that after the martyrdome of Iames (who no doubt from an Apostle, had been preferred to bee a parish Bishop, because he was Christs kinsman) the Apostles and disciples of Christ, which yet remained, did from all places come together, with those who were of Christs kinred, to consult, whom they might thinke worthy to bee Iames his successor; and that with one consent they made chuce of Simeon the sonne of Cleophas, as worthy the throne of that foreign, that is, Church, because he also was our Sauiours kinsman. All this was done (no doubt) in a parish meeting, to set a parish B. in his throne. In which throne of Iames, reserued, as Eusebius saith, till his time, the BB. of Ierusalem, hauing the honour of Patriarches, did succeed.
As touching Alexandria, it is euident by that which before hath been shewed, that Eusebius speaking of the Bishop there, calleth him sometime the Bishop of the Church or paroecia, sometimes of the Churches or paroeciae, belonging to Alexandria, and all in one and the same sense: which plainely sheweth, that by foreign, hee doth not meane that which we call a parish. Which wil then better appeare, when I shall proue that from Saint Marks time, there were more Churches or parishes there, and yet but one Church and one Bishop.
But suppose it were granted him, that each of the Churches for a time did not exceed for their number, the proportion of an ordinary congregation; yet this would not proue them to hauehave been parishes, as hath been shewed.
Thus and thus weakely, to vse his owne words, the Disputer hauing prooued his cause, notwithstanding concludeth with a stout brag. Now let any man, iudge whether M.D. hath better proued, that the Churches in those times were dioceses, or I, that they were parishes. So say I, let any man now iudge, who is of iudgement; and if there be any comparison betweene the plaine euidence which I hauehave brought, and his slender proofes, let me be taken for a man of no iudgement.
§ 6. The Refuter obiecteth that we hauehave no diocesan, because we hauehave two prouinciall Churches.Yea but (saith hee) the worst is still behinde: for his cause indeed, but to mine, aduantage. For if there were not onelyonly diocesan, but also prouinciall Churches, and that within the first two hundred yeeres; then is it absurd to imagine, that there were no Churches, but parishional. Neither did, or doth the being of prouinciall Churches, hinder dioceses, or diocesan BB. These be the shallow conceipts of this disputer, and his fellow challengers of disputation: First, that eueryevery visible Church hath a sufficient and independent authority, immediately deriued from Christ, for the gouer…ent of it selfe in al causes ecclesiasticall. Secondly, that eueryevery parish is or ought to be such a Church. From the former of these, this disputer seemeth to inferre, that if diocesan Churches and BB. be subordinate to the prouinciall Churches, and BB: that then the prouinciall be the onelyonly Churches. And by the same reason when the prouinces were subiect to the Patriarches, none but patriarchall Chuches, (as that of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Ierusalem) were to be esteemed Churches. But let vsus heare the disputer. Ad page 69.Admit the Churches were then diocesan, what is that to vsus, who hauehave none such in these daies, if G.P. say true? And how is this proued? because he saith the BB. of either prouince in England are Suffraganes, or rather Curates to the two Arch-bishoppes in their seuerall prouinces, euen their deputies exercising ecclesiastical iurisdiction, from and vnderunder them. It shall not be amisse therefore for M.D. to confute him the next time he writeth. In the meane time you should hauehave answered for your selues, and not put off the confutation of his reioynder to others. But though you cannot confute him, yet you can abuse him, as by reuiling and scornefull termes in other places of your booke; so here by notorious falsifying of his words▪ For where doth he say that our Bishops bee but Suffraganes or Curates to the two Arch-bishoppes, as you without shame or conscience doe belie him? saith hee, or meaneth he any more but this, that during the time of the Archiepiscopal visitation, wherby the iurisdiction of the Ordinary is suspended, that ecclesiasticall iurisdiction which he practiseth, he doth exercise from and vnderunder the Archbishop as his deputy? And what is this to our purpose? Yea but, If we may iudge (saith our Disputer) by the outward practise, we hauehave onelyonly two Churches, and they are prouinciall, the one of Canterbury, the other of Yorke, vnsubordinate either to other, or to any other ecclesiasticall power, and so entire Churches (such as hee would hauehave eueryevery parish to be.) Heere by the way let the Reader iudge, with what conscience the Refuter hath so oft obiected against our Bishoppes, that they be petite popes, hauing sole and supreme authority , seeing now himselfe confesseth, that according to the order and discipline of our Church, they are subiect to the Metropolitanes. But to the point: none of these things which hee obiecteth, doe hinder the being of dioceses, or diocesan Bishoppes; no not though they had been by G.P. called the Archbishoppes Suffraganes. For whereas the Bishoppes hauehave been by authors which hauehave written within these nine hundred yeeres, called Suffraganes to the Archbishoppes, they meane thereby comprouinciall Bishoppes▪ who in the election of the Metropolitanes, and in the prouinciall synods held by the Metropolitanes, did giuegive their suffrages with them: not that they bee such as commonly we call Suffraganes, but are as absolute Bishoppes as hauehave been since the first appointment of Metropolitanes; and they were actually acknowledged, as they were at the first intended, so soone as the diuers cities of one prouince had their Bishops. In all which, as there was consociation among themselues, as being all of one body; so also subordination to the Bishop of the Metropolis, or mother Citie, as being their head. Thus was it prouided in the canons, which for their antiquity, are called the Apostles canons, that the Bishops of eueryevery nation must acknowledge him that in the first or primate among them, and esteeme him as the head, and that they should doe nothing exceeding the bounds of their owne iurisdiction, without his consent. And that eueryevery one may doe those things alone which belong to his owne Church and the Countries which bee vnderunder it. Neither may hee (meaning the Primate) doe any thing without the consent of all. The same is repeated and explaned, as yee heard before in the Councell of Antioch;C. Antioch. c. 10. The councell of Sardica calleth the metropolitan the gouernor of the prouince. foreign c. 6. foreign. calling the Primate, foreign, the Bishoppe which gouerneth in the mother Citie, appointing him to hauehave the care of the whole prouince, because there is concourse of men, who hauehave businesse from all parts of the country to the mother Citie. And although they forbad Bishoppes to attempt any thing beyond their compasse, without his consent, according to the antient canon, yet they say, EueryEvery Bishoppe hath power or authority of his owne diocesse, to administer or gouerne the same according to his conscience, and to hauehave prouident care of the whole Country subiect to his Citie, and to ordaine Presbyters and Deacons, and to dispose of all things with iudgement.
§ 7. Of Metropolitanes, when they began.It is apparant then, that the being of prouinciall Churches doth not hinder the diocesan, nor the authority of Metropolitanes take away the iurisdiction of diocesan Bishops. Neither is any Church in the world, more agreeable to the forme and gouernment of the most antient and Apostolicall Churches, then this of England. For at the first, Metropolitanes were not subordinate to any superiour Bishoppes, but were,In Conc. Constant. 1. c. 2. as Balsa… saith, foreign, heads by themselues of their prouinces, being Bishoppes of their owne peculiar dioceses, and yet hauing a generall superintendencie ouer the whole prouince. I cannot deny, but that long before the Councell of Nice, there were Patriarches aboue Metropolitanes, whose originall, as it seemeth, proceeded from humane policie;Conc. Nic. c. 6. as the cause of their ratification and continuance is ascribed to antient custome. But the superiority of Metropolitanes was either intended by the Apostles, as I thinke, when they appointed Bishoppes ouer mother Cities, who though at the first actually were but Bishoppes of their owne diocesse, yet vponupon the conuersion of other Cities in the prouince, were to be ackowledged the chiefe;De gradib. c. 24. or at least, as Beza supposeth, they were ordained, not by authority of Councels, but s…dente natura, & necessitate flagitante; nature aduising, and necessitie requiring it. For it was conuenient, or rather necessary, that there should be consociation of Churches within the same prouince; and that the gouernours of the seuerall dioceses, should meete for the common good; as also that the wrongs offered to any by the Bishoppes within their dioceses, might bee remedied. By consequent therfore it was necessary, especially before there were Christian magistrates, that one in eueryevery prouince should be held as chiefe, or primate, who should assemble the synods, moderate them being assembled, see the decrees executed, and hauehave a generall superintendencie ouer the whole prouince. Beza therefore speaking of the aforesaid Canon of the Apostles,De. grad. c. 20. saith, quid aliud hic statuitu… quam ordo ille, quem in omnibus ecclesiis restitutum cupi…? What other thing is here ordained, but that order, which in all Churches wee desire may be restored?
That there were Metropolitane Bishoppes within the first 200 yeeres, it is euident by those prouincial councels, which in the second Century were held concerning the feast of Easter,Euseb. l. 5. c. 23 being assembled and guided by Metropolitanes. As the president of the prouinciall synode held at Rome, was Victo… the Metropolitane Bishoppe of Rome; of those in Palestina, Theophilus the Metropolitane of Caesarea, and Narcissus Bishoppe of Ierusalem; of that in France, Irenaeus the Bishoppe of Lyons; of that in Achaia, Bacchylus the Bishoppe of Corinth; of that in Asia, Polycrates the Bishoppe of Ephesus. And so of that in Osroene and of diuers others. Now it is to be noted, that Eusebius speaking of the synode held in France, saith, there was a meeting of the Churches in France, foreign, of which Churches Irenaeus was B. Such a parish B. was he.Ex Balsam. in Conc. Ephes. c 8. & exemplar. suggest. de Cypri. Episcopis & ex Decreto Conc. Ephes. post aduentum Episcoporum Cypri.
That there hauehave been Metropolitanes, and prouinciall Churches euer since the Apostles times, this one euidence among many, which might bee alleaged, may sufficientlie euince. In the time, of the first Ephesine Councell, Dionysius the gouernour of the East, whose chiefe seat was Antioch, hauing appointed Theodorus to bee the Lieutenant of the Isle of Cyprus, the Patriarch of Antioch, because the ecclesiasticall iurisdiction for the most part followed the ciuill, challenged authority ouer the Isle of Cyprus, and power of ordaining the Metropolitan Bishop of Constantia, the mother city of Cyprus. To which end, the clergy of Antioch procured from Dionysius letters, both to the clergy of Constantia, and to the Lieutenant of Cyprus, to interdict them from chusing their Metropolitane, the See being then void: or if they had already chosen their Bishop, that both he and they should repaire to the Councell at Ephesus, hoping that by the Councell they should be ouerruled, according to the Bishop of Antioch his desire. Reginus therefore, who was chosen Bishoppe, with other Bishoppes of Cyprus,Can. Apost. 35. put vp a Supplication to the Councell, complaining that the Bishoppe and clergy of Antioch had sought, contrary to the Apostles Canons, and contrary to the determination of the Councell of Nice,Conc. N…c. c. 5.6 Constant. 1. c. 2 to bring them in subiection to them: and therefore requested, that as euer since the Apostles times, Trodus, Sabinus, Epiphanius, & qui ante Illos sanctissimi Episcopi, & quia sanctis Apostolis erant omnes orthodoxi ab his qui in Cypro Constituti sunt.the prouinciall synod had ordained their Metropolitane; so their antient right might not now be infringed. Whereupon the Councell hauing censured the attempt of the Bishoppe of Antioch, as … innouation, contrary to the lawes ecclesiasticall, and ca…s of the holy Apostles, decreed, not onelyonly that the Bishoppes of Cyprus, but also of all other dioceses and prouinces, should retaine their antient right; and that no Bishop should challenge vntounto himselfe any prouince, which had not bin foreign, in former times from the beginning, vnderunder his predecessors iurisdiction. It hath seemed good therefore to the sacred and economical synod, that to eueryevery prouince her right, which …er from the beginning it hath had, shall bee kept pure and i…iolable, according to the antient receiued custome. EueryEvery Metropolitan hauing good l…a… to take a copie of this Act for his owne security. Whereby it appeareth, that the Isle of Cyprus had a Metropolitane from the Apostles time. And that no Metropolitane had, or ought to hauehave, the gouernement of any prouince, which had not alwaies from the beginning been subiect to his Se….
And that Metropolitanes were either actually appointed, or at the least intended by the Apostles, appeareth hereby: That euer since their times, in all prouinces, throughout the Christian world, there hauehave been Metropolitanes, neuer misliked or contradicted by any, vntil this our age.
And whereas the Refuter obiecteth,§ 8. Metropolitan Churches are proofs rather then disproofs of Diocesan. that this maketh against Diocesan Bishops, I say it maketh for them. For eueryevery Metropolitan is also a diocesan Bishop: hauing a peculiar diocesse of his owne, whereof he is Bishop; as the Archbishop of Canterbury, hath Canterbury, and part of Kent, besides some other peculiar Churches; the Archbishop of Yorke, hath Yorkeshire (excepting the County of Richmond, which belongeth to the Bishop of Chester) and the County of Nottingham.
To his question therefore demanding, where then are our Diocesan Churches become? I answere, there remaine 24 of them, where they were wont to be, for any thing that he can say to the contrary, besides the Churches of Canterbury and Yorke; which, as they be prouinciall Churches in respect of the 2. prouinces; so are they Diocesan in respect of the peculiar dioceses belonging vntounto them. And where he saith, the Cathedrall Churches are as it were parishes , he saith he knowes not what. For Cathedral Churches, which are the mother Churches of eueryevery diocesse, neither are, nor euer were parishes; nor the Bishop, nor Presbyteries of them, euer intended to one parish. And if it so fall out, that to some part of the Cathedrall Church a particular parish belong; therto a seuerall Presbyter is appointed as to other Parishes. The meetings in Cathedral Churches whereof the Bishops hauehave beene presidents, were neuer Parishionall, but rather Panegyricall, euen in the most ancient and purest Churches, vnderunder the best and most renowned Bishops since the Apostles times.
In the conclusion the Refuter pusheth at me with a Dilemma, as it were with a paire of rams hornes. For such is his wisdome, that he thinketh diocesan & prouinciall Churches (which are subordinate one to the other) to be so opposite, as that to hold the one, is to deny the other. And therefore if I yeeld there be prouinciall Churches, then I must confesse there be no diocesan: or if I will needes hold there be diocesan Churches, then I ouerthrow the prouinciall. So that what may soeuer we looke, saith he, I see nothing against vsus, but all for vsus. Thus hath he brought himselfe into a fooles paradise, where I leaue him to feed vponupon his owne fancies, and to solace himselfe with the conceit of his imagined conquest.