A Treatise of Episcopacy, Part 2 · Chapter 9
CHAP. IX. The ſecond Argument: from the Depoſition of the primitive ſpecies of Biſhops, and the erecting of a humane inconſiſtent ſpecies in their ſtead: A ſpecifick difference proved.
ARGUMENT II.
A Humane inconſiſtent ſpecies of Biſhops erected inſtead of the Divinelyinſtituted ſpecies thereby depoſed, is unlawful. But ſuch is the Dioceſan ſpecies now oppoſed—Ergo.
I have hitherto charged it with the changing of the Church Form: Now of the form or ſpecies of Biſhops. And here I need not add much to the former, becauſe they are coincident, and in proving the one I have already proved the other.
A Biſhop of one Church united for Individuals Communion, and a Biſhop of one Church united only for Communion in ſpecie actionum, are not the ſame. But becauſe I hear many ſay that Magis & Minus non variant ſpeciem, And that a Greater and a Leſſer Dioceſe make neither the Church, nor Biſhop to be of a different ſpecies, I am here to prove the contrary.
And firſt let it be remembred in what predicament the things in queſtion are, a Church and a Biſhop: That is, They are relations. Then let it be remembred what goeth to the eſſence and definition of a Relation, that is, The Relate, the Correlate, the Subject, the Fundamentum (or as ſome ſpeak the Ratio fundandi alſo) and the Terminus. Now where theſe are not the ſame, or any of theſe, then the Relation is not the ſame: becauſe where an eſſential ingredient is wanting, the eſſence is wanting.
Again it muſt be remembred that many Natural Relations are ſo founded in an act paſt, that the Relation reſulteth from it without depending on any thing future. As God is Creator quia jam creavit, Pater eſt qui genuit. But there are other Relations which are founded in meer Undertaking, Mandate authority, and obligation to future actions: As he is a Tutor, a Schoolmaſter, a Judge, a Chancellor, a Pilot, a Biſhop, a Husband, &c. who by mandate and undertaking is authorized and obliged to ſuch and ſuch works, implyed in the names. And in theſe caſes, there is nothing more ſpecifieth the offices than the work of the office, which is, its neareſt End. And theſe neareſt ends are ever eſſential to ſuch Relations; whether you will call them the T…rmini or End, or by what other name, we contend not.
And therefore Aquinas and all, 1. 2. q. 18. art. 2. and others commonly agree, that the Object and the End do ſpecifie humane acts.
But remote ends may be the ſame in Acts, (and ſo in Offices) of the ſame ſpecies; It proving but a Generical agreement (which yet may be in ſpecie ſubalterna.) All humane Acts ſhould have the ſame ultimate end, that is, The pleaſing of God in the reſplendency of his Glory, and the felicity of man. Yet this maketh them not all of the ſame infimae ſpeciei. All Government intendeth the common good; and yet there are different ſpecies of Government. All Church Government is for the good of the Church, and for the killing of ſin, and the promoting of faith and holineſs: And yet there are different ſpecies of Church Governours.
But beſides the Object and End, (which all agree to) there are by Schoolmen and Caſuiſts, ſaid to be circumſtances, which may alſo ſpecifie Moral acts. TheAqu. 1. 2. q. 18. art. 3. 5. & 10. & q. 72. art. 9. & Cajet. & Medin. ib. ſeven named by Cicero in Rhetor. are, Quis, Quid, Ubi, Quibus auxiliis, Cur, Quomodo, Quando: And Aquinas and others tell us that theſe circumſtances communicate ſpecial Goodneſs or evil to actions. Vid. P. Soto in relect. 5. in fine de bonit. & mal. act. Greg. de Valent. tom. 2. qu. 13. puncto 4. Joſ. Angles in Florib. 2. ſent. d. 37. q. 3. a. 5. p. 2.
Greg Sayrus in Clav. Regia Lib. 2. Cap. 3. pag. 54. giveth us theſe two notes to know when circumſtances ſpecifie actions.
1. Quando Circumſtantia novam conformitatem, aut deformitatem actui tribuit; ita ut peculiariter conveniat vel repugnet rectae rationi, novam ſpeciem conſtituit: Rat. Quia in hoc caſu circumſtantia tranſit in rationem objecti—2. Quotieſcunque circumſtantia non reſpicit ſpecialem ordinem rationis in bono vel malo niſi praeſuppoſita alia circumſtantia a qua actus moralis habet ſpeciem boni vel mali quam ſolam intra eandem ſpeciem auget, vel diminuit, reddendo actum illum meliorem aut pejorem, toties circumſtantia illa aggravans vel diminuens, non autem ſpeciem mutans, cenſenda eſt: ut quantitas v. g. magna vel parva in furto.
Note alſo that though Relatio in forma relationis, non recipit magis & minus; e. g. Titius non eſt magis Pater quam Sempronius; Yet quoad ſubjectum, & aliquando quoad fundamentum & correlatum, it may recipere magis & minus, ſo that magis vel minus ſhall change the ſpecies. This is in ſuch caſes, wherein the alteration of Quantity altereth the Capacity of the ſubject quoad finem eſſentialem. For as in Phyſicks, beſides the Matter, the Diſpoſitio materiae (which Ariſtotle calls Privation) is neceſſary ad formam recipiendam (which is comonly called A third Principle; but I would call it, the Conditio neceſſaria of the Material Principle;) ſo in Relations there muſt be the Diſpoſitio neceſſaria ſubjecti, or elſe there can no relation reſult. E. g. to the being of a houſe, ſome quantity is neceſſary to the End, that is, habitation; And therefore it is no houſe, except equivocally which is no bigger than an egg-ſhell: So to the being of a Ship, of a Church, &c. that which is no bigger than a nutſhel is no Ship or Church, though you call it ſo or Conſecrate it, &c. And on the other ſide, It is not a ſpoon, a diſh, a ladle, a pen, which is as big as a Church, a Ship, a Houſe. Yea a Ship and a Boat do differ in ſpecie, though both have the ſame End, (ſafe paſſage over the waters by portage) by the circumſtantial differences of the End and Subject.
So alſo in Societies; the whole world, or a Kingdom is too big to be a Family: And a Family is too little to be a Kingdom. Pagus, Vicus, Civitas, Regnum differ principally in their Ends, and next in their Quantity of the ſubject matter, becauſe every quantity is not capable of the ſame Eſſential End.
Theſe things being premiſed, for the uſe of ſuch ignorant Lads only as know them not, who may poſſibly ſtudy the controverſie, I proceed to my proofs.
I. And I will begin (though it be weakeſt in it ſelf) with an Argument ad hominem; For with the men that I now deal with, I ſhall take that to be the moſt effectual argument, which is fetcht from their intereſt, and fitted to their wills. I remember that once when an Army was reſolved for Liberty of Conſcience, for all that profeſſed the fundamentals of faith in God by Jeſus Chriſt, and the Parliament appointed ſome of us to draw up a Catalogue of fundamentals, (which I thought was beſt done by giving them the Sacramental Covenant, the Creed, Lords Prayer, and Decalogue) a good man, (with others of his mind) would needs have many more fundamentals, than I was for, and among others, (That to allow our ſelves or others in known ſin, is inconſiſtent with ſalvation (or is damnable) I told him that I would not diſpute againſt it, but undertake to make him caſt it by without diſpute: And when they would not believe me, but went on, I did all that I promiſed preſently with telling them, You know that the Parliament take Independency to be a ſin; and they will ſay, If we allow or tolerate them, they here pronounce the ſentence of damnation on us under their own hands] Dictum factum; we had no more of that fundamental.
I have greater confidence of prevailing with Dioceſans by ſuch an argument: In taking the Covenant, in the Weſtminſter Aſſembly, it would not paſs till the parentheſis deſcribing the Engliſh ſpecies of Prelacy was inſerted; becauſe many declared that they were not againſt all Epiſcopacy, but only the preſent Engliſh ſpecies. Accordingly thoſe that took the Covenant in that ſenſe, take not themſelves bound to endeavour the extirpation of all Epiſcopacy but only of that ſpecies: And they that would have conformed on the terms of the Kings Declaration about Eccleſiaſtical Affairs, went on this ſuppoſition that the ſpecies of Prelacy was altered by it. Now I put theſe queſtions to the Dioceſans. Queſt. 1. If a Uſurper by power ſhould take down all the Dioceſans (and their lands, Lordſhips, and Courts) and turn them into Pariſh Biſhops, and ſay, I alter not the ſpecies but the degree, would they believe him? Queſt. 2. If one that thinketh himſelf obliged by the Vow or Covenant againſt this ſpecies only, ſhould think that he anſwereth his obligation, if he procure no other alteration than is made in the Kings forenamed Declaration, would they tell him, You alter not the ſpecies unleſs you totally extirpate Epiſcopacy: (ſuppoſing that he had power to do it.) Queſt. 3. Seeing moſt that we ſpeak with who conform, and who take or plead for the Oxford Oath [Never to endeavour any alteration of Church Government] do tell us that the meaning is only that we will not endeavour to alter the preſent ſpecies, which is Epiſcopacy, and not the appurtenances, as Chancellors, &c. I ask, If it ſhould pleaſe the King to take down all Dioceſanes, and to ſet up only a Biſhop in every Pariſh or Independent Church, & ſay, I change not the ſpecies; or if I believed that this were a Change of the Engliſh ſpecies of Church Government I would not do it: what anſwer would they give to this? Queſt. 4. If a Conformiſt or one that hath taken that Oath, ſhall ſay, I did ſubſcribe and ſwear only not to endeavour an alteration of the ſpecies, but not of the degree: Therefore I will do all that I can to take down Dioceſans, and to ſet up Congregational or Parochial Biſhops in their ſtead, will you tell this man that indeed by ſo doing he endeavoureth not to change the ſpecies? Queſt. 5. Seeing many of the greateſt oppoſers of Prelacy, do conſent to a Congregational or Parochial Biſhop, will you grant that theſe are not at all your adverſaries as to the ſpecies of Church Government, but only as to the degree or extent of Dioceſes? Theſe caſes are practical: Therefore take heed how you reſolve them, left you do that which you are unwilling of. Queſt. 6. And I may ask, Why is it that many deny that it was a Parliament of Epiſcopal men, that raiſed the Army againſt the King, only becauſe in the Propoſition ſent to Nottingham they would have had Epiſcopacy reduced to what is there intimated, and would have had their power ſhortned? Come, come, deny not the plain truth, If magis & minus non variant ſpeciem, Parliament men, yea, and the Learnedeſt part of that Synod who took down Biſhops, were Epiſcopal men, yea, Prelatiſts as you are, for they were but for a Gradual alteration at the beginning of their war, till they were carried further by neceſſity and intereſt. Queſt. 7. And I ask you alſo, why, and with what front do you call us all Presbyterians, who offered Biſhop Uſhers Model to the King and you in 1660. as the terms of Concord? Is it againſt your Conſciences meerly to make us odious with you know whom? what can it be better, if you grant that we are not only for Epiſcopacy in genere, but even for the ſame ſpecies with your ſelves? Yea, thoſe that are againſt Biſhop Uſhers Model, and are only for Congregational or Pariſh Biſhops, are it ſeemeth even for your ſpecies: And are they not then Epiſcopal as well as you? So much ad hominem; now ad rem.
II. Where the ſpecifying Ends differ, there the Species of Relations differ. But in the Churches and the Biſhops in queſtion the ſpecifying Ends differ: Ergo &c.
I will firſt manifeſt the truth of the Minor (for the Major is unqueſtionable) of Churches, and next of Biſhops.
1. The ends of a particular Church as deſcribed by us are theſe: 1. Communion ſenſible and external; 2. And that local or preſential; 3. And that perſonal by all the body of the Church; 4. And that in the ſame Individual acts of Gods publick worſhip. 5. In watching over, or helping each other towards Heaven, by provoking each other to love and to good works, and if a brother offend to tell him of his fault; to comfort each other, and to live together in holineſs, love and peace. 6. To be related to the ſame Paſtors, as thoſe that are their Ordinary Teachers, Governours and Guides in publick worſhip, as labouring amongſt them and being enſamples to the flock. 7. To hold a diſtant Communion with the neighbour aſſociated concordant Churches, and particularly with thoſe neareſt them of the firſt order of Compoſition; of which aſſociation this particular Church is a part, for Communion of Churches as they are themſelves a Society for Communion of Individual Chriſtians in a ſingle Church.
2. Now the ends of our Dioceſane Churches are not one of all theſe. For 1. Their Communion is internal in Faith and Love; ſuch as we have with the Abaſſines. 2. It is diſtant only, and not preſential at all: For as Dioceſane we never ſee each other it's like in our whole lives. 3. It is not perſonal (as external and ſenſible) but only by the intervention of Delegates, Meſſengers, Officers or Synods of ſuch. 4. It is only in eadem ſpecie of publick worſhip and ſacred actions that we have Communion, but not in the ſame Individual actions of worſhip: And ſo we may have Communion with the Antipodes, while we believe the ſame Scriptures and Creed, and uſe the ſame Sacraments, &c. in ſpecie. 5. We have no converſe with one another at all as Dioceſane: (though as Parochial we may)▪ we never meet together, pray together, hear together, exhort or watch over or help each other: If a Brother treſpaſs we tell him not of his fault, &c. for we never know one of five hundred in the Dioceſe, no more than men of another Countrey. 6. We hear not the ſame Teachers; we have not the ſame Guides to reſolve our doubts, and to inſtruct us as we need; We have not the ſame Prieſts to joyn with in Gods publick worſhip: But he that Teacheth and officiateth in one Church, hath no power in another: Only we have the ſame Biſhop to call (not the people before him to teach and warn and comfort them, but) the Parſon and Churchwardens; or rather the ſame Lay-Chancellor and his Court, and the ſame Canons (for ſilencing our Miniſters, Excommunicating many conſcionable Nonconformiſts, &c.) which not only all the Dioceſe hath, but all the Land. Not one of many hundreds of the Dioceſe ever ſeeth the Biſhop in all his life. 7. A Dioceſe is it ſelf a compound of particular Churches aſſociated (Though mortified quantum in Dioceſanis;) And therefore cannot be a conſtitutive part of ſuch a firſt order of Aſſociation, as a particular Church may be or is. Theſe are the differences in the Ends.
Now lay all theſe together, and try, whether the differences in ſo many parts of the Ends of the Society, make not a Specifick difference in Societies. Whether [a company of Chriſtians aſſociated with the ſame preſent Paſtors, for preſential perſonal Communion in Gods publick worſhip, Sacraments, Teaching, and Guidance, and for mutual aſſiſtance in holy converſe and living, &c. and cohabiting in a vicinity capable of this converſe and Communion] be a Society of the ſame ſpecies with [A company of Congregations aſſociated (or rather never aſſociated) to hold a diſtant Communion in the ſame ſpecies of Belief, Prayer, Sacraments, &c. under ſeveral appropriate Paſtors, not living (ut Parochiani▪) in any ſuch vicinity as may render them capable of any of the foreſaid preſent aſſiſtances or Communion: (unleſs in travail men accidentally come together as, we may do with men of other lands.)] It is notorious that theſe Eſſentiating Ends of the two ſorts of Societies are diſtinct; and therefore the Societies are eſſentially diſtinct.
Even as a City, Burrough, or Corporation, are part of a Kingdom, and are ſpecifically diſtinct ſocieties from the Kingdom. (For the Parts may have a proper ſubordinate ſpecification, which all ſet together may conſtitute one more comprehenſive ſpecies: As a Clock, and the ſeveral wheels and parts of that Clock may differ in ſpecie, though not as coordinate ſpecies) A Kingdom may poſſibly be no bigger than a City: But yet the form of a Kingdom and of a City do differ in the Ends of the Societies. So a Family in ſpecie differeth from a City, which is compact of many Families: ſo a Troop differeth in ſpecie from a Regiment, and a Regiment from an Army, a Colledge from an Univerſity, a bed-chamber which is part of an houſe from an houſe, though yet it's poſſible that a houſe may be but one room, and an Univerſity but one Colledge, and an Army but one Regiment, &c.
Now let us enquire whether de jure divino there ought to be ſuch a Society as I have deſcribed, aſſociating for perſonal preſent Communion and aſſiſtance as aforeſaid. And this I have fully proved before Chap. 3. Acts 14. 23. They ordained them Elders in every Church. 1 Theſ. 5. 12, 13. Know them that labour among and are over you in the Lord, and highly eſteem them in love for their works ſake: and be at peace among your ſelves. Heb. 13. 7. 17. Remember them which have the rule over you, who have ſpoken to you the word of God. Act. 20. 28. Take heed to your ſelves and to all the flock, &c. v. 31. I ceaſed not to warn every one night and day with tears. 20. publickly and houſe by houſe. 1 Pet. 5. 1, 2, 3. The Elders that are among you, &c. feed the flock (not a particle of the flock) Mat. 18. 15. If thy brother treſpaſs againſt thee, tell him his fault between thee and him; If he hear thee not, take two—If he hear not them, tell the Church—If with Selden, de Synedr. and the Eraſtians by the Church were meant the Sanhedrim, it would tend to the confirmation of what we plead for; conſidering how thin both Council (and Synagogues) were, and in how ſmall places. But againſt that ſence, ſee Galaſpies Aarons Rod, &c.
Heb. 10. 22. &c. Forſake not the aſſembling of your ſelves together, But exhort one another—1 Cor. 11. When ye come together in the Church, 1 Cor. 14, &c. See the Text as forecited Chap. 3.
It is then manifeſt that Churches aſſociated for ſuch preſent Communion of Chriſtians, is of Gods appointment, which Thorndike in a ſet Treatiſe proveth to be the ground of Diſcipline.
2. Next I will ſhew that the Biſhops of ſuch a particular Church and of a compound Dioceſe are offices ſpecifically different (a finibus.)
1. The Biſhop of a particular Church is related to another Correlate, ſpecifically diſtinct from the ſaid Dioceſane: Therefore his office is ſpecifically diſtinct. The Antecedent is before proved, and the Conſequence no ſober man will queſtion.
2. And their works are ſpecifically diſtinct.
1. The work of the one is, 1. To be the ordinary publick Teacher of the Church; 2. To Congregate the Church; 3. To be their Guide in preſent worſhip; 4. To give them the Lords Supper; 5. To watch over and guide them perſonally in their converſation; and ſo of the reſt forenamed.
2. The work of the other is, 1. To ſend Curates to be the ordinary Teacher, and Guides, and Prieſts to the people; even to each Pariſh one. 2. To have a Lay Chancellors Court to trouble them in a ſecular mode, and to judge men to excommunication and abſolution. 3. To viſit ſome Towns in his Dioceſe▪ and there to call together the Clergy and Churchwardens, once in three years, (or a year if he pleaſe.) 4. To have an Archdeacon to keep ſome kind of Courts under him in certain places, by himſelf or his official. 5. To grant Licences to Marry: 6. And to preach: 7. And to eat fleſh in Lent. 8. To ſuſpend or ſilence Preachers. 9. To lay his hands on Children or others, for the Ceremony of Confirmation; perhaps on the thouſandth or five hundredth part of his Dioceſe, (though dejure he ſhould do it to every one) 10. To preach as oft as he pleaſe in his Cathedral, or where he will.
But as for the aforeſaid work of a Biſhop of a particular Church, he is not to do it, nor any one part of it, that I know of. For whereas the true office of ſuch a Biſhop is (as Dr. Hammond in his Annotat. well deſcribeth it) by a Miniſterial participation to ſubſerve Chriſt to his whole flock in the threefold work of a teacher, a Prieſt, and a Ruler, he doth no one part of all. 1. Inſtead of Teaching his flock, he (if he be one of the extraordinary beſt) doth only publickly preach once or twice a week to the thouſandth or five hundredth or hundredth part of his flock: (But ſo do very few of them, but ſome it may be once in a month or a year) And as to the perſonal care of their Souls, he hath not one Pariſh that he taketh the care of, to teach them perſonally. 2. He ſeldom doth officiate in publick Prayer, Praiſe, and Sacrament to any part of his flock: And when he doth, it is but to a particle of the foreſaid proportion: But when others do it, he ſaith, He doth it by them. 3. He doth not at all govern his flock with that which is the true Paſtoral Government; which is in perſon among them to guide them, and reſolve their doubts, and admit thoſe to Communion that are fit, and refuſe the unfit; To admoniſh all the ſcandalous and unruly, as perſonally known to him, to watch over them and confirm the weak, and refel ſeducers when they come among them. But inſtead of this, he never ſeeth them, (as to the main body of his flock) nor knoweth them, but ſummoneth their Teachers and Church-wardens, (and ſuch as others that dwell among them, or his Apparitors will accuſe to him) to come before his Lay-Chancellours Court, as aforeſaid, and in his Vi…itation to meet him: ſo that here is none of the ſame work no nor Government it ſelf, but another kind of Government.
And here note, 1. That the foreſaid three parts of the office (Teaching, Worſhipping, and Ruling) are all Eſſential to the office; ſo that if he wanted but any One of them, he were not an Officer of the ſame ſpecies with thoſe that have them all, much more if he have but One, yea, not One of all.
2. That the flock or Church is not to be denominated from a ſmall or inconſiderable part of it, but from the main Body. Therefore he that is the Teacher but of one Congregation of a thouſand, or many hundreds, or ſcores, is not to be therefore called, the Teacher of that Church or Flock, which conſiſteth of ſo many Congregations: And ſo alſo for Worſhip and perſonal conduct, He is not a Prieſt to that flock, &c. Much leſs when he undertaketh not one Pariſh.
Obj. So you may ſay of one of the old City Churches, ſuch as Alexandria where the Biſhop preached but to one Congregation; or of our Pariſhes that have Chappels, where the Curate teacheth in the Chappels; or wherever there are many Presbyters to a Congregation: All do not preach, at leaſt to all the people.
Anſ. 1. I doubt not but Alexandria and all ſuch places, ſhould have had many Churches and Biſhops, as the Chriſtians grew too many to be in and under one.
2. But yet when they had ſeveral Churches and Presbyters, the people were not at all tyed to their own Pariſhes, but might come to hear and joyn with the Biſhop as oft as they pleaſed: which though they could not do all at once, they might do by turns, ſome one day and ſome another: And ſo they did. So that ſtill they had perſonal Communion with him, though not every day. 3. And they lived in Vicinity, where they were capable of Converſe, and perſonal notice, and private help from one another. 4. And the Presbyters all joyned in perſonal overſight or Government of the whole flock, and were each one capable of perſonal admonition and exhortation to any member. 5. And thoſe that attended the Biſhop and did not frequently officiate in the chief actions, yet were preſent with the Church, and aſſiſted him in officiating, and were ready to do the reſt when ever he appointed them or there was need: ſo that though quoad exercitium they did not the chief parts of the work every day, or uſually, yet, 1. it was all the three parts of the Paſtoral office which they did, and undertook to do, in ſeaſon: 2. And that to the ſame Church in perſon by themſelves. So that though Churches that ſwell to a diſordered bulk, are not in that perfect order as more capable Societies may be; yet whileſt their Communion is perſonal, preſent, as aforeſaid, the Church ſpecies is not altered as in our Dioceſes it is.
III. A divers fundamentum vel ratio fundandi, proveth a diverſity of Relations: But a true Pariſh Biſhop and our Dioceſanes have fundamenta that are in ſpecie divers; And ſo have a particular Church and a Dioceſane Church: Ergo, a Pariſh Church and Biſhop, and a Dioceſane Church and Biſhop are ſpecie divers.
The Major is undeniable. The Minor I prove by ſhewing the diverſity.
1. The Fundamentum of the Relation of a Particular Church, is either 1. Of the Relation of the Church to God: 2. Or their relation as fellow members one to another: 3. Or of their joynt relation to their Paſtors or Biſhops: 4. Or of their Biſhops or Paſtors relation to them. For certainly a Church is not only compounded of various Materials, but its form is a compounded of theſe Four Relations ſet together, and every one is Eſſential to it (And he that cannot diſtinguiſh cannot underſtand.) Now everyone of all theſe compounding Relations, is founded in a mutual conſent.
1. The Relation of the Members, Paſtors, and the whole Church to God is founded in Gods conſent and theirs: Gods is ſignified 1. By his Scripture Inſtitution and Command: 2. By his qualifying and diſpoſing the perſons: 3. By his providential giving them opportunity: 4. And ad ordinem where it can be had, by the Ordainers (as to the Paſtors relation) who are Gods miniſters to inveſt them in the office, 5. And by his moving the hearts of the People to conſent (which belongeth to the giving of opportunity.)
The Relation of all theſe to God, is ſecondarily founded in their own conſent (that it may be a Contract:) The Paſtors expreſs theirs, in their Ordination in general, and in their Induction or fixing in that particular Church, to the Ordainers, and to the people. The members expreſs their conſent, either plainly in a Contract, or impliedly by actual convention and ſubmiſſion, and performing of their duties.
2. The Relation of the members to each other, is founded in their ſaid Explicite or Implicite conſent among themſelves, joyned to their foreſaid conſent to God.
3. The Relation of the Members to their Paſtors, is founded Remotely in the ſaid ſignification of Gods will, by his Word and Providence, and by the Ordainers, (for they are but Miniſters, and operate but by ſignifying Gods will.) And nextly, by the mutual conſent of the People and the Paſtors.
4. The Relation of the Paſtors to the flock is accordingly founded, 1. Remotely in the ſaid ſignification of Gods will by his Word, Gifts, Diſpoſition, Opportunity, and by the Miniſtery of the Ordainers: 2. And nextly by the conſent of Paſtors and People. Thus is a particular Church-relation founded, and all theſe parts are neceſſary thereunto.
But as for our Dioceſane Churches, which have no particular Churches under them, nor Biſhops, but only Congregations with ſeveral Curates, being not politically and properly Churches, (For I meddle not with ſuch A. Biſhops Dioceſes as conſiſt of many true Churches with their proper Biſhops▪) let us ſee from what foundation they reſult.
1. As to their Relation to God, he never expreſſed his Conſent, nor owneth them (that ever I could hear proved) And therefore the Fundamental Contract is wanting. Thoſe that go Dr. Stillingfleet's and Biſhop Reynold's way, and ſay, No Form of Government is of Gods appointment, do grant that the Dioceſane form is not: But that the Congregational form is, I have fully proved. Therefore they have not the ſame Foundation.
2. And as to the Relation of the Members of a Dioceſe to one another, there is no mutual conſent truly nor ſeemingly ſignified by them: what ever ſome few may do, who are not the Dioceſe, it is certain that the Dioceſe as ſuch do neither Explicitely nor Impliedly by word or deed expreſs any ſuch Church conſent, but rather the clean contrary. For 1. Their Dwelling in the Dioceſe is no more a profeſſion of conſent, than the Chriſtians dwelling in Conſtantinople ſheweth them to be Mahometans: For their Anceſtors there lived, and they have no other dwelling.
2. Their chooſing a Parliament who conſent is no proof of their conſent. 1. Becauſe it is not paſt a ſixth or tenth or twentieth part of the Members that chooſe Parliament men. 2. Becauſe they never intend to chooſe them for any ſuch uſe as to be the chooſers of their Religion, or Church, and to diſpoſe of their Souls: But only to regulate Church matters according to Gods word, which when they go againſt, they go beyond, and againſt the peoples conſent. As in chooſing Parliament men, we do not truſt them to chooſe husbands and wives and Maſters and ſervants for all the people: Nor can we commit that truſt (for the choice of our Religion or Church) to others ſtatedly, which Gods Word and Nature have bound us to uſe our ſelves. Or if ſuch miſchooſe for us, they diſoblige us from accepting their choice. I am ſure the Papiſts think not that they chooſe Parliament men to chooſe a Church for them: Nor would the Prelatiſts think ſo, if the Parliament ſhould prove Presbyterian, Independent, Anabaptiſts, or Papiſts.
3. The Dioceſe doth not ſignifie Conſent to a Church relation, by the Churchwardens or accuſed perſons coming to the Chancellors or Biſhops Courts. For 1. It is but a ſmall number comparatively that do ſo. 2. They are compelled, and are well known to come full ſorely againſt their wills: They are undone if they refuſe: And ſubmiſſion and patience, are not ſubjection nor conſent. 3. They moſt commonly profeſs to come to theſe Courts in obedience to the King, and as they are empowered by him, and ſtrengthened by his ſword: And not at all as Church-Paſtors empowered by Chriſt: For who taketh the Chancellor to be ſuch?
4. The appearance of the Clergy at the Biſhops Viſitation, and their Conformity, is no proof of the peoples conſent. For the Miniſters are diſtinct perſons, and have a diſtinct intereſt, and are no way empowered to ſignifie the peoples conſent.
5. Yea, they ſhew their diſſent, 1. By being ſo backward to be made Church-wardens: 2. So backward to take their Oaths: 3. So backward to preſent: 4. So backward to appear at their Courts. 5. Doing it on a civil account as obeying the Kings Officers. 6. So few of them ever coming to a Biſhop to be inſtructed, reſolved, yea or for the ceremony of Confirmation.
So that the people can never be proved to conſent to a Dioceſane Church State.
And if they had, that is not the ſame as a conſent to a Congregational or Pariſh Church State.
3. The ſame I need not ſay over again as to the Dioceſane Biſhop, Chancellor and Archdeacon: They conſent to the Pariſh Miniſters where they are tolerable, by word or daily attendance in Gods worſhip: But I know England ſo well as that I know that as they never chooſe their Biſhops, or Chancellors, (but the King chooſeth them, and a Dean and a few Prebends pro forma conſent) ſo they are never called to expreſs their conſent, nor do any conſiderable part of the Dioceſe uſually conſent indeed; ſome never mind ſuch matters: others ſay, the King may put in whom he will; it is no act of theirs: others had rather have a good one than a bad one, but had rather yet have none at all, eſpecially of late ſince ſo many hundred Miniſters are ſilenced. And ſome would have Biſhops to ſilence the Miniſters, and ſome are for them on a better account. But it's no conſiderable part of the Dioceſe that ſignifieth Conſent. And as for the formal demand to the ſtanders by at the Conſecration, whether any of them have any thing againſt the Biſhop, it's a ceremony fitter for a ſtage, than to come here into an Argument.
4. And as for the Biſhops and Chancellors relation to the People, when it wants the word of God, and his conſent, and the peoples conſent, and hath but the Kings collation, the Deans and Chapters formal conſent, and the Prelates and Conformiſt Miniſters conſent, I may well conclude that here is not the ſame Fundamentum as is of the Parochial and Paſtors Church relation.
IV. And where there is not the ſame Relate and Correlate, there is not the ſame Relation. But a Parochial Church and Paſtor, and a Dioceſane Church and Paſtor, are not the ſame Relate and Correlate. Ergo.
If they be, let them become Parochial Biſhops and be ſtill the ſame. But what I have ſaid of the difference of Ends and Foundations proveth this; a Combination of Chriſtians into one Church primi ordinis for perſonal Communion, is not the ſame with a Combination of Congregations for Communion mental or by delegates only. And ſo of the Biſhops of theſe ſeveral Churches.
V. If a Congregational Church or Paſtor be of the ſame ſpecies with our Dioceſane Churches and Prelates, then a Church that extendeth through all the Kingdom, yea to many Kingdoms, yea to the Eaſt and Weſt Indies or Antipodes may be of the ſame ſpecies alſo (and ſo its Paſtor.) And ſo the Pope and his Church may be of the ſame, (as to the magnitude) But the conſequent is falſe: Ergo, ſo is the antecedent.
The conſequence in the Major is evident, becauſe there is eadem ratio; For their reaſon of denominating a Church One is becauſe it hath One Biſhop; and by their Principles there may be one Biſhop to a Province, to a Kingdom, to an Empire, to the World.
When all the ſubordinate Biſhopricks were taken down to make up this Dioceſane Church of Lincoln which I live in, the Church was One, which before was many. And if all the Biſhops were taken down except the two Archbiſhops, the two remaining Churches I confeſs would be of the ſame ſpecies with a Dioceſe. Yea, if there were but One Church and Biſhop in the Land. And why might not all Europe on theſe terms make one particular Church? If you ſay, Becauſe they are not under one King, I anſwer, 1. That's no reaſon: A King is a Civil extrinſick Accidental head of a Church as a Church; and not a Conſtitutive Head: But a Biſhop is an Intrinſecal, Eccleſiaſtical Conſtitutive head, without whom it is no Church (unleſs equivocally.) 2. Ten Kings may agree to give way to One Biſhop in all their Kingdoms (as they have done to the Papcy.) 3. The Roman Empire was bigger than Europe: Why then might not that have been one only Church of the ſame Species with a Dioceſe?
If they ſay that it is becauſe one man is not capable of doing the work of a Biſhop for ſo many Countreys. I Anſwer, Per ſe, he cannot do it for the hundredth part of a Dioceſe: Per alios he may do it for all Europe: It is but appointing ſome who ſhall appoint others, who ſhall appoint others, (and ſo to the end of the chapter) to do it. There is but one Abuna in Abaſſia to Ordain, (though numerous Biſhops, who have not the Generative faculty; which Epiphanius makes to be the difference between a Biſhop and a Presbyter, that the one begets Fathers and the other but Sons: Their Countrey was converted by an Eunuch.) It would be a notable diſpute whether all the reſt be true Biſhops or not (I think Yea; the Prelatiſts muſt think Nay.) And yet Brierwood ſaith that Abaſſia (after all its great diminutions) is as big as Italy, France, Spain, and Germany. And doth not the Pope govern per alios yet far more, and pretend to govern the whole Chriſtian World? while he ſendeth one to Goa, another to Mexico, (and Oviedo to Abaſſia, would they but have received him.)
Obj. But he hath other Biſhops under him, therefore he is not ejuſdem ſpeciei as a Dioceſe. Anſw. But the Abuna hath no Ordainers under him. And the Biſhop hath Chancellors, Deans, Arch-deacons, Surrogates, Officials, and ſometimes in the days of old had Suffragans too, under him. (Queſt. Was a Dioceſe then, One Church, or two?) And what if a Patriarch or Pope put down all Biſhops under him, and exerciſe his power only by other ſorts of officers? (They that can demiſe, grant, let, what parts they pleaſe of their own office, may deviſe enow.)
And ſeeing it would not alter the ſpecies, what if it ſhould pleaſe the King and Parliament to put down all the Biſhops of England ſave One? I hope the Biſhops would not take that to be againſt the Canon of 1640. nor againſt the Oxford Oath [of never endeavouring to Conſent or Alter the Church Covernment] (if it could have been paſt to be taken by the Parliament) Becauſe the ſpecies is not altered: And they tell us Nonconformiſts to draw us to Swear, that they mean but the ſpecies. I make no doubt but at the rates of our preſent Ordinations, One Biſhop or Abuna with Chaplains enow, may Ordain Prieſts enow, (and too many of all conſcience) for all the Kings Dominions; and may ſilence preachers enow, and may ſet up Chancellors, Surrogates, and Arch-deacons enow to do the preſent work. And it's pity that the land ſhould be troubled with ſo many when one would ſerve. I confeſs I would either have more or fewer had I my wiſh.
And as for my Minor propoſition, let him that thinketh it wanteth proof, when he hath conſidered what is beforeſaid, and how perſonal preſent Communion in all Gods Church-worſhip, differeth from the Communion of aſſociated Congregations by meſſengers, &c. think ſo ſtill, if he be able ſo egregiouſly to err.
But I muſt not ſo leave our Prelatiſts. I know that it is the common trick of Sophiſters, when they cannot make good an ill cauſe, to carry it into the dark, or ſtart a new controverſie, and then they are ſafe. A Papiſt will wheel about into the wilderneſs or thickets of Church hiſtory, and ask you what names you can give of your Religion in all Ages, that one propoſition of your Syllogiſm may contain much of a Horſe load or a Cart load of Books, and then I trow he hath done his work, if women be the judges. And others uſe to carry the queſtion a rebus ad verba: And ſo it is in the caſe in hand. But it is not the name of a SPECIES that ſhall ſerve your turn. We know how hard it is in Phyſicks, to determine what it is that ſpecifieth; and much more in Morals, Politicks and other Relatives. But Let the Logical notion of a ſpecies lie at your mercy: It ſhall ſuffice us, that you may not make ſo great a change of the Church-orders and Government of Gods inſtitution, as to turn a thouſand or hundred Churches into one; and to deprive all Pariſhes or Churches Conſociate for preſential Communion, of the priviledge of having a Biſhop of their own to Teach, Worſhip, and Govern them preſentially and per ſe. As if all the Arch-biſhops in the Ronan Empire had put down all the Biſhops, and called themſelves the Biſhops of the Churches. Of which more anon.