A Treatise of Episcopacy, Part 1 · Chapter 7 – Chapter 8
CHAP. VII. The Definition and reaſons of a Dioceſan Church conſidered, and overthrown.
I Have already ſhewed, that we diſpute not about aery notions, nor Non-exiſtence, but about ſuch Dioceſes as we ſee and have; and that by a Dioceſe we Non-conformiſts mean only a large circuit of ground with its inhabitants conteining many perticular Pariſhes: And by a Dioceſan Church, we mean all the Chriſtians within that circuit, who have but one Biſhop over them, though they be of many Pariſh Churches, yea few Presbyterians take the word ſo narrow as this. For (I think too) many of them do with Rutherford diſtinguiſh between a worſhipping Church and a Governed Church (and ſadling the horſe for Prelacy to mount on) do affirm that many (about twelve uſualy) of theſe worſhiping Churches (like our Pariſhes) may make but one Governed or Presbyterial Church: But a Dioceſe in England containeth many hundred, and ſome above a thouſand Pariſhes (as is ſaid.)
But the Dioceſans (Hammond and Downam) define not a Dioceſe (as we ſee it) as conteining many Churches or holy aſſemblies; but only as being the Church of one City with its territories. Now the queſtion is, what it is that is the ſpecifying difference by which a Dioceſan Church is diſtinguiſhed from others, and conſtituted. 1. Not that it is in a City: For an Independent Church, or a Presbyterian Church may be in a City: When there is but one Church there, or many Independent ones, theſe are no other than thoſe allow, whom you take for your chief adverſaries.
2. Is it then the circuit of ground that is the boundary of theſe Churches, either this ground is inhabited, or not; if not, then earth and trees make their Churches. If inhabited, it is by Infidels, or by Chriſtians, or both. If by Infidels they are no members of any Chriſtian Church, and therefore not of a Dioceſan Church. Unleſs they will profeſſe to have Churhes of Infidels:
If they be Chriſtians, either they are no more, nor more diſtant than as that they may (at leaſt the main body of them) come on the Lords daies to the City Church into one aſſembly, or elſe they are enow to make more or many Church aſſemblies. If the former, than what differ they from a Pariſh Church, or an Independent Church, which is planted in a City? When each of them are but one congregation, where is the difference but in the arbitrary Name?
But if the City and territories have Chriſtians enow for many Churches, then either they are formed into many or not. If they are, they ſhould (by their own confeſſion) have many Biſhops: If not, either Church Societies are Gods ordinance or not. If not, the City ſhould have none: If they are, where hath God exempted the Country from the priviledge or duty any more than the City?
But if they ſhould ſay that a Dioceſan Church is one Church in a City and its territories conſiſting of Chriſtians enow to make many, of whom the moſt part take up with oratories for Churches, this would ſuite our Notion of a Dioceſan Church, but not theirs. For they ſay that it is not neceſſary that a Dioceſan Church have more than one Congregation.
Therefore it muſt needs follow that their Dioceſan Church muſt differ from our Pariſh or Congregational Churches only in potentiâ and not in actu, or elſe earth or Infidels muſt be the differencing matter. Unleſs they will ſay that the Order of Prelacy in it maketh the difference, which is the office of a Paſtor who is actually Governour but of one congregation, but is in potentia to be the Governour of more when he can convert them, and then is the Governour of them all in that territory when they are converted. But if one congregation or many make not the difference, a meer poſſibility in the Infidels of becoming Chriſtians cannot make the difference, becauſe the Subjects of that poſſibility are no members of the Church at all. Therefore the difference muſt be only in the office of the Biſhop. And if ſo, then an Independent Church that hath a Biſhop is a Dioceſan Church; And ſo an Independant and a Dioceſan Church may be all one. And then if a Biſhop were but ſetled in a Pariſh Church in the City or Countrey, it would make it a Dioceſan Church. And then when we have proved that the Country ſhould have Churches, and not meer Oratories, and that every Church ſhould have a Biſhop, and ſo that a Biſhop is not to be appropriated to a City and its territories, we have done all. And that ſociety which ſhould have all Gods Church ordinances, ſhould have a Paſtor neceſſary for the exerciſing of them all. But every true Pariſh Church, ſhould have all Gods ordinances (belonging to a ſingle Church) therefore they ſhould have a Paſtor (at leaſt) to exerciſe them. And, a Paſtor authorized to exerciſe all particular Church ordinances of Chriſts is a true Biſhop. But every true particular Church ſhould have ſuch a Paſtor. Therefore they ſhould have a Biſhop. By the Church ordinances I mean 1. Teaching. 2. Miniſterial Worſhip, in Prayer, Praiſe and Sacraments. 3. Diſcipline ſecret and publick in that Church. And let them remember that they that inſtead of proof, do but crudely affirme, that Cities only may be Biſhops Seats, do but beg the queſtion.
But becauſe he that puts us hardeſt to it (Downame) doth lay ſo much on theſe two differences of a Dioceſan Church from a Parochial. 1. That a Dioceſe conteineth the City and territories, though at firſt it have but one Congregation. 2. That converting the reſt of the City and territories, giveth the Biſhop a right to Govern them all: I will further diſtinctly conſider of both theſe.
CHAP. VIII. Whether the Infidel Territories or Citizens do make part of a Dioceſane Church.
1. WE diſtinguiſh between a Dioceſe and a Dioceſane Church. 1. The word Dioceſe firſt was of civil ſignification, and ſo we have nothing to do with it. 2. It may ſignifie a Country of Infidels whom a Miniſter of Chriſt endeavoureth to convert: And ſo it is no Church of it ſelf, nor no part of a Church, if a Church be in it: (as is paſt all queſtion.) And ſo we deny not but that, 1. Every Miniſter ſhould convert as many Infidels as he can. 2. That he that is reſident on the place as Paſtor of a Cohabiting Church hath better opportunity than a ſtranger uſually to convert the neighbour infidels; And therefore hath more obligation to endeavour it; becauſe men muſt divide and order their work as their opportunities do invite and guide them. 3. But yet that God ſet no man his Miniſterial Charge by the meaſure of ground: And therefore that if ſuch a City-Biſhop have a ſmaller number of Infidels in his territories, than will take up his time and labour (beſides the care of his Church) he ought not to confine his labour to them, nor neglect other territories that need his help, but may, muſt and ſhould go further in his endeavours, as Auguſtine and other later Biſhops among the Saxons, notwithſtanding the neighbourhood of the Brittains; and as Wilfred alias Boniface among the Germans, &c. And if any other Miniſter come among the Infidels in the Territories of a City that hath a Church, while they have need of ſuch help, the Biſhop were a beaſt if he ſhould forbid him on pretenſe that it is his Dioceſs where another hath nothing to do. But as unoccupied Countries belong to any occupant, ſo an Infidel Country belongeth to any preacher that hath opportunity to convert them. And if a Dioceſane prohibit ſuch preaching, he is to be neglected or reprehended, but not obeyed. Yet I deny not, but prudence may direct preachers (as it would do occupants in the aforeſaid caſe) to diſtribute their labours ſo as one may not hinder but help another: But that is not a Law of propriety otherwiſe than as mutual conſent obligeth. And it is, but the determination of circumſtances, and that not about any part of a Church, and therefore nothing to the conſtitution of a Church.
And as is ſhewed, as Chriſt ſent his Diſciples out by two and two, ſo the Apoſtles oft went two together, or an Apoſtle and an Evangeliſt, which ſhewed that no one claimed the Dioceſs. But ſtill, were it otherwiſe, Infidels are not of the Church.