A Treatise of Episcopacy, Part 2 · Chapter 7

A Treatise of Episcopacy · Part 2 · Chapter 7

p. 60CHAP. VII. More Proofs of the aforeſaid Limits of Churches.

THe thing that we are proving is that every Biſhop ſhould have but one Church (ſuppoſing him to be no Arch-Biſhop) and that this Church ſhould be ſuch and ſo great only as that there may be perſonal Communion in publick Worſhip and holy Converſation between the Members: and not ſo great as that the Members have only a Heart-Communion, and by Delegates or Synods of Officers.

As to our Hiſtorical Evidence of the matter of fact, it runs thus: 1. That in the firſt ſtate of the Churches, it cannot be proved that any one Church in all the World conſiſted of more ſtated Communicating Aſſemblies than one, or of more Chriſtians than our Pariſhes. But though through Perſecution they might be forced (as an Independant Church now may do) to meet by parcels in ſeveral Houſes ſometimes in a danger, yet their ordinary Meetings when they were free was all together in one place: And Unum Altare was the note of their Individuation, with Unus Epiſcopus, when Biſhops grew in faſhion in the eminent ſenſe.

2. That the firſt that broke this Order and had divers Aſſemblies and Altars under one Biſhop were Alexandria and Rome, and no other Church can be proved to have done ſo, for about three hundred Years after Chriſt or near; nor moſt Churches till four hundred, yea five hundred Years after.

3. That when they departed from this Church temperament, they proceeded by theſe degrees. 1. They ſet up ſome Oratories, or Chappels (as are in our Pariſhes) which had only Prayers and Teachings without an Altar, Oblations or Sacraments in the City, Suburbs or Country Villages near, the People coming for Sacramental Communion to the Biſhop's Church. 2. Afterward p. 61theſe Chappels were turned into Communicating Churches: But ſo as that at firſt the Biſhop's Presbyters (who lived ſometimes in the ſame Houſe with him, and always near him in the ſame City, and were his Colleagues) did preach and officiate to them indifferently, that is, he whom the Biſhop ſent; and after that a particular Presbyter was aſſigned to teach a particular Congregation; yet ſo, as that more of the Biſhop's Presbyters commonly had no ſuch Congregations, but the moſt of them ſtill attended the Biſhop in his Church, and ſate with him on each hand in a high raiſed Seat, and whilſt he did uſually preach and adminiſter the Sacrament, they did but attend him and do nothing, or but ſome by aſſiſting Acts: as Lay-Elders do in the Presbyterian Churches; principally employed in perſonal overſight, and in joyning in Government with the Biſhop. And thoſe ſame Presbyters who had Congregations, joyned with the reſt in their Weekly Work, and made up the Conſeſſus or College of Presbyters. 3. And next that (and in ſome places at the ſame time) Communicating Congregations were gathered in the Country Villages, ſo far off the City, as that it was found meet to leave a Presbyter Reſident among them; but under the Government of the City Biſhop and Presbytery, of whom he was one when he came among them. And all this while the Churches were but like our greater Pariſhes which have divers Chappels, where there is liberty of Communicating. 4. After this when the Countries were more converted, there were more Country Pariſh-Congregations ſet up; till they attained the form of a Presbyterian Church, differing only in the Biſhop; that is, a certain number of the Neighbour Country Pariſhes in one Conſiſtory (but with a Biſhop) did govern all theſe Pariſhes as one Church; that is, It was many Worſhipping Churches (as ſis, eight, or ten, or twelve,) joyning to make up one governed Church. But at the ſame time many Paſtors and People being convinced of the Church-form which they had before been under, and of their own neceſſity and privileges, did require the ſame Order among themſelves as was in City Churches, and ſo had their proper Biſhops, who were called Chorepiſcopi, or Country Biſhops. But theſe Country-Biſhops living among the poorer and ſmaller number of Chriſtians, had not ſo many Presbyters to attend them as the City-Biſhops had: So that ſome Country Congregations had Biſhops and ſome had none. And the Churches being chiefly governed by the Synods, who met for obliging Concord, to avoid Diviſions, theſe Synods being made up of the City-Biſhops at firſt, they there carried it by Vote to make all the Country-Biſhops under them, and reſponſible to them: Which they the rather and the eaſilier conſented to, becauſe many obſcure and unworthy Fellows did inſinuate into the eſteem of the Country-Chriſtians, who had no Biſhops near them to adviſe them better; and ſo became the Corrupters of Doctrine, and the Maſters of Sects and Hereſies.

By this time one part of the Country Churches had Biſhops of their own, and the other had none, but only Presbyters under the City-Biſhops and Preſbytery. But yet it was but few Neighbour-Pariſhes, like our Market-Towns and the Villages between them that were thus under the City-Biſhop. For every ſuch Town was then called a City in the larger ſenſe as it ſignifieth p. 62Oppidum, and moſt ſuch Towns had City-privileges too, which was no more than to be Corporations, and not to have a Nominal Eminency, as now ſome ſmall places have above greater (as Bath rather than Plimouth, Ipſwich, Shrewſbury, &c.)

Next to this, the Emperors being Chriſtians, and deſiring without force to draw all the People from Heatheniſm to Chriſtianity, they thought it the beſt way to advance the Chriſtians in worldly reſpects, which ever win on common minds. And ſo they endued the Churches and Biſhops with ſuch Honours and Powers heretofore deſcribed as were like to the Honour and Power of the Civil Governors in their kind. And the Biſhops being thus lifted up, did firſt enlarge their own Dioceſes as far as they could, and advance their Power; and the World came unchanged into the Church, both in Cities and Villages, (where the Chriſtians were before ſo few, that many think the Heathens were called Pagani in diſtinction from the Citizens, who were Chriſtian.) And then the Biſhops put down the Chorepiſcopi, as preſuming too much to imitate their Power: And next to that, leſt every Corporation or Market-Town having a Biſhop, their Dioceſes ſhould not be great enough, and ne vileſceret nomen Epiſcopi, leſt a Biſhop's Name ſhould not be honoured enough, but become cheap by reaſon of the number, and of the ſmallneſs of his Church, they firſt ordered that no ſuch ſmall Cities or other places as had People enough for but one Presbyter, ſhould have a Biſhop; and afterward by degrees put down many ſmaller Biſhops Churches, and joyned them to their own: And ſo proceeded, by the advantage of Civil Alterations on Cities Names and Privileges, to bring themſelves to the ſtate that they are in, wherein one Biſhop infimi ordinis (that is no Arch-Biſhop) hath many hundred or above a thouſand Churches and multitudes of Cities, called now but Corporations, Burroughs or Market-Towns.

I have repeated ſo much of the Hiſtory, leſt the Reader forget what it is that I am proving; and that he may note, that if I prove now that in later Ages they kept but the Veſtigia, or Reliques of the former to prove how it was before their times, and if I prove but a Church of Presbyterian Magnitude to have ſo long continued, it ſufficeth againſt that which we now call a Dioceſs: And that we do not play with Names, nor by a Dioceſane Church, mean the ſame thing with a Parochial or Presbyterian; but we mean ſuch as our Dioceſes now are, where a Biſhop alone with a Lay-Chancellor's Court, or with ſome ſmall help of an Arch-Deacon, Surrogate, or Dean and Chapter, without all the Pariſh-Miniſters beſides, doth rule a multitude of diſtant Congregations, who have no proper Biſhop under him. And now I proceed.

I. The Chorepiſcopi which were at firſt placed in Country Churches where were many Chriſtians, do ſhew what extent the Churches were then of: That theſe were really Biſhops at firſt (whatever the aforeſaid Parentheſis in Leo or Damaſus ſay) moſt Writers for Epiſcopacy, Papiſts and Proteſtants do now grant; and therefore I may ſpare the labour of proving it: And whereas it is p. 63ſaid that they were but the Biſhop's Deputies: I anſwer, even as Biſhops areVid. Petavium, in Epip. haereſ. 69. p. 276, 277, 278, &c. The chief Champion of Prelacy ſtrongly proveth that the Chorepiſcopi were true Biſhops. the Arch-Biſhops Deputies; that is, they were under them, but were really Biſhops themſelves: For if a Biſhop may depute one that is no Biſhop to be his Deputy, either a Presbyter alſo may depute one that is no Presbyter to adminiſter the Sacraments, or not. If yea, then Lay-men ſhall come in and all be levelled, (For a Deacon alſo may depute his Office.) If not, then either a Biſhop cannot do it, or elſe the Presbyter's Office is much holier than the Biſhop's.

And that theſe Chorepiſcopi Country-Biſhops were not ſuch Rarities as to invalidate my Proof, but very common, beſides what is before ſaid, is evident by the Subſcriptions of many Councils, where great ſtore of Chorepiſcopi are found. And beſides the names in our common Collections of the Councils, how it was in the Egyptian and Neighbour Churches at leaſt (if not how it was at Nice) you may ſee in the Arabick Subſcriptions publiſhed by Selden in his Comment on Eutych. Orig. Alex. pag. 93, 94, 95, &c. Num. 29, 31, 55, 64, 68, 119, 122, 128, 131, 179, 193, 215, 237, 241, 278. There are ſeventeen named. And the Canons made to curb and ſuppreſs them, ſhew that they were ordinary before; as, Concil. Laodic. Can. 57. But they ſhould rather have increaſed them, that Biſhops might have multiplied as Churches or Chriſtians increaſed, which was decreed here in England in the cap. 9. of the Council at Hertford, per Theodor. Cantuar. referente Beda, lib. 4. Hiſt. Eccleſ. cap. 5.

II. The very name Eccleſia which was firſt uſed before Parochi… or Dioeceſis, and ſtill continued to this day, doth ſhew what the form of a Church then was, eſpecially if you withal conſider, that the name was communicated to the Temples or ſacred Meeting-Places, which are alſo ordinarily called Eccleſiae; which no Man doubteth was in a ſecondary ſenſe, as derived from the People, who were the Eccleſia in the primary ſenſe. And ſo even in our Tongue, the word Church is uſed for both to this day, as i… is in many other Languages. Now it is certain that a part, eſpecially a ſmall part, (a hundredth or a thouſandth part) of the Church is not the Church (unleſs equivocally.) Why then ſhould the Temple be ſo called from the Church, when no Church at all, but a Particle only of a Church doth meet there? (For that the word Church] in our Queſtion is not taken for any Community or Company of Chriſtians, but for a governed Society conſiſting of the governing and governed part, I have before ſhewed.) But, 1. A Church in its firſt and proper Notion being Coetus Evecatus, An Aſſembly, or Convention or Congregation; (as diſtinguiſhed from the Univerſal Church, which is ſo called becauſe it is called out of the World to Chriſt the Head, and with him ſhall make one glorious Society,) how are thoſe twenty or an hundred Miles off, any more a part of the Aſſembly where I live, than thoſe at the Antipodes may be? If you fly to one Governor, I anſwer; 1. So the Pope claimeth a Government at the Antipodes. 2. A Governor of many Aſſemblies may make them one Society, as to Government, but not one Aſſembly.

p. 642. And certainly when Temples were firſt named Churches, it was not becauſe thoſe met there that were no Churches, but only Members of Churches: Nor is this Pariſh Church called a Church becauſe ſome meet here that belong to the Church at Boſton, Lincoln or Grantham; But to this day we cannot diſuſe our ſelves from ſaying, the Church of Barnet, the Church of St. Albans, of Hat…ield, &c. yea, in the ſame City, we denominate the ſeveral Temples ſtill ſeveral Churches.

Heſychius explaineth Eccleſia, by no other words than theſe three, foreign, which all ſignifie the Meetings of the People, and not Men that never ſee each other, only becauſe one Man ruleth them.

Mr. Mede in his Exercitat. of Temples proveth largely that the places of Meeting are ordinarily by the Ancients called Churches, even in ſeveral Centuries. Euſeb. lib. 8. cap. 1. ſaith, in every City they built ſpacious and ample Churches. And Theophil. Antiochen. Autol. ſaith, [Sic Deus dedit mundo, qui peccatorum tempeſtatibus & naufragiis jactatur, Synagogas, quas Eccleſias ſanctas nominamus, in quibus veritatis doctrina fervet, ad quas confugiunt veritatis ſtudioſi, quotquot ſalvari, Deique judicium & iram evitare volunt.]

So Tertullian, de Idololat. cap. 7. pag. 171. Tota die ad hanc partem zelus fidei ingenuum Chriſtianum ab Idolis in Eccleſiam venire, de adverſaria Officina in domum Dei venire, &c. The very Name there of a Church, and the naming of a ſingle Temple thence doth ſignifie our ſuppoſition.

III. To this I may add the Name and * Leg. Altare Dam. pag. 290. Saith D. Field, l. 5. c. 28. In Antiquity a Pariſh contained the Citizens, and all ſuch Borderers as dwelt near, and repaired to any chief Church or City: A Dioceſs both then and now importeth the Villages & Churches diſperſed in divers places a… der the Regiment of one Biſhop ▪ Mark this t…e uſe of the words, againſt what Downame and others …etend.Primitive Senſe of foreign. For it ſignifieth a Vicinity, and Parochus Vicinus, a Cohabitant or Neighbour, as well as inquilinus, and is uſed in all the ancient Church-Writers as noting both a Sojourner (as Chriſtians are in the World) and a Neighbour, ſo conſtantly in this later ſenſe, not excluding the former. Elſe Men of ſeveral parts of the World might have been ſaid to be foreign, becauſe inquilini, had it not alſo and ſpecially ſignified Vicinity. To avoid tediouſneſs of Citations, I refer the unſatisfied Reader but to Gerſ. Bucer againſt Downam, and the Baſil Lexicon of Henr. Pet. in the word foreign. And though the cuſtom of calling a Church by the name foreign continued when the Church was altered in magnitude to a large Dioceſs, yet that is ſo far from proving that this was the firſt and old ſignification, as that the word rather plainly leadeth us up to the thing and ſenſe which firſt it ſignified. And therefore to this day, Etymology teacheth us more wit than in Engliſh to call a Dioceſs a Pariſh, but only a Vicinity of Chriſtians: And when the a Vicinity is the Engliſh of the Word, why ſhould Strangers that we ſhall never ſee or have to do with, any more than thoſe in the uttermoſt part of the Land, be called our Pariſhioners or Neighbours?

IV. Another clear Evidence of the truth in queſtion is the Paucity of Churches (or conſecrated Meeting-Places) for many hundred Years after Chriſt: both before they were called Temples and after. Not that occaſional Meeting-places were few (Houſes, Fields, &c.) but appropriated conſecrated p. 65places called Churches, where there were Altars, or ordinary Church-Communion in the Lord's Supper. (Or rather it is doubtful whether the name of Altars with the form were introduced till two hundred Years after Chriſt, which maketh ſome the more queſtion the Antiquity of Ignatius and Clem. Conſt. and Can. Apoſt.) I yield to Baronius (ad An. 57.) that the Chriſtians had Churches, that is, places conſecrated for Church-Aſſemblies, under thoſe peaceable Emperors that went before Diocleſian: For Euſebius (beſides others) expreſly telleth us ſo: Spacioſas & amplas conſtruxerunt Eccleſias: But I deſire the Reader to mark his words. Lib. 8. cap. 1. [A man might then have ſeen the Biſhops of all Churches in great reverence and favour among all ſorts of Men, and with all Magiſtrates: Who can worthily deſcribe thoſe innumerable heaps and flocking multitudes through all Cities and famous Aſſemblies frequenting the places dedicated to Prayer? Becauſe of which Circumſtances, they not contented with the old and ancient Buildings, which could not receive them, have through all Cities builded them from the Foundation wide and ample Churches.] Here note, 1. That here is no mention of any more Churches than one in each City: Cities and Aſſemblies are numbered together. 2. That theſe Buildings are called Churches. 3. That theſe Churches were built greater than the old ones anew from the Foundation, becauſe the old ones were too narrow to contain the People: But not ſuperadded to the old ones. 4. That the Biſhops are called The Biſhops of all Churches in relation to the ſame kind of Churches as are here deſcribed. So that then a Biſhop's Church met in one enlarged place.

Yet all theſe were no Temples; but ſuch as the ſilenced Miniſters have of late built in ſome parts of London; for the Chriſtians were in continual danger of the demoliſhing of them: which fell out in Diocleſian's time. But till this Calm which Euſebius here deſcribeth, for about two hundred and fifty Years after Chriſt, the Chriſtians oft met in Vaults and ſecret places, where they might be hid, and not in open Churches, unleſs now and then in a Calm between.

Platina in vit. Xiſti, tells us, that even at Rome it ſelf about the Year 120. there were few found that durſt profeſs the Name of Chriſt. And ſee what he ſaith, In Vita Clement. 1. & Anaclet. & Mantuan. lib. 1. faſtor. de Clem. Anacl. Evariſt. Alex. Xiſt. Caliſt. Urban. &c. In whoſe times, Killing, Baniſhing and Perſecuting cauſed Scatterings, hidings, and as Pliny tells us many Apoſtaſies. See what Gerſ. Bucer ſaith, pag. 221, 222, 223. of all the Ages now in queſtion about this matter: As Tertullian ſaith, Apol. c. 3. adeo in hominibus innocuis, nomen innocuum erat odio: Did the Rabble but ſee or hear the Chriſtians, they were raged againſt them, and cried to the Judges, Tollite impios.

Saith Polydor. Virgil. de invent. rer. l. 5. c. 6. Romae non reperio quod ſciam aliud antiquius templum aedificatum aut dicatum, vel ad uſum Sacrorum fuiſſe converſum, quam Thermas Novati in vico patricio, quas Pius Pontifex Praxidis eximiae ſanctitatis foeminae rogatu, divae Pudentianae ejus Sorori conſecravit; qui fuit annus circiter 150. But the name Templum here is not uſed by Polydore as by the Ancients, p. 66for a large and comely Fabrick. For, ſaith Tertullian, after that, Apol. c. 37. Chriſtians leave Temples to the Heathens. And ſaith Pope Nicholas, in Epiſt de depoſitione Zachariae & Rodoaldi Epiſc. (recited in his Life by Papir. Maſſonus, Fol. 132. Col. 2.) [Deinde propter frigidiorem locum in Eccleſia Salvatoris, quae ab Authore vocatur Conſtantiniana, & quae prima in toto terrarum orbe conſtructa eſt.] You ſee that by this Pope's own Teſtimony, there was no Church in the whole World built before this one at Rome by Conſtantine. The meaning is, no large ſumptuous place called a Temple, but only commodious meaner Rooms or Buildings.

And the ſame Pap. Maſſon. in Vita Bonifacii, fol. 55. noteth that Hierom even in his time (ſo late) Baſilicas Chriſtianorum tres tantum commemoraſſe.

When upon the great increaſe of Chriſtians, but one odd Idol Temple even in Alexandria, was begged of the Emperor for the Chriſtians, Ruffin. lib. 2. cap. 22. and divers others tell us what tumult and ſtir it cauſed. And when Euſeb. de Vita Conſtant. lib. 3. c. 49, 50. tells us of his building of Churches except Conſtantinople, it is but one in a City, even the great Cities, Nicomedia in Bythinia, and Antioch. And Socrat. lib. 1. cap. 12. ſaith that even in Conſtantinople (which he made ſo great and beautiful that it was no whit inferior to Rome, and by a Law engraven on a Pillar, commanded that it be called Second Rome,) he built from the Foundation (but) two Churches, Pacis & Apoſtolorum.

I could find in my heart, were it not tedious, here to tranſlate all Iſidor. Peluſ…ota's Epiſt. 246. lib. 2. in which he openeth the difference between Templum and Eccleſia, and inveigheth againſt that Biſhop as no Biſhop, who cried up the Temple as the Church, while he perſecuted and vexed the Godly who are the Church indeed; and againſt them that are for ſumptuous Temples and unholy ſcandalous Churches; and tells us he had rather have been in the times when Temples were leſs adorned, and the Churches more adorned with Heavenly Graces, than in thoſe unhappy times when Temples were too much adorned, and Churches naked and empty of Spiritual Graces.

So that when there was but one Temple in a City, (except two or three) and when that was called the Church, becauſe it contained the Church, it's evident what the Churches then were.

V. The ancient Agapae ſhew how great the Churches then were, when as all the Church did feaſt together: and theſe continued in Tertullian's time, in ſome places at leaſt: And ſeveral Church-Canons mention them after that. And Chryſoſt. ſaith (Homil. de Oportet haereſ. eſſe p. (mihi) 20, 21. that in the Primitive times, there was a cuſtom that after Sermon and Sacrament, they all feaſted together in the Church, which he highly praiſeth. (But it was not many hundred Churches that feaſted in one Room.) And after he ſaith, [The Church is like Noah's Ark, but Men come in Wolves, and go out Lambs, &c.] ſhewing that by the Church he meant the Aſſembly. And after, [All have the ſame Honour, and the ſame Acceſs, till all have communicated and partaked of the ſame Spiritual Meat. The Prieſts ſtanding expect them all, even the p. 67pooreſt Man of all.] (By this he ſheweth what Church he meant, and howI know the learned Albaſpinaeus laboureth to prove that the Agapae were not at the ſacrament, and in that place: But he thinketh that they were meetings of the whole fraternity, and its like no houſe was much greater than the Churchhouſe, ſo that this makes no difference. great the Church was.) Et Serm. 21. pag. 313. Redundat injuria in locum illum; Eccleſiam enim totam contemnis: Propterea enim Eccleſia dicitur, quia communiter omnes accipit. This doth not only ſhew what Church he meaneth, but fully confirmeth what I ſaid before: that [The whole Church was in that place: and that the place is therefore called the Church, becauſe it commonly receiveth all.] But note that this was not preach'd at Conſtantinople, but yet at the great Patriarchal Church of Antioch.

And I may add as to the former Evidences, To. 5. Serm. 52. pag. 705. when he had ſhewed that in the Church there muſt be no diviſion, he expoundeth it by [foreign.] [Qui ſeipſum ab hoc conventu ſejunxerit.] So that the Aſſembly was the Church, and not a thouſandth part of the Church only.

See more of the Churches feaſting together in Baronius ad an. 57. pag. (ed. Plant.) 543. to ſpare me more labour about this.

VI. Another Evidence of the Limits of the ancient Churches is (that which I oft mentioned in the particular Teſtimonies) that every where all the People either choſe, or expreſly conſented to their Biſhops, and they were ordained over them in their ſight. And this no more could do than could meet in one place; and one part of a Church hath no more right to it than all the reſt. The Conſequence is evident: And for them that ſay, that it was only the Pariſhioners of the Cathedral Church that voted; I anſwer, Now Cathedrals have no Pariſhes, and heretofore the Cathedral Pariſh was the whole Church. The Teſtimonies fully prove that it was All the Church or People that were the Biſhop's Flock: And for ſome hundreds of Years there were no Pariſhes in his Dioceſs but one, and therefore no ſuch diſtinction. Pamelius's heap of Teſtimonies, and many more, for the matter of fact I have already cited: And however ſome talk now to juſtifie the contrary courſe of our times, it is ſo clear and full in Antiquity that the People choſe their Biſhops, at firſt principally, and after ſecondarily after the Clergy, having a Negative Voice with them, and their Conſent and Teſtimony ever neceſſary, even for eight hundred Years at leaſt, that it would be a needleſs thing to cite any more Teſtimonies of it to any verſed in the Ancients. Papiſts and Proteſtants are agreed de facto that ſo it was. See Cyprian, lib. 4. Epiſt. 2. of Cornelius; lib. 1. Epiſt. 2. of Sabinus; and lib. 1. Epiſt. 4. Euſeb. Hiſt. lib. 6. cap. 29. tells us that Fabian by the People was choſen to ſucceed Anterus. And Cyprian ſaith it was Traditione Apoſtolica, vid. & Socrat. lib. 4. cap. 14. & lib. 2. cap. 6. & lib. 7. cap. 35. & Sozomen. lib. 6. cap. 24. & lib. 8. cap. 2. of Chryſoſtom; & lib. 6. cap. 13. vid. & Auguſtin. Epiſt. 110. & Theodoret, Hiſt. lib. 1. cap. 9. in Epiſt. Concil. Nicaeni ad Alexandr. The Bloodſhed at the Choice of Damaſus was one of the firſt occaſions of laying by that cuſtom at Rome. And yet though they met not ſo tumultuouſly, they muſt conſent. Leo's Teſtimony I gave you before with many more. Theodor. lib. 5. cap. 9. of Nectarius ſheweth that Biſhops were then choſen, Plebe praeſente & univerſa fraternitate, as Cyprian ſpeaketh of Sabinus. p. 68So the Concil. Pariſien. even an. 559. But for more plentiful proof of this ſee M. A. Spalatenſ. de Rep. Eccleſ. lib. 1. cap. 22. n. 10. & lib 6. cap. 7. & lib. 3. cap. 3▪ n. 12. &c. & Blondel de Jure plebis, more copiouſly, and de Epiſ. & Presbyt. & Bilſon perpet. Govern. cap. 15. & lib. of Chriſtian Subjection oft.

And it is to be noted that when the People's Confuſion had made them ſeem uncapable any longer to chuſe: 1. This was long of the Prelates themſelves, who by that time had ſo far enlarged their Churches, that the People were neither capable of doing their ancient Work and Duty, nor yet of being ruled by the Clergy aright. 2. And when the People were reſtrained from the Choice by Meetings and Vote, the Magiſtrates in their ſtead did undertake the Power. 3. And when it fell out of the People's hands into Great Mens, the Proud and Covetous who could beſt ſeek and make Friends did get the Biſhopricks, whereupon the Churches were preſently changed, corrupted and undone. 4. And the ſenſe of this moved the few good Biſhops that were left to make Canons againſt this Power and Choice of Princes and great Men, decreeing that all Biſhops obtruded by them on the Churches ſhould be as none, but be avoided, and all avoided that did not avoid them. And the Roman and Patriarchal party cunningly joyned with theſe honeſt Reformers to get the Choice out of the Magiſtrate's hands that they might get it into their own; and ſo Chriſt's Church was abuſed among ambitious Uſurpers. The Decrees againſt Magiſtrates Choice of Biſhops you may ſee, Can. Apoſt. 31. & Decret. 17. q. 7. c. ſiquis Epiſc. Sept. Synod. c. 3. Decret. 16. q. 7. Oct. Synod. c. 12. & Act. 1. &c. 22. Decret. 16. q. 7. Nicol. 1. Epiſt. 10. & Epiſt. 64. with more which you may find cited by Spalatenſ. lib. 6. cap. 7. pag. 675, 676, 677.

And it is to be noted that (though ſtill the Clergy had a Negative or firſt Choice, yet) when they procured Charles the Great (who was to riſe by the Papal help) to reſign and renounce the Magiſtrates Election, he reſtored the Church to its Ancient Liberties, as far as enlarged Dioceſes and ambitious Clergy-men would permit it. His words are theſe, [Sacrorum Canonum non ignari ut in Dei nomine Sancta Eccleſia ſuo liberius potiretur honore, aſſenſum ordini Eccleſiaſtico praebuimus, ut ſcilicet Epiſcopi per Electionem CLERI & POPULI ſecundum ſtatuta Canonum de PROPRIA DIOECESI, remota perſonarum & munerum acceptione, ob vitae meritum & ſapientiae donum, eligantur, ut exemplo & verbis ſibi ſubjectis uſquequaque prodeſſe valeant.] Vid. Baron. To. 11. n. 26. Decret. Diſt. 63. c Sacrorum. Where note that, 1. he includeth the People of the whole Dioceſs. 2. And doth this as according to the ſacred Canons. So that for Men to dream that only the Pariſhioners of a Cathedral Church (which had no proper Pariſh) or the Citizens only, were to chuſe, is to feign that which is contrary to notorious Evidence of Law and Fact, as well as of the reaſon of the thing. For where all are the Biſhops Flock, and chuſe as his Flock, there all the Flock muſt chuſe, and a parcel can claim no privilege above all the reſt.

p. 69VII. The next Evidence is this: In the firſt Age, it is very fairly proved by Doctor Hammond, that there were by the Apoſtles more Biſhops and Churches than one in many Cities themſelves: And if one City had more than one Church and Biſhop, then much more many diſtant places, in Towns and Countries. That one City had more than one he ſheweth by the diſtinction of Jews and Gentiles Churches: As Peter was appointed chiefly for the Jews, and Paul chiefly for the Gentiles, ſo he ſheweth it very probable, that at Rome, Antioch, and other places they had ſeveral Churches. And thus he reconcileth the great differences about Linus, Clemens and Cletus or Anacletus. And eſpecially on this reaſon, that they had not the ſame Language. And indeed when in great Cities there are Chriſtians of divers Languages, it is neceſſary that they be of divers Congregations, unleſs you will have them Hear, as the Papiſts will have them Pray, they know not what. And though ſome might ſay, that though they be of divers Aſſemblies, yet they might have onelyonly One Biſhop to Rule them: I anſwer, 1. Dr. Hammond is more ingenuous, and acknowledges that the diverſities of congregations and languages inferred a diverſity of Churches and Biſhops with their diſtinct Clergy. 2. And all Antiquity made Preaching or Teaching his flock as eſſential to the Biſhops office as Governing them (of which next:) But he could not teach ſeveral Churches whoſe language he underſtood not.

VIII. Antiquity made the three parts of the Biſhops office Teaching, Worſhipping, and Governing, to be of the ſame extent as to the ſubject ſociety under him. It was one and the ſame Church which he was ordinarily to Teach, to guide in worſhip (prayers, praiſe, ſacrament) and to Rule by diſcipline (ſuppoſing ſtill that we ſpeak of a meer Biſhop and not an Archbiſhop) I ſhould weary the Reader to cite numerous teſtimonies for ſo notorious a thing. But it is known that the ſaid Biſhop neither is nor can be the Ordinary Teacher, and Guide in worſhip to a Dioceſe of a multitude of Churches, but to one or few at moſt. And he that peruſeth ancient writers, ſhall find that the Biſhop was not only to be a ra…e or extraordinary Teacher of his whole flock, but the Ordinary one: not only to ſend others, but to do it himſelf; till the enlargement of Dioceſes changed the cuſtome.

IX. Another evidence is this: In the firſt two Centuries, Deacons and Biſhops were ever officers in the ſame Church: But Deacons were never then officers in more Churches (or ſtated aſſemblies that had Sacramental Communion) than one: therefore Biſhops were not officers in more. No proof can be given of any Deacons that had the care (in their places) of many Churches, Pariſhes, or Societies of Chriſtians. And when Dioceſes were enlarged, it is notable that the Presbyter that was the oculus Epiſcopi in the Dioceſe is called the Archdeacon: Becauſe originally he was but indeed a Deacon, the chief Deacon who was with the Biſhop in one and the ſame Church▪ It being then inauditum for a Deacon to belong to many.

p. 70X. Another evidence is, The Great number of Biſhops who out of a narrow ſpace of ground, did uſually aſſemble in the ancient Synods. I told you before out of Crab of Sylveſters number at Rome. Binius alſo hath the like words [Sylveſter collegit in gremio ſedis ſuae 284 Epiſcopos] and that 139 of them were ex urbe Roma vel non longe ab illa. A hundred thirty nine Biſhops in Rome and not far from it, had not ſuch Dioceſes as now.

Cyprian ſaith, lib. 1. Ep. 3. that Privatus was condemned in Synodo Lambeſitana by 90 Biſhops which was before Chriſtianity was countenanced by Emperours, and were under perſecution, yea, long before Cyprian wrote that Epiſtle.

For the examining of every ordinary cauſe of an accuſed Presbyter, ſex Epiſcopi ex vicinis locis, ſix Biſhops from the neighbour places, (not from 40 or fourſcore miles diſtance) were to hear and determine, and three Biſhops for the cauſe of every Deacon, Concil. Afric. Can. 20. ſo that no doubt but their Biſhops were as near as our Market Towns at leaſt, even when ſo few of the people were Chriſtians as that all that ſpace afforded but one great Congregation.

The ſixth provincial Council at Carthage had 217 Biſhops (whereas the General Council at Trent had long but 40.)

A Council of Donatiſts (Hereticks not ſo numerous ſure as the Catholicks) at Carthage, mentioned by Auguſtine, Epiſt. 68. (about an. 308) had 270 Biſhops. And when there were ſo great a number of Heretick Biſhops, how many were there of the Catholicks and Donatiſts and all other ſects ſet together? This one hereſie had enow to become perſecutours of the Catholicks, (beating them with clubs, putting out the peoples eyes by caſting vineger mixt with lime into them, dragging them in the dirt) And yet they were the ſmaller number, and complained of perſecution; and ſome Circumcellions killed themſelves to make the Catholicks odious as perſecutors (Occiſos auferunt luci, vivis auferunt lucem—Quod nobis faciunt ſibi non imputant: & quod ſibi faciunt nobis imputantinquiunt, Clerici Hippon. ib. ad Januarium.) Certainly here were Churches no bigger then, than our ſmaller Pariſhes.

And Auguſtine cont. Gaudentium ſaith, there were innumerable Biſhops in Africa that were Orthodox. (And it was but a corner of Africa that were Chriſtians, and in the Roman Empire here meant.)

Victor Uticenſis in perſecut. Vandal. ſheweth that in that part of Africa 660 Biſhops fled; beſides the great number murdered, impriſoned, and many tolerated. The like may be ſaid of Patricks Iriſh Biſhops before mentioned, and many others, who plainly were Parochial Biſhops.

XI. Another evidence is, The way of Strangers communicating then by way of Communicatory Letters, or Certificates from the Church whence they came, which were to be ſhewed to the Biſhop of the Church where they deſired to communicate: But was it many hundred Churches that they muſt thus ſatisfie? or muſt they travail to the Biſhop with their Certificate, before they muſt communicate in any one Church within 20. 30. 40. p. 71or 50. miles of him? Doubtleſs an impartial Reader will think, that it was but a Biſhop of the ſame City-Church which he deſired Communion with, to whom the Certificate was to be ſhewn. See what Albaſpinaeus ſaith of theſe Letters, ex Concil. Laodic. c. 41. Concil. Antioch. c. 1. Concil. Agath. can. 52. Concil. Eliber. c. 58. in his obſervat. p. 254, 255.

XII. Another evidence is the ancient phraſe deſcribing a Schiſm by Altare aliud erigere, to ſet up another Altar, or to ſet up Altar againſt Altar. And to ſeparate from that Altar was to ſeparate from that Church: which implyeth, that there was but one Altar in a Church; and multiplying Altars was multiplying Churches.

XIII. Another evidence was the late diviſion of Pariſhes: The idle ſtory ofSo Sr. Hen. Spelman Concil. p. 152. ſaith, in Theodor. time about An 672. Pariſh diviſions here began. Seld. of Tythes proveth that the diviſion of Pariſhes in England began but about 700 years after Chriſt. And Dr. Tilleſtly doth not deny the time, but thinketh that though Patrons (as Selden ſaith) might probably begin this, yet Biſhops alſo had a hand in it. Evariſtus dividing Pariſhes at Rome, Gerſ. Bucer hath fully confuted. It is moſt certain that except at Alexandria and Rome, it was long before they were divided. Sir Rog. Twiſden Hiſtor. Vindicat. c. 3. p. 9, 10. ſaith that it was under Theodore A. B. C. that Parochial Churches began (mark Began) to be erected here in England, and the Biſhop of Rome greatly reverenced in this nation &c. out of a MS. in Trinity Hall Cambridge. And it was 668 as Beda tells us before Theodore was Ordained Biſhop. The evidence in hiſtory of the Lateneſs of Pariſh diviſions is paſt doubt.

And whereas the uſual anſwer is, that there may be Dioceſes without Pariſhes; I anſwer, It is not the Name [Dioceſe] that is the thing in queſtion, but the Church-ſtate. While there was but one Altar, there was but one place of ordinary Church Communion in the Lords Supper. And when there were more places with Altars erected, they could not be, nor were long without their proper affixed Presbyters (as Arius his Caſe ſheweth and as is confeſſed) And when that was done, they were Pariſhes in out ſenſe: And till that was done, ſome one Presbyter was ſent from the Biſhop as he pleaſed; and then all the Pariſhes in the Dioceſe muſt needs be under one Presbytery as well as one Biſhop. There were no ſetled Congregations for ordinary Church Communion, beſides the Biſhops Church-meeting, till Pariſhes were divided, if not by ſpace of ground, yet by the diſtinction of Temples and People, which is the thing intended. There could be no ſuch thing as a Dioceſane Church in the ſenſe that we oppoſe it in, that is, One Church with a Biſhop infimi ordinis (having none under him) made up of a multitude of Communicating Churches with their Subpresbyters, yea ſuch as are no part of the Biſhops Conſeſſus or Presbytery for the Government of that Church.]

XIV. The next evidence is, the ancient cuſtom of All his Presbyters ſitting in one ſeat with the Biſhop in a ſemi-circle in loco eminentiore on each hand of him and the Deacons ſtanding under or below them: which is ſo ordained by Councils (as Carth. 4. Can. 35. &c.) And the thing is commonly reported in the ancients. And this being put uſually as of his Presbyters in common, who were his aſſiſtants and colleagues, and with whom he Governed the Churches, p. 72without mentioning any excepted Presbyters belonging to diſtant Pariſhes, It is apparent that the Biſhop then had ordinarily but one aſſembly. The ſame I may ſay of the many Canons, that ſhew what the Presbyters are to do in the Church, which imply his preſence: But I have mentioned many of them before.

XV. Another evidence is, the cuſtom of the Presbyters dwelling in the ſame houſe with the Biſhop (ſingle) as in a Colledge; which not only in Hippo, but in very many other places was then uſed: and they dwelt near the Church, where that was not uſed (As when they had wives, or the Biſhop had his Epiſcopam as the Concil. Turon. 2. calleth her, and alloweth it.)

Tolet himſelf, de Sacerdotio lib. 5. cap. 4. n. 15. pag. 722. confeſſeth this ſaying, [In Eccleſia Primitiva uſque ad tempora Auguſtini & Hieron. Epiſcopum & Clerum ſolitos vivere in communi: unde bona quae vel ex decimis, vel ex fidelium devotione offerebantur, erant indiviſa, & ſubdebantur diſtributioni Epiſcopi, quae partim ipſi, partim Clero, partim fabricae, partim pauperibus obveniebant. Poſtea vero quando quiſque per ſe vixit, talia bona diviſa ſunt in quatuor partes, prima Epiſcopo ſervata, ſecunda Clero, tertia fabricae, quarta pauperibus.] And ſure that Church then was no bigger than that Colledge did officiateto.

XVI. And that which theſe words of Tolet recite, is the next evidence, viz. The way of maintenance in thoſe times. 1. They lived on Oblations moſtly: And theſe oblations are ever mentioned as offered but upon One Altar.Of this ſee an excellent Tract of Church Benefices, by Pad. Paul Sarpi, tranſlated by Dr. Denton confirming many things beforeſaid. 2. Theſe Oblations were all brought to the Biſhops hands, and diſtributed by him or his appointment. 3. The Firſt-fruits, and Tythe that came next were alſo in his hands. 4. And ſo were all the Gifts, and all the Praedia or Church glebe. 5. All theſe are mentioned as given to One Church only, and not many. 6. The diſtribution was as aforeſaid, ſome fourfold, ſometime three-fold; of which Spalatenſis reciteth the decrees ſo fully, that I will not tire the reader with reciting them. 7. And it was the Fabrica of One Church only that the Biſhop was to give the fourth part to maintain (And were many hundred fabricks more forgotten?) 8. And it was a preſent Clergie, and not men ſetled along way off, that he was to make diſtribution to. 9. And when he was to have the firſt fourth part himſelf, who can think that this is meant that men muſt carry the fourth part of the Hay, and Corn, and Wood, and Pigs, &c. from all the Pariſhes through ſuch Dioceſes as ours, and the fourth part of all the Glebe rents; This would make the Biſhoprick indeed ſeem to worldly minded men to be worth the venturing of their ſouls for; And they muſt have ſo many ſcore or hundred barns full, as might tempt them to ſay, S…ul take thine eaſe, eat drink▪ and be merry, &c. But the evidence ſpeaketh plainly.

XVII. Another evidence is this: That when firſt new Communicating Aſſemblies were erected even in the ſame Cities with the Biſhops, the ſa…d Biſhops did deviſe this new trick of their own heads, to ſend to that Aſſembly ſome Bread p. 73hallowed by themſelves; And this was firſt to comfort (as they ſaid) the Presbyters and new Congregation, leſt they ſhould think themſelves cut off from their Biſhops Church and Communion. 2. To hold their intereſt in the people by this handle of their own making. Of theſe Eulogiae the Can. Concil. Laodic. 14. ſpeaks, as Petavius and others think: Petav. in Epiphan. ad haereſ. 69. pag. 276. ſaith, [Romae, ubi per titulos diſtributi presbyteri ſuos quique populos regebant: Ad eos Epiſcopi Dominicis diebus fermentum ſive benedictum panem in Communionis ſymbolum mittere conſueverant.] And the paſſage which he citeth out of Innocent ad Decentium cap. 5. is very full, [De fermento vero quod die Dominico per Titulos mittimus, ſuperflue nos conſulere voluiſti: cum omnes Eccleſiae noſtrae intra civitatem ſint conſtitutae: Quarum Presbyteri quia die iſto propter plebem ſibi commiſſam nobiſcum convenire non poſſunt, ideo fermentum a nobis confectum per acolythos accipiunt, ut ſe a noſtra communione, maxima illa die non judicent ſeparatos.] That Melchiades ordained this, Damaſus his pontifical book ſaith; which was about An. 313. But Baronius ad An. 313. largely openeth all the buſineſs, and ſheweth that this fermentum was hallowed levened bread, which was not the Euchariſt, but a deviſed ſacrament (as Innocent calleth it) of Union and Communion: confirming this which I have ſaid: And ex Can. 14. Concil. Laod. &c. he ſheweth that it was uſed alſo in the Eaſt: And to this notable paſſage of Innocent [Omnes eccleſiae noſtrae infra civitatem ſuntconſtitutae] all the Popes Churches were within the city, he ſaith, (p. 97.) [Detitulis tantum intelligit, ad quos fermentum mitti ſoleret, non quidem quod non eſſent in ſuburbiis aliae complures eccleſiae atque ſanctorum memoriae, ſed nulla prorſus Titularis, in quam populus colligi conſueverit. Cujus rei cauſa ait ſe non mittere fermentum ad Presbyteros per diverſa coemeteria conſtitutos, quod illi plebem ſibi ſubditam quam colligerent, non haberent.]

Here you ſee, 1. That there were more Temples than Congregations, or Pariſhes, being erected as Monuments in honour of the Martyrs. 2. That there were no Congregations or Pariſhes, but within the City. 3. That this device of holy bread came upon the diviſion of Pariſhes; and therefore as one was new then, ſo the other could not be old.

XVIII. Another evidence is the ſtate of Cathedral Churches, which as manyAnd it is a conſiderable proof which Dr. Tilleſley againſt Selden ſaith (p. 179 [The right of a B…ial place did firſt belong to the Cathedral Church] and herein the cuſtome of our Kingdom and others was not different. And if the Dioceſe was ſuch as that all were to be buryed at the Cathedral, it was not ſo big as … of our Pariſhes in London, which are fain to take other ground for buryal; and their Church will not ho… the tenth part of the living as auditors. Epiſcopal Antiquaries ſay, were firſt the ſole Churches of the Biſhops Charge or Dioceſe; and that Pariſh Churches were ſince built one after another, as Chappels be in Pariſhes, by thoſe that could not come ſo far: And that the preſent Government of the Cathedral by the Dean and Chapters, under the Biſhop, is the evident relict of the old Epiſcopal Government, and truly telleth us what it was: To paſs by many others, I will now recite but the words of Holingſhead our Hiſtorian, a Clergy-man, Chron. Vol. 1. p. 135. Col. 1. [Thoſe Churches are called Cathedral, becauſe the Biſhops dwell p. 74near them. At firſt there was but ONE CHURCH in every JURISDICTION, whereinto no man entered to pray, but with ſome oblation towards the maintenance of the Paſtor—And for this occaſion they were built very huge and great: for otherwiſe they were not capable of ſuch multitudes as came daily to them, to hear the word and receive the ſacraments: But as the number of Chriſtians increaſed, ſo firſt Monaſteries, then finally Pariſh Churches were builded, in every juriſdiction▪ from which I take our Deanry Churches to have their original, now called Mother Churches, and their Incumbents Archprieſts; And the reſt being added ſince the Conqueſt, either by the Lords of every Town, or zealous men loth to travail far, and willing to have ſome eaſe, building them near hand unto theſe Deanry Churches, all the Clergie in old time of the ſame Deanry were appointed to repair at ſundry ſeaſons, there to receive wholſome ordinances, and to conſult of the neceſſary affairs of the whole juriſdiction, if neceſſity ſo required: And ſome image thereof is yet to be ſeen in the North parts. But as the number of Churches increaſed, ſo the repair of the faithful to the Cathedral, did diminiſh, whereby they are now become, eſpecially in their nether parts, rather Markets and ſhops for merchandize, than ſolemn places of prayer, whereunto they were firſt erected.] I need to ſay no more of this.

XIX. The next evidence is, That when Churches firſt became Dioceſane (in the ſenſe oppoſed) they were fitted to the form of the Civil Government; And Dioceſes and Metropolitanes, and Patriarchs, came in at the ſame door: The very name foreign was long unknown in a ſacred ſenſe, and was after borrowed from the Civil diviſions, when the Church was formed according to them. And as Altare Damaſc. p. 290. ſaith, Vox foreign ut refertur ad Epiſcopum, ignota fuit Euſebio & ſuperioribus ſeculis: And the word Pariſh was alſo before uſed in our narrower ſenſe, for a vicinity of Chriſtians. And as Grynaeus ſaith in Euſeb. p. 1. not. 3. Euſeb. promiſcue uſurpat haec duo vocabula foreign

And that a Dioceſane as ſuch (thus formed to the Romane Civil form) and a Metropolitane and Patriarch, yea, and the Pope as the Prime Patriarch in the Empire, are all of Humane inſtitution, and all of the ſame original and right, there are few Proteſtants that do deny. 1. The reaſon of the thing plainly ſheweth it. 2. Their beginning at once ſheweth it. 3. And that they were never any of them ſetled out of the Roman Empire, where that form obtained, except that they ſetled here and there one on the verge of the Empire to have ſome care of the neighbour countreys, till after that the Roman name and power invited ſmall countreys adjoyning to them to imitation. And Biſhop Bilſon of Chr. Subject. often tells us that Metropolitans and Patriarchs are of Humane inſtitution.

Godwin a Biſhop, in the Lives of the Engliſh Biſhops, de Converſ. Brit. c. 3. p. 30. ſaith, Quis tam imperitus eſt ut non intelligat, poſt mortem Tiberii fluxiſſe multos annos, ne dicam ſeculum unum aut alterum priuſquam Cardinalis, Patriarchae, p. 75aut Metropolitani nomen in Chriſtianorum eccleſiis auditum eſt] He might have added,Leg. plura apud Gerſ. Bucer pag. 231, 232, 233, 234, 235. aut Dioceſani, for they were built by the ſame hand on the ſame foundation. I do not mean that an Apoſtolical General Miniſtry was ſo new, but a Dioceſane of many Churches, as Epiſcopus infimi gradus. Multitudes of Papiſts and Proteſtants atteſt the novelties of theſe foreſaid ranks. Two teſtimonies of the Papiſts are ſo notable, as that I will not paſs them by.

Cardinal Cuſanus (that Learned Prelate, and proud enough) li. de Concord. l. 2. c. 13. ſaith, [Omnes gradus Majoritatis & Minoritatis in eccleſia juris poſitivi eſſe.] And therefore concluded that the Papacy is removeable from Rome.

Nay the very Canon Law it ſelf, ſaith, Decret. Par. 1. diſ. 22. c. 1. c. omnes, [Omnes ſive Patriarchii cujuſlibet apices, ſive Metropole…n primatus, aut Epiſcopatuum Cathedras, vel eccleſiarum cujuſcunque ordinis dignitates, inſtituit Romana eccleſia.] what need we more witneſs? It is from P. Nicolaus his decretal. And though a man might ſuſpect that he meant only of the perſonal Inſtitution of the particular Patriarchs, Metropolitans, &c. yet the context ſheweth the contrary, and that it is the ſpecies, office or place that he ſpeaketh of; Becauſe the oppoſite aſſertion is, that the Roman Churches dignity was founded by God himſelf: And the next Cap. 2. is that, not the Apoſtles, but the Lord himſelf gave the Roman Church its primacy.

XX. The next evidence is, That we rarely read of any Biſhops preaching in any Church but One, unleſs he was driven out of it by perſecution, or unleſs it were in another Biſhops Church. If I ſhould except only the great Patriarchal Churches out of all the world, and that only as late as 400 or 500 years after Chriſt, when Emperours had helpt to increaſe the Churches, no impartial man would take that for any debilitation of my proof. And yet I ſhall not eaſily yield to that exception. In Antioch and Jeruſalem I think it will hardly be affirmed, that the Biſhop uſed to preach to any Congregation but One: In Great Conſtantinople (equalled to Rome) when find you Chryſoſtome any where but in one Church, except when violence hindred him, and then the ſame Congregation followed him? Indeed the Novatians had a Church there, and perhaps there was ſome bye Congregation or two of Chriſtians, who all communicated in the Biſhops Church, and therefore were but as Chappels. But go into all the reſt of the world, and the caſe will be plainer, (except Rome and Alexandria.) Even Baſil an Archbiſhop is not found a Teacher ordinarily any where but to his Church at Caeſarca; nor Gregory but at Nazianzum (when he went from Conſtantinople and from Saſimis;) and ſo of the reſt, no not Ambroſe in the great city of Milan: And let it move none that Milan and ſome other Cities had more Temples than one, for as Baronius before cited tells us, there were then many Temples built as Monuments in honour of the Martyrs, that were not Tituli, nor had any Pariſh or Congregation belonging to them. When find you Auguſtine teaching in any Church but one (in Hippo) as part of his charge? Of Epiphanius I need not ſpeak, ſeeing it is confeſt that in Cyprus no City had two Churches in his days, and that it was p. 76their cuſtome to place Biſhops in villages, (as Socrates, Sozomen, and Nicephorus agree.) So that the matter of fact is certain: except four or five Churches (if ſo many) in all the world 400 years after Chriſt, and except but two or three hundred years after Chriſt, you will find no Biſhop in any Church but one, as part of his own Charge.

But the conſequence inferred hence will be denied, becauſe the other Pariſhes might be taught by Subpresbyters without him. Anſw. But I would ask, 1. Whether all the reſt of the Pariſhes were not the Biſhops Charge? yea part of his Church, yea equally with the other part? As to what Onuphrius and others ſay of the ſtations, and the Biſhops going from Church to Church, 1. It was ſcarce any where but in Rome: 2. It was of later times: 3. It was only in the City: 4. It was commonly the ſame auditors that followed him to ſeveral Churches.

And it's true that other Biſhops went to the memorials of the Martyrs oft, and had as monuments more Churches than aſſemblies. And it's true that of later times, certain Canons bind the Biſhops to viſit all their Pariſhes: And the eldeſt oblige him to viſit all the people: which ſheweth that yet his Doceſe was not great.

If he be the Biſhop of the Church, and the office of a Biſhop be to guide the Church, in Worſhip, and by Diſcipline, then he is bound to do this to all the Church: indeed if you make but a meer Presbyter of him, then as many may divide the work between them, ſo each might know his proper part, (as things ſtood when Pariſhes or Chappels were divided) But if a Biſhop, as ſuch, be the uniting head as the King of a Kingdom, he muſt be equally related to the whole.

But if it were not equally, who can believe that there was ſo great a difference in the parts of the ſame Church, as that one parcel of them only ſhould have right to their Biſhops preſence, teaching, worſhipping, and perſonal guidance, and ten, twenty, an hundred, a thouſand other parcels have no right at all? What! a Biſhop of a whole Church, not at all obliged to Teach, or Guide in perſonal worſhipping, any part of that Church but one? Some great change was made in Churches before men could arrive at ſuch a conceit? Even now among us, a Biſhop taketh himſelf (by the conſtraining Law of man, which is his Rule) to viſit his Dioceſe once in three years: (I do not mean one Church of fourty or an hundred in his Dioceſe, much leſs to preach himſelf uſually in thoſe few Towns he comes to; but to call his Curate Prieſts together, and to ſet one of them to preach his Viſitation Sermon.) But where find you this done by three Biſhops in the world for 300 years after Chriſt, unleſs that Archbiſhops viſited the Biſhops Churches under them? Now they ſay there have been Biſhops in England who have once in three years confirmed ſome children abroad throughout their Dioceſe (I do not mean one of two hundred) but where find you that then the Biſhop went out of his City to do this?

2. My next queſtion therefore is, Whether the Biſhops of thoſe times were not at leaſt as conſcionable and careful and laborious in their offices, as any now p. 77are, if not much more? What! not a Gregory, a Baſil, a Chryſoſtome, an Auguſtine, a Fulgentius, a Hillary, &c. What! not they that preached almoſt daily? They that write ſo ſtrictly of the labours of the Miniſtery? They that lived ſo auſterely, and favoured not the fleſh; that ſpeak ſo tenderly of the worth of ſouls? And would all theſe, think you, undertake to be Biſhops of a whole Church, and yet ſo leave the whole work upon others, as never to come among them and teach them, and examine them, nor give them the Sacrament in all the Pariſhes of the Dioceſe ſave one? This is not credible.

If you ſay that in Alexandria it was certainly ſo, that diſtinct congregations were committed to the Presbyters, I anſwer, 1. Yet ſo as that they might any part of them (as living in the ſame city) come and hear the Biſhop when they would: 2. They might communicate with him per vices if they would: 3. They were all bound to do ſo at the great feſtivals of the year: 4. They were all perſonally governed by the diſcipline of the Biſhop and Presbyters conjunct in Council: But of this next.

XXI. Another evidence is that the whole Plebs or people of the Biſhops charge (till Churches were ſetled under Presbyters far off in the countreys) were bound by the Canons to come to the Cathedral Church, and communicate with the Biſhop at Eaſter, Whitſuntide, and ſome other ſuch feſtivals, even after they were diſtinguiſhed into ſeveral Auditories and Communicating Aſſemblies under Presbyters; which I have before proved from the particular Canons: which certainly proveth that the Dioceſes were no more than could aſſemble in one place.

XXII. Another evidence is that Presbyters did but rarely preach in the two or three firſt ages (except in Alexandria, or in ſome few Churches which had got ſome extraordinary men; Chryſoſtome's preaching at Antioch, Auguſtin's at Hippo, while they were but Presbyters, are noted as unuſual things. And it is ſaid of Auguſtine (as forecited) that it being not uſual in other Churches, for the Presbyters to preach in the Biſhops preſence, the example of that Church (by the humility of the honeſt Biſhop who preferred his abler Presbyter before himſelf) did lead many other Churches into the ſame practice. SpalatenſisI may add▪ alſo as anther evidence that in the beginning for a conſiderable time, Confirmation was cloſely joyned to Baptiſm, and therefore ordinarily none were Baptized but by a confirmer, or in his preſence: And the Biſhops ſay, that only Biſhops did confirm: And if ſo, then let it be conſidered, to how large a Dioceſe a Biſhop could be preſent at every Baptiſm: Yea if Confirmation had been at a greater diſtance, ſeeing all that were baptized were confirmed, it is eaſy to know for how many one Bi…hop cannot do this. Did our Biſhops uſe it they would know. I do not think that in this city one perſon of 50 or 100 is confirmed though the Biſhop dwell among them. Perhaps in ſome Dioceſes not one of 1000 for we rarely hear of any at all. and many others have given large proofs, that the Biſhops and not the Presbyters were the ordinary preachers in their Church. * Fileſacus ſaith, De Epiſcop. authorit. cap. 15. Sect. 1. pag. 344. [Epiſcopos conſueviſſe ex ambone verba facere, refert Concil. Lateran. ſub Martino, & Concil. Trull. c. 33. Permiſſum deinde Preſbyteris, quanquam non paſſim, nec in quibuſlibet eccleſiis: Diaconis olim id conceſsum, p. 78ſed raro—& p. 351. ait, [Balſamon juris Graeco-Romani li. 2. cap. 9. in Alexii Comneni Bullis; Populum docere ſolis eſt datum Epiſcopis: & magnae eccl…ſiae Doctores Patriarchae jure docent.] Theſe were like our Canons as he ſhews at large; and this was in later ages when a Biſhop might teach per alium.—And p. 351, 352. Concil. Trull. c. 64. docet ex Greg. Nazianz. ſolis Epiſcopis convenire concionari & ſanctas ſcripturas interpretari; Presbyteris vero non niſi Epiſcoporum conceſſione. Of the Biſhops teaching ſee the numerous citations in Fileſacus cap. 1.

And if any be ſtumbled at the name Presbyteri Parochiani uſual in the Councils and Fathers, as if they were Countrey Presbyters, who preached then in other Churches? I have before cited a Canon which gave leave to Presbyters to preach in the countrey villages, intimating it was rare heretofore. 2. Fileſacus ſaith, ibid. p. 562, 563. [Sed ut quod res eſt libere eloquar, & illo aevo & anteriore, cum Parochiae vox vulgo etiam pro Dioeceſi uſurpatur (that is for all the Biſhops Charge) credo Presbyteros Parochianos dictos fuiſſe, non aliter ac ſiquis Dioeceſanos pronunciaret, hoc eſt, In hac Parochia ſeu Dioeceſi ordinatos & titulatos.]

But ſurely whilſt Presbyters rarely preached, there were either Churches that had no preaching (which cannot be proved) or elſe few Aſſemblies that had not Biſhops.

Obj. But then you make Lay Elders of the Presbyters.

Anſ. They were the abler ſort of Chriſtians ordained to the ſame Miniſterial or Sacerdotal Office as all true Miniſters are: But few of them being Learned men, and able to make long Sermons, were imployed only as the Biſhops aſſiſtants, as elders are among the Presbyterians: who if they would but ordain thoſe Elders, and let them have power over the word and Sacraments, though only to exerciſe it under the Biſhops or chief Paſtors guidance, when there was cauſe, they would come neareſt to the ancient uſe.

XXIII. And it ſeemeth to me an evidence that the Churches then were (uſually) but as narrow as I aſſert, that the Presbyters were to abide with the Biſhop, and attend him in his City Church. For if you ſuppoſe them able to Teach or guide a flock themſelves, (as ſome were ſuch, as Auguſtine, Macarius, Ephrem Syrus, Tertullian, &c.) it is ſcarce credible to me that the Biſhop would ſuffer ſuch worthy perſons to ſit among his Auditors, when there were many countrey congregations that needed their help. For that the Church was ſo ſupplied with Preachers as that beſides all theſe Presbyters in the Biſhops Church, there were enow for all the reſt of the countrey Pariſhes as now, is contrary to all the intimations of Church-Hiſtory. And therefore when we read of ſo many Presbyters with the Biſhop, before we read of many or ſcarce any elſewhere, ſurely there were no people that needed them.

XXIV. And yet (though great Cities had many with the Biſhop) I may add that the **In the ſubſcr…ptions of Councils you ſhall find ſometime a Biſhop and one Deacon, ſometime a a B…ſhop and a Preſbyter, as at Arles, id. Spelman. p. 42.paucity of Presbyters under the generality of Biſhops, ſheweth that their Dioceſes then were but like Pariſh Churches with their Chappels: Or elſe Aurelius and the other Biſhops in the Carthage Council needed not have p. 79been in doubt whether thoſe Biſhops that had but one or two Presbyters, ſhould have one taken from them to make a Biſhop of, which was yet affirmatively decreed, becauſe there may be more found fit to make Presbyters of, where it's hard to find any fit to be Biſhops.

I will ſpeak it in the words of the learned Biſhop Bilſons Perpet. Govern. c. 13. p. 256. [In greater Churches they had great numbers of Presbyters: In ſmaller they had often two, ſomewhere one, and ſometimes none. And yet for all this defect of Presbyters, the Biſhops then did not refrain to impoſe hands without them. The number of Presbyters in many places were two in a Church, as Ambroſe writeth on 1 Tim. 3. ſometimes but one. In the third Council Carthag. when it was agreed that the Primate of that City might take the Presbyters of every Dioceſe and Ordain them Biſhops for ſuch places as deſired them, though the Biſhop under whom the Presbyter before lived were unwilling to ſpare him, Poſthumianus a Biſhop demanded, [what if a Biſhop have but one only Presbyter, muſt that one be taken from him?] Aurelius the Biſhop of Carthage anſwered, One Biſhop may Ordain many Presbyters, but a Presbyter fit for a Biſhoprick is not eaſily found: wherefore if a man have but one only Presbyter, and fit for the room of a Biſhop, he ought to yield that one to be Ordained. Poſthumianus replied, Then if another Biſhop have a number of Clerks, that others ſtore ſhould relieve him. Aurelius anſwered, Surely as you helped another Church, ſo he that hath many Clerks **not many Churches.ſhall be driven to ſpare you one of them, to be ordained by you] A Dioceſe ſuch as is intimated here, we do not ſtrive againſt.

XXIV. Another evidence is that when ever we read of perſecution turning the Chriſtians out of their Churches, you ever find them gathered into one Congregation, when they could have leiſure and place to meet in, and uſually a Biſhop with them; unleſs he were baniſhed, impriſoned, or martyred, and then ſome Presbyter ſupplied the place: or unleſs they were ſcattered into many little parcels. And you find no talk of the perſecution of multitudes of Countrey Presbyters afar off, but of the Biſhop with his City Presbyters and Church. To which add that it was One Church ſtill, which rejected, obtruded Biſhops, and refuſed to obey the Emperour who impoſed them. All this is manifeſt in Gregory Neocaeſar. his flight with Muſonius, and the ſtate of his Church: In the Caſe of Baſil; and of Lucius the obtruded Biſhop at Alexandria, and in the Caſe of Antioch before deſcribed, and of Rome it ſelf. It's tedious to cite numerous teſtimonies in a well known caſe. If Alexandria was in ſuch a caſe, or near it, I hope you will doubt of no other Churches. And that with this you may ſee what Conventicles the Chriſtians kept when the Emperours forbad them, and how reſolutely the Biſhops preached when the Emperours ſilenced them, I will recite the words of Baronius himſelf, and in him of Dionyſius Alexandr. apud Euſeb. lib. 7. c. 10. &c. 17. and Cyprian ep. 5. &c. in Baron. ad an. 57. p. 542. that thoſe who cry out againſt Preaching and Conventicles, when they are but ſtrong enough to drive others out of the Temples, may better underſtand themſelves.

p. 80[Siquando, &c. If at any time ſo vehement a perſecution did ariſe, that the Chriſtians by the Emperours edicts, were utterly excluded from the Churches and aſſemblies, notwithſtanding, little regarding ſuch things, they forbore not to come together in One, in holy aſſemblies, whitherſoever there was opportunity. This Dionyſ. Alexand. Biſhop witneſſeth writing to Germanus when he mentioneth the Edicts of Valerian forbidding the Aſſemblies. [But we by Gods aſſiſtance, have not abſtained from our accuſtomed Aſſemblies celebrated among our ſelves. Yea, I my ſelf did drive on certain brethren to keep the aſſemblies diligently, as if I had converſt among them.] And he writeth the ſame alſo to Hierax when he was baniſhed [When we were perſecuted by all and put to death we celebrated the Feaſt with joyful minds; and any place appointed us for ſeveral ſorts of ſufferings, (as the woods, the deſert ſolitudes, the toſſed ſhips, the common Innes, the horrid priſon) did ſeem fit to us in which we might keep our ſolemn Aſſemblies with the greateſt joy.] That they held their Aſſemblies and offered ſacrifice uſually (when it was permitted them) in the priſons, Cyprian witneſſeth: But the Acts of the holy Martyrs do fullier ſignifie it; eſpecially thoſe moſt faithful ones called Pro-Conſular, which were taken by the publick Notaries. Certainly the Gravel-pits afforded them advantage for the celebrating of their publick Aſſemblies, in the time of perſecution, eſpecially at Rome, where in the digged gravel there remain many ſubterraneous ample receſſes: Though when the perſecution was vehement, they were thence alſo excluded; as the letters P. Cornelii ad Lupic. Epiſc. Vien. teſtifie, ſaying, [Chriſtians may not miſſas agere, keep their meetings for Church worſhip publickly, no not in the vaults, (or pits) So much of the Churches and publick aſſemblies of the Chriſtians &c. ſaith Baronius.

Which Polyd. Virgil ſecondeth c. 6. yea the Biſhops durſt ſcarce be ſeen in the ſtreets ſo hot were the perſecutions, as Euſeb. lib. 6. cap. 31. Therefore, as I before noted, they had yet no capacious Temples, as Illyricus well gathereth, Catalog. Teſti. verit. p. 112. But they began to have days of peace and liberty under Alexand. Severus, Gordian. Philip, Galienus, Flavius, Claudius, Aurelianus, Probus, and then they did enlarge their too ſmall rooms, to that deſcribed by Euſeb. lib. 8. c. 1.

XXVI. Another evidence is, that Monaſteries were built before Chappels and Countrey Pariſh Churches, and far more numerous, ſo that we frequently read of Monaſteries under a Biſhop with their Abbot, or Presbyter, when we read little or nothing of Pariſh Churches in the Countries under him. And if theſe had been as common, why are they not as much mentioned in the ancient records of the Church? The Egyptian Monks, and thoſe in Judaea, and thoſe in Britain, in Beda, and the life of Hierome, Fulgentius, and abundance ſuch witneſs this.

p. 81XXVII. Another evidence is the Canons, that none but a Biſhop muſt publicklySee Leo 1. Epiſt. 88. p. 158. So Lib. poenitential. Theodori Cantu. in Spelman. p. 155. reconcile a penitent, nor pronounce the bleſſing in the Church, &c. Of which before in particular Canons.

XXVIII. Another evidence is that Presbyters or Biſhops were not to remove from the Places they were Ordained in: But thoſe places of old were ſingle Churches; (uſually in Cities with the ſuburbs that could come to the ſame Church, as Dr. Field ſaith.) Concil. Arelat. 1. cited by Spelman, pag. 40.Concil. Arelat. 1. c. 21. (becauſe we had 3 Brittiſh Biſhops there) [In quibuſcunque locis ordinati fuerint Miniſtri, in ipſis locis perſeverent] And ipſe locus was not a circuit of 40 or 50 or 100 miles long, but the Biſhops Pariſh or Vicinity. Of the Biſhops not removing (without a Synod) many Councils ſpeak.

XXIX. Another evidence is that the Canons which take down the Chorepiſcopi and turn them to periodeutae Viſitors, or Itinerants, and which forbid theConc. L…od. c. 57. making of Biſhops in ſmall Cities, or villages, 1. Were of late date, 2. And were in aſpiring times, and had a reaſon anſwerable, ne vileſcat nomen Epiſcopi; 3. And therefore intimate that it was otherwiſe before (as I have before ſhewed.)

XXX. A Separatiſt or Schiſmatick was then known by his withdrawing from his proper Church; and ſo was an Apoſtate or deſerter: And he that ſtayed away certain days was to be excommunicate; And they that fall into ſins and never preſent themſelves to the Church, to ſhew their penitence, even when they fall ſick and deſire Communion, ſhall not have it till they ſhew fruits worthy of repentance, faith Concil. Arelat. 1. Can. 22. But 1. in our way, when the Church that I am of is an hundred miles long and hath above a thouſand Pariſhes, who can tell when a man is at the Church, and when he is not, unleſs you make half a years work to examine the matter in a thouſand Aſſemblies? 2. And a man may wander, and never be in the ſame Aſſembly once in three years, and yet be ſtill in his own Church becauſe the Doceſe is the Church: 3. Unleſs the Biſhops preſence as well as remote relation be neceſſary; And then no man cometh to Church, but he that cometh where the Biſhop is, for ubi Epiſcopus ibi Eccleſia: And the Pariſh Church is with them no Church, unleſs equivocally as a Community. For as Learned Dr. Field ſaith, (and they muſt all ſay) [None are to be ordained, but to ſerve in ſome Church: and none have Churches but Biſhops; all other being but aſſiſtants to them in their Churches.] Lib. 5. c. 27. p. 139. Therefore they call the Pariſh Prieſts the Biſhops Curates; and Dr. Field maketh the Biſhops Church or Dioceſe and a particular Church all one. If then one Pariſh prieſt of a thouſand be an Arrian, Antinomian, Socinian, Papiſt, Seeker, &c. he that ſeparateth not from that one Prieſt and Pariſh meeting, ſeparateth not from his Biſhops Church, nor any particular Church: For his Church is a countrey, which while he is in, he is no Separatiſt, if he joyn with any part of it.

p. 82XXXI. But my greateſt evidence which I truſt to above all the reſt is, The greatneſs of the Biſhops work, which no mortal man can truly and faithfully diſcharge and do for a Dioceſe in the oppoſed ſence, nor for more than one of our greater Pariſhes. I have recited ſome of the particulars before, and I ſhall again have occaſion to do it more at large: I now only name theſe parts.

1. To be the ordinary Baptizer, or ſtill preſent with all that are Baptized, (to anoint their noſtrils, &c. as aforeſaid.) 2. To be the Confirmer of all the baptized in all the Dioceſe. 3. To be the ordinary preacher to his flock, and to expound the Scriptures to them. 4. To be the only publick reconciler or abſolver of all penitents. 5. To be the publick Prieſt, to be the Guide of the people in publick worſhip, and to adminiſter the Lords Supper. 6. To take particular account and care of all the peoples ſouls, and admoniſh, teach, and exhort them as there is ſpecial need. 7. To be the Excommunicator of the impenitent (or ever one and the chief.) 8. To Ordain all Miniſters and Subminiſters. 9. To overſee and rule the Clergy. 10. To receive all Oblations, Tithes, Gifts, and Glebes, and be the diſtributer of them. 11. To viſit the ſick in all his flock. 12. To take a particular care of all the poor, the ſick, the ſtrangers, the impriſoned, &c. as their Curator. 13. To keep almoſt daily, but conſtantly weekly Aſſemblies for all the publick offices. 14. To keep Synods among his Colleagues, Biſhops, and Presbyters. 15. To try and hear Cauſes with the Biſhops, and Synods, and with his Presbyters at home, about all ſcandals, &c. that come before him, (of which one Town may find him work enough, the convincing and gentle reproof and exhortation will take up ſo much time.) 16. The looking after and convincing or confuting Hereticks. 17. The reconciling diſagreeing neighbours. 18. The confecting of oyl and holy bread, &c. to furniſh all his Presbyters with. 19. The Benediction of Marriages, and Solemnizing of Funerals; with a multitude of other Ceremonies. 20. And beſides all this, the right government of his own houſe (And if he had Children, the education of them) 21. The overſight of all the Schools and educating young men for the Miniſtery (there being then no Univerſities to do it.) (That the Schools were under his care, you may ſee proved in Fileſacus) 22. The Conſecrating of devoted Virgins (to ſay nothing of Altars and other utenſils) 23. The overſight of the Monaſteries. 24. The writing of Canonical Epiſtles (as they called them) to Great men, to other Churches, &c. 25. The granting of Communicatory Letters. I have named all that come ſuddenly to my memory, but it's like not all. And how many Pariſhes, how many hundred thouſand ſouls can one man do all this for, think you?

I will not tire you with citing out of Iſidore, Gregory, Ambroſe, Chryſoſt. &c. the ſtrict Charges terribly laid on Biſhops, but only now recite the Preachers words whoſe Oration Euſebius giveth us, at the dedication of a new Church, Hiſtor. Eccl. l. 10. c. 4. It is Paulinus Biſhop of Tyre. In which he tells them that it is the work of Biſhops [Intimae animarum veſtrarum theoriae videre & introſpicere, ubi experientia & temporis prolixitate unumquemque veſtrum exacte inquiſivit, ſtudioque & cura cunctos vos honeſtate & doctrina quae ſecundum pietatem p. 83eſt, inſtruit.] It was then thought a Biſhops duty to be intimately acquainted with the minds of his flock, and exactly enquire after every one of them, even menſervants and maidſervants by name, ſaith Ignatius, as cited before.

All this was then the Biſhops work: Almoſt all this (except the Ceremonies) Dr. Hammond proveth induſtriouſly belonged to the Biſhop. Let him faithfully do it all, and let his Dioceſe then be as big as he pleaſe.

I might have added Concil. Arelat. 1. c. 16. that people are to be abſolved in the ſame place where they were Excommunicated, which intimateth it muſt be only in the Biſhops Church. And in Synod. Hybernic. Patricii (in Spelman p. 52.) All that was more than neceſſary to a poor man that had a Collection was to be laid on the Biſhops Altar,] which implyeth that each Church had one Biſhop and one Altar. And c. 21. [& non in Eccleſiam ut ibi examinetur cauſa] And c. 25, 26, 27. no Clergy-man but the Biſhop to diſpoſec. 4, 5. of Church offerings; & Clericus Epiſcopi in Plebe novus ingreſſor, baptizare & offerre non licet, &c. with much more which intimateth what Churches were of old.

But ſo much ſhall ſuffice for proof of the Minor of the firſt Argument, that our Dioceſane Form, 1. taketh down the Church Form of Gods Inſtitution, and the primitive Churches poſſeſſion: 2. And ſetteth up a humane form in its ſtead, yea one only Church inſtead of a thouſand or many hundred.

And therefore I add