The Remains of John Corbet, Section 7 – Section 8
§ 7. Of the preſent Dioceſan Biſhop.
A Dioceſan Biſhop according to the hierarchical ſtate, is a Biſhop of the loweſt degree, having under him Pariſh-Miniſters that are Presbyters or Prieſts, but not accounted Biſhops, and by divine right claiming to himſelf alone the Epiſcopal Authority over all the Pariſh Churches and Miniſters within his Dioceſs, which may contain a hundred, two hundred, five hundred, or a thouſand pariſhes: For an Epiſcopacy of this kind I diſcern no Scripture-Warrant nor Divine Right.
Every particular Church ſhould have its proper paſtor or Biſhop, and particular Churches with their proper paſtors are ſo evidently of divine right, that ſome eminently learned men in the Church of England have declared their judgment that no form of Church-Government beſides the mere paſtoral office and Church-Aſſemblies, is preſcribed in the Word of God, but may be various according to the various condition and occaſion of ſeveral Churches.
But if it be ſaid that parochial Congregations are not Churches but only parts of the Dioceſs, which is the loweſt political Church, I deſire proof from Scripture, that ſuch Congregations as our pariſhes having their proper presbyter or presbyters inveſted with the power of the keys, are not Churches properly ſo called. The reaſon of demanding this proof is, becauſe the Scripture is a perfect rule for the eſſential conſtitution of Churches, though the accidents thereto belonging may be regulated by humane prudence. And it is moſt evident in Scripture, that a particular congregation of Chriſtians having their proper paſtor or paſtors, preſbyter or presbyters, are Churches properly ſo called, and a parochial Miniſter I conceive to be a paſtor, presbyter, or elder, according to the Scripture.
Moreover if a Dioceſs containing many hundred, or perhaps a thouſand pariſhes (as it doth in England) do conſtitute but one particular Church, and the pariſhes be not properly to be accounted Churches, but only ſo many parts of that one dioceſan Church, why may not ten thouſand, yea, ten times ten thouſand pariſhes be likewiſe accounted but one particular church, and brought under one man as the ſole biſhop or paſtor thereof?
Nor do I diſcern how it is poſſible for one man to do the work of a biſhop towards ſo many pariſhes, which is to overſee all the flock, to preach to them all, to baptize and confirm all that are to be baptized and confirmed, to adminiſter the Lords Supper to all, to bleſs the congregation, publickly and privately to admoniſh all as their need requires, to excommunicate the impenitent, to abſolve the penitent, and that upon knowledg of their particular eſtate: for all theſe are paſtoral or epiſcopal acts. And let it here be noted, that I ſpeak of the work of a biſhop infimi gradus, or under whom there are no ſubordinate biſhops.
If ſuch a Dioceſan biſhop ſaith, it ſufficeth that he perform all this to the flock by others, namely, by the pariſh miniſters as his Curates, and by other officers his ſubſtitutes: It is anſwered, 1. The paſtoral Authority is a perſonal truſt. 2. He is to ſhew his commiſſion from Chriſt the prince of paſtors, to do his work by others; for I am now enquiring what is of divine, and not of humane Right. 3. None but a biſhop can do the proper work of a biſhop; and conſequently, the presbyters by whom the Dioceſan doth his work, either are biſhops, or their act is an uſurpation and a nullity.
It is matter of divine Right only that is here conſidered. As for the humane Rights of a Dioceſan biſhop, to wit, his dignity, and his juriſdiction under the King as Supreme, and to which he is intituled by the Law of the Land, I intermeddle not therewith.
§ 8. Of a Biſhop or Biſhops.
THE Divine Right of a biſhop infimi gradus, Ruling over many churches as their ſole hiſhop or paſtor, hath been conſidered; and now it is to be conſidered, Whether there be of divine inſtitution, ſuch a ſpiritual officer as hath the overſight of Biſhops, or is a Biſhop of Biſhops. The Dioceſan Biſhop is really of this kind, tho he will not own it; for he is a biſhop of Presbyters, who are really biſhops, if they be that kind of Presbyters that the Scripture mentions. But if the Presbyters, which in the hierarchical ſtate are ſubject to the Dioceſan Biſhop, be of another kind, they are not of Chriſts inſtitution.
What hath been already ſaid againſt the Epiſcopacy of a biſhop infimi gradus over many Churches, makes not againſt the right of an overſeer of other biſhops, ſuch as Titus muſt needs be, if he were indeed biſhop of Crete, which contained a hundred Cities, and where biſhops or elders were ordained in every City: If either Scripture or Prudence guided by Scripture, be for ſuch an office, I oppoſe it not.
Now a biſhop of biſhops may be taken in a twofold notion, either for one of a higher order; that is to ſay, of an office ſpecifically different from the ſubordinate biſhops, or for one of a higher degree only in the ſame order. I ſuppoſe our Archbiſhops of Provinces do not own the former notion of a biſhop of biſhops, but the latter only. But the biſhop of a Dioceſs is de facto that which the Archbiſhop of a Province doth not own, namely, a biſhop of biſhops in a different order from the Presbyters of his Dioceſs, who have been already proved from Scripture to be biſhops.
Hereupon the preſent inquiry is, Whether the Word of God doth warrant the office of a biſhop of biſhops in either of the ſaid notions. And in this inquiry I ſhall conſider what kind of Government the Apoſtles had over the Paſtors or Elders of particular Churches 2. The Epiſcopacy of Timothy and Titus much alledged by the Hierarchical Divines. 3. The preeminence of the Angels of the ſeven Churches of Aſia…, Apoc. 1. and 2.