The Remains of John Corbet, Section 2 – Section 4
§ 2. Of the place where a Biſhops Church anciently was and might be conſtituted.
THAT every City, which had a competent number of Chriſtians, had a biſhop with his Church, is granted on all ſides: And that it was not a biſhops ſeat which made that a City, which otherwiſe would not have been ſo, but that every Town or Burrough was a City receptive or capable of a biſhop, cannot reaſonably be denied. The Scripture uſeth the word City for any Town or Burrough, Mat. 12.25. Mat. 23.34. Luk. 2.3. Luk. 7.11. Act. 15 21. Crete, which was called foreign, could not have a Hundred cities in it, unleſs ſuch as our Burroughs; and in every ſuch city the Rule was to ordain elders or biſhops, Tit. 1.5.
What argument from Scripture, or reaſon, can be brought, why Worceſter, Gloceſter, Chicheſter, &c. ſhould be made Cities and ſeats of Biſhops, rather than Shrewsbury, Ipſwich, Blimouth, &c? In the firſt ages of the Chriſtian Church all Towns were Cities to this intent without any difference; Yea any places of greater confluence of people were in the ſame capacity of having Churches.
Theophilus Alexandrius Epiſt. Paſcal. in Bibliotheca Patrum 3 Tom. mentions Biſhops in very ſmall Cities. Zozomen ſaith, that Spiridion was biſhop of the Town Trimethus, and ſaid to be Keeper of ſheep in that Town after he was biſhop.
There is alſo ſufficient proof that biſhops were ordained in Villages, or in places that were no Cities. Majuma was the port of Gaza, and becauſe it had many Chriſtians, it was honoured by Conſtantine with the name of a City, and a biſhop of its own: And when Julian in malice took from it the honour of being a City, it ſtill kept its own biſhop; tho it had the ſame Magiſtrates and Military Governours with Gaza: And when the biſhop of Gaza ſought to ſubject the Clergy of Majuma to himſelf, ſaying, 'twas unmeet that one City ſhould have two biſhops, a Councel in Paleſtine called for that purpoſe, confirmed the priviledges of Majuma, Sozomen. l. 5. cap. 3.
Cenchrea was but a Port of Corinth, as Pyraeus of Athens, yet we find a Church conſtituted there, Rom. 16.1. They who ſay it was a pariſh ſubordinate to the Church of Corinth, having only a presbyter aſſigned to it, are bound to prove it. Clemens Apoſtolical conſtitutions, lib. 7. c. 84. ſaith, that Cenchrea near Corinth, had Lucius a biſhop.
Sozomen l. 7. c 19. ſaith, when throughout Scythia there are many Cities which have all one biſhop, there are other Nations, where biſhops are ordained in villages, as among the Arabians, and Cyprians, and Phrygian Montaniſts.
In the Counccil of Sardica, Can. 6. it was decreed, that biſhops may not be ordained in villages or in ſmall cities, where one presbyter will ſuffice, leſt the name and authority of a biſhop ſhould become vile: But this was done in the middle of the fourth Century, and the decree implies, that till then biſhops had been allowed in villages and ſmall Cities.
The Chorepiſcopi were placed in country villages, when Chriſtians grew ſo numerous as to have Churches in them: and this proves that the Churches then kept in a narrow compaſs. The Canons made to expreſs this ſort of Miniſters, and to turn them into the foreign (as the 57th Canon of the Laodicean Councel) do ſhew that biſhops with their Churches had been conſtituted in villages, tho in ſome dependance on the City-biſhop. Mr. Beverege in his Annotations on Council Anchyram c. 13. ſhews, that the the Chorepiſcopi were truly biſhops, tho the exerciſe of ſome Epiſcopal functions were denied them by the Canons, and by the Canon laſt mentioned they were not abſolutely forbidden to ordain presbyters and deacons, but that they ſhould not do it without the permiſſion of the City-biſhop, under whom they were.
§ 3. Of divers Cities having two Biſhops at once.
THERE are many inſtances in the antiquity of two biſhops allowed at once in the ſame City: Narciſſus and Alexander were biſhops of Jeruſalem at the ſame time, Euſeb. Hiſt. l. 6. c. 9, 10. Ignatius and Euodius were both biſhops of Antioch at the ſame time. Clemens conſt. l. 7.46. At Rome, Linus and Cl…tus were fellow biſhops in Peters days, Platina in the life of St. Peter. Epiphanius, hereſy 68, concerning Meletius, ſaith, Alexandria had not anciently two Biſhops as other Cities had. Auſtin was made Biſhop of Hippo in the days of Valerius, and joined with him as his colleague in the Epiſcopal function. Aug. Epiſt. 34. to Paulinus: And ſome learned men of the hierarchical way conceive that Peter and Paul were biſhops of Rome at the ſame time, the one of the Circumciſion, and the other of the Uncircumciſion.
The Nicene Council was the firſt that decreed, that univerſally there ſhould be but one biſhop in a City, Can. 8. If any that come from the Novations to the Catholick Church be a biſhop, let him have the dignity of Prieſthood, unleſs it pleaſe the Catholick biſhop to give him alſo the honour of the Epiſcopal Name: If it doth not pleaſe him, let him find a place for him, that he may be a Chorepiſcopus in the pariſh, or a presbyter in the Clergy, that there may not ſeem to be two biſhops in one City.
As concerning the Catalogues of the ancient biſhops in great Cities, wherein the ſucceſſion is by one ſingle perſon after another. It may be conſidered, That Hiſtorians being of later ages, had reſpect to the cuſtom of their own times, wherein the Epiſcopacy reſided in one: And when anciently there were two or more equal in the name and authority of a Biſhop, the ſurvivor was reckoned the ſucceſſor, whenas he was indeed but the ſurviving colleague: Some do thus labour to remove the contradictions of Hiſtorians touching the order of the ſucceſſion of the firſt biſhops of Rome, Linus, Cletus, Anacletus, &c. by ſuppoſing that theſe or ſome of them were presbyters or biſhops at the ſame time, ruling that Church in common, and that the following writers fancying to themſelves ſuch biſhops as were ſet up in the Church in their times, fell into thoſe diverſities of tradition.
§ 4. Of the more late Erection of many Pariſhes under one biſhop.
IT is acknowedged by all parties, that Chriſtians in great Cities were not divided into divers fixed Congregations or Pariſhes till long after the Apoſtles days: And tho, when they were multiplied, they had divers meeting-places, yet thoſe places were promiſcuouſly frequented, and the people were taught and governed by all the Presbyters in common, and were called but one Church. It is obſerved by Epiphanius, Hereſ. 68. n. 6. That it was the Cuſtom only at Alexandria to have one preſident in the whole City, and to diſtribute the presbyters to teach ſeverally, vid. Grot. Annot. on 1 Tim. 5.17. Seldens Comment on Eutych. Origin. Alexand. p. 85.
And moſt agree, that it was two hundred and ſixty years after Chriſt, before pariſhes were diſtinguiſhed: And there muſt be a diſtinction of pariſhes, before there could be a union of them into Dioceſſes.