The Government of the Universal Church is One. According to St. Cyprian who understood this matter perfectly there is but One Episâ—â—â—acy And this is possess'd by the Bishops in such a manner that they are all legally One and every one of them is vertually all But both these Propositions may require some Explication 1. All the Bishops of the Universal Church are Legally One That is as a College in Law is One Person so they being a College in the Sense of the Ancients are One also They 〈◊〉 the Person of Christ and if Christ be not divided neither are they They are not divided I mean so far as they act according to his Will and the Rules of their Order But I meddle not with the particular Faults of any nor am I accountable for their irregularities 2. Every Bishop is vertually all or hath vertually the power of the whole Episcopal Order And so United he is with the other Bishops in the Administration of the Government that what he does in several Cases which I shall mention is as Obligatory to all the rest and of as much force as if it had been done by their actual Consent and Approbation For Example 1. A Bishop Ordaining Presbyters does it as effectually as if all other Bishops had assisted at it and his Act is as Obligatory to them all For the Persons so Ordain'd do not part with their Office when they change Climates but ought to be receiv'd in all Churches as bearing the same Character and be employ'd accordinly if there be occasion in the Work of their Ministry without a new Imposition of Hands This I know is contrary to the Opinion of some of your Brethren who are persuaded that a Minister is only so to his own Congregation and that if he Preaches to another he doth it not as a Pastor but as a Gifted Man And consequently if he takes a new Charge upon him he must have a new Ordination and this I consess is agreeable enough to their own System For their Minister being a Creature of their own and claiming his 〈◊〉 to the Ministry from their Election of him and upon such Terms as they prescrib'd to him all the supposed vertue of that Choice must cease when he is gone from them and cannot bind another Congregation that hath no dependence on them But how ever this is suitable to thâ—â—â— own Principles it hath no Ground in Scripture or the Practice of Antiquity Amongst the Hereticks indeed in Tertullian's time there was something like it for with them a Person was the Day a Priest and the next a Laymâ—â— But in the Church the standing Officers were so for Life 〈◊〉 in all places kept their Station unless they were Depos'd for their Crimes or advanced to a higher Dignity The Words of a Judiâ—ious Nonconfor mist which I shall here cite are very pertinent to my purpose If a Minister says he be only so to his own Congregation and not in other Churches Then are not the Churches of God One nor the Ministry One nor the Flock which they feed One nor the Communion One which they had each with others And I add That if a Minister as such be related to the Catholick Church if he may be remov'd from one part of it and take on him the peculiar charge of another without a new Ordination as the Presbyterians generally asseâ—â— Then are the Churches One the Ministry One the Flock which they feed One and the Communion is One as that of a Visible and Political Society 2. If a Bishop or other Minister appointed by him confers Baptism on Persons fit to receive it it is as effectual every where as if all the Spiritual Pasters upon Earth had concurr'd in that Act. It is that One Baptism which never ought to be repeated nor is there any need that it should for the â—ame being every where of the same vertue it both qualifies us alike in all places for Christian Communion and gives us a Right to demand it in any part of the World But of this more hereafter 3. When a Bishop Excommunicates Oftenders they are thereby cut off from the Communion of the whole Church We have been told by a Dissenter That whosoever will erect a Stated National Governing Church in England 〈◊〉 find us an Officer cloathed with Authority to Excommunicate from Michael ' s â—Mount in Cornwall to Carlile and Berwick But there is no need of such a Discovery to prove more than he demands To prove the Vnity of the Catholick Church it is enough that when a Bishop Excommunicates any Criminals of his own Diocese the Effect of his Sentence reaches every where and at the greatest distance it is Obligatory to his Collegues who being duly inform'd of it are â—o regulate their Practice by it and not admit those to Communion whom he hath Expell'd from it unless it be by his Câ—â—â—ent either expresly given or vertually contain'd in 〈…〉 of the Church And anciently it was a great part of the Business oâ— Episcopal Letters to declare what Offenders were Excommunicate that they might every where be avoided or treated as Persons that were Ejected out of the Christian Society This way of proceeding with them is a plain Argument that in the sense of these times Ecclesiastical Government was One however the Administration of it was in many Hands And it is also agreeable to the Holy Scripture which will not suffer us to believe that they who are cut off from the Body of Christ in one Country are Members of it in another They can gain no such Advantage by shifting Places Nor can it be thought that they are kept bound and loos'd on Earthâ— unless they may be Absolv'd and Condemn'd in Heaven at the same time 4. It follows that when a Bishop Absolves the Offenders of his Diocese from the Ecclesiastical Censures under which he had put them he thereby restâ—â—es them to the Peace of the Universal Church Thus it was generally thought 〈◊〉 the Primitive times and the Persons to Absolv'd having obtain'd from their Bishop his Communicatory Letters were then as much qualified for full Communion in Worship with other Christians in all parts of the World as if they had 〈◊〉 been Condemn'd All other Bishops to whom they apply'd themselves were obliged to râ—â—â—â—ve them into the Number of the Faithful and to act by the Sentence of 〈◊〉 Collegue as if it had been their own And this they did sometimes and thought it expedient when they were not well satisfied with his Proceedings 'T is true the Sentence of a Bishop either for Condemnation or Absolution might be revers'd or declared void by a Synod and it was fit that it should if it was Unjust or sometimes if it was only Irregular If it was otherwise he might withdraw it or he concluded by the Votes of the Synod and it was â—â—ch better in such Cases that One should submit to the
any thing that can make it innocent 1. We are therefore to enquire in the first place whether your Separation before you Conform'd was not Sinful and this may easily be resolv'd for it is clear from what went before that it was causeless and consequently Schismatical Perhaps it may be objected That many of you had never been Members of the Church of England and therefore could not be Deserters of it But to this I reply That if you only joyn'd with the Society that made the Revolt from it you were Partakers in the Offence They that went before you were as a corrupt Fountain and you 〈◊〉 the Streams that issued from it and the fame malignant Quality hath tainted both The Conformists in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth might say of the Brownists or your first Separatists as St. Cyprian did of the Novatians We departed not from them but they departed from us And to you that by Education were brought into the Community of those that Divided the Church we may say as Optatas did to the Donatists Your Ancestors committed that Crime and you labour to walk in their wicked Steps that what your Predecessors had done in the matter of Schism you may appear long since to have acted and still to act They in their Days did break the Peace and you do now banish Vnity To your Parents and your selves these Words may fitly be applied If the Blind lead the Blind they both fell into the Ditch When Manasses the Brother of Jaddus withdrew himself from Jerusalem and officiated as High-priest in the Temple as Garizin which was Built for him by Sanbaâ—et both he and they of his own Nation that concur'd with him acted what was highly criminal But the Matter did not â—â—st here for their Posterity grievously offended in keeping up the Defection which their Predecessors had begun and their Cause was condemn'd upon a fair Tryal before Ptolemaeus Philometer And thus not only they that are first in a Schism but their Followers and such as come into it in succeeding times contract the guilt of it The new Members that are added to the former Schismaticks are together with them of One Body as they that from time to time are added to the Church are of another One thing on which the Dispute between the Advocates for the Temple at Jerusalem and for that at Garizin did mainly turn was the Question on which side was the Ancient Succession of Priests but this was easily determin'd for the former And now if the whole Issue of the Controversiae between the Conformists and Dissenters were put upon this Whether of them have the best Title to a Succession of Lawful Pastors it would not be difficult to decide it For you grant I suppose and it is otherwise evident that such a Succession is continued with us But it appears from what has been said that in your way of Separation you neither had nor can have any such thing Indeed many of the Separatists had Episeopal Ordination but some of them renounced it and as in Mockery Ordain'd one another Others made no such Abdication as the former yet withdrawing themselves from their Bishops they exercis'd their Office in such a manner as is directly against their own Solemn Promise and Sacramental Engagement But none of them had power to constitute other Presbyters or in the Language of Epiphanius to give Fathers to the Church As for the rest of your Teachers they are meer Laymen and act under a false Character in Matters of the highest importance to the Souls of Men. So that you could be Followers of none of the Dissenting Guides without Schism and a breach of Obedience where it was due but with some of them you could not Communicate without bearing a part in their Impostures 2. If your former Separation was Sinful your Return to it must be Sinful also It must be so in a higher degree because a Relapse into Sin after Reformation is a greater Offence than the first Commission of it It had been better therefore that you had not known the way of Peace than after you had experience of it to forsake it Better that you had not come into the Unity of the Church than to break it again You are now become more inexcusable than you were before and thus far your latter end is worse than your beginning 3. If your Separation was otherwise Sinful the Law hath not alter'd 〈◊〉 Case or done any thing that can makâ—â— it Innocent I need say nothing of the Toleration which was granted to you by the Dispensing Power and drew you into the Snare For I suppose you ground your present Liberty on the Act of Parliament But if you 〈◊〉 not within the Intent of that Act it leaves you where it found you and can aâ—ford nothing for your Justification The Act it self will best satisfie you of this and upon perusal of it you will find that it was only design'd to give ease to Tender Consciences but yours are not of that Number Indeed we cannot penetrate into your Hearts but Charity obliges us to believe that you did not come to our Churches with Doubts and Fears upon you that your Conformity was unlawful but were generally well assur'd that it was consistent with your Duty and agreeable to the Holy Scriptures But this is the very thing which cuts you off from the Indulgence which you claim by the Law That being design'd only for Perâ—â—ns of another Character But what hath the Law done for the Scrupulous Hath it approv'd their several ways or set them all in the right That cannot be for they are inconsistent and contradict one another It only tolerates them and we may tolerate Pain and Sickness and other Evils from which we have a great aversion But they remain Evils still and so must Church-Divisions under any Dispensation whatsoever The Law says this for the Scrupulous that upon the Conditions to be performed by them they shall not be liable to any Pains Penalties or Forfeitures laid on them by some former Acts nor shall they be Prosecuted in any Ecclesiastical Court for their Nonconforming to the Church of England But this can never justifie their Nonconformity For if the Punishments against profaning the Lord's Day and common Swearing and other things of that Nature were taken off they would still be criminal as they were before and the like may be said of Schism As long as it is condemn'd in Scripture no humane Allowance or Permission can make it Lawful If Heresie and Schism were enjoyn'd by a Law which is more than an Allowance or Toleration of them they would not be freed from their Malignity or cease to be Sinful But to the Imposers of things so contrary to Divine Revelation and Institution we should have reason to say Whether it be right in the Sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God judge ye I am far from derogating from the Authority of
he is a Stranger as well as if he were a Native of it From hence it follows that both Strangers and Natives are alike of the same Political Body And this reasoning must be good if Aristotle had the true Notion of a City who is generally allow'd to write of such things with great exactness What hath been said sufficiently shews how the Catholick Church however dispers'd is One But it will appear with the greater force If you please to compare it with the Case of Independent and Separate Societies in which you find nothing like it You may bear Office in one of these Societies but have no Title to it nor have any of your Acts esteem'd valid in another You may be Members of one and justly excluded from another You may enjoy the Priviledges of one and want those of another You may be banish'd from one and made Denizons of another Acts of State bind only the Subjects of the State and oblige not Forreigners that are under another Dominion But this demonstrates the Vnity of the Catholick Church that what is done by one Governour or Bishop is valid amongst all the rest and taht a private Christian who hath an Obligation on him and a Right to an actual and full Communion with a particular Church hath the like with all other Churches where he happens to reside Having prov'd that the Vniversal Church is One Body I shall only add what gives us great encouragement to preserve the Unity of it and affords us a most delightful Contemplation that it is now the same Body that it was from the Beginning For as a City may remain the same for a Thousand Years or even to the End of the World and is therefore said by some Ancient Writers to be Immortal So is the Church the same that it was from the first Foundation of it And from hence it is that if we Communicate with those who derive their Ministry by Succession from the Apostles and with such Professors of Christianity as adhere to that Ministry we do it vertually or by Interpretation with the Apostles themselves and with the Saints Confessors and Martyrs that rest from their Labours and are now in Happiness waiting for a Glorious Resurrection To this effect Tertullian says That from the Apostolical Churches all other Churches borrowed the Branch of Faith and Seeds of Doctrine and from them it is daily that Churches become such and so are esteem'd Apostolical as being the Off-spring of the Apostolical Churches Every thing must be reckon'd with its Original and therefore so many Great Churches are as the One First Church constituted by the Apostles and from which all are descended So all are First and Apostolical whilst they alike approve the Vnity Whilst there is amongst them the Communication of Peace the Title of Brotherhood the Covenant of Hospitality the Rights of which nothing preserves but the Tradition of the same Sacrament or Mystery But this is not all For being in Communion with the Apostles we are so with the Father and the Son That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you says St. John that you also may have Fellowship with us and truly our Fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ The Father will take care of us as his Peculiar People and the Son will Influence and Govern us as our Head a Head that hath such a Tenderness for his Church that he is represented in Scripture as making up One Person with it For says the Apostle as the Body is One and hath many Members and all the Members of that One Body being many are One Body So also is Christ And being of his Church we are assur'd that he will nourish and cherish us as Members of his Body of his Flesh and of his Bones SECT II. VVE have seen that all Christians ought to be United in Faith Love and in Outward Worship and Communion And if you grant this you must also acknowledge that a Breach of Union in any of these things where-ever the fault is must needs be sinful For it is plain I. That if there be but One Faith delivered to the Saints for which they must earnestly contend they grievously offend who add New Articles to it or take away from it such as are already reveald or otherwise deprave it by a mixture of Falshood And so far as they do so we ought to depart from them and not betray or deny the Truth in compliance with them II. If all the Faithful must be firmly link'd together in Love this must condemn all Discord and Malice all Envying and Strife amongst them as being directly against the Spirit of Charity And indeed where these things are there is Confusion and every Evil Work III. If all the Faithful are obliged to live in Outward Communion as Visible Members of the same Body then such a Division in the Body as is a Breach of that Communion must be Criminal a thing I know that many of you are unwilling to hear of But Mr. Baxter has suggested a reason of it which I hope does not reach you all Whence is it says he but for want of Self-denial that Men that know that Whoredom and Drunkenness and These are Sins can be ignorant in the midst of Light that Discord and Church-Divisions are Sins And that they hear him with Heart-rising Enmity or Suspicion that doth declaim against them As if Vniting were become the Work of Satan and Dividing were become the Work of Christ These Words I would recommend to your serious Thoughts and being now come to that which is the chief Subject of our Debate I desire you sincerely to consider that not only Modern Writers but the Fathers who were no Parties in our present Controversies speak of Schism as a most horrid Crime St. Optatus mentions it as a mighty Wickedness and argues that it is worse than Murder and Idolatry And St. Chrysostom affirms That nothing equally provokes God as the Division of his Church He makes it equal to the Crucifying of Christ Which he says was for the good of the World however not intended but this continues he affords no Benefit but the greatest Mischief To mention no more at this time St. Irenaeus says That God will judge the Schismaticks who having not the Love of God but being intent on their own Profit rather than the Peace of the Church for small Matters or for any divide the Great and Glorious Body of Christ and do what in them lies to kill it speaking Peace but making War straining indeed at a Gnat and swallowing a Camel You need not think it strange that these Excellent Men who had seen the sad Effects of Church-Divisions express'd such an Abhorrence of them St. Paul himself reckons Seditions and Heresies with Adultery Fornication Vncleanness Lasciviousness Idolatry Withchcraft and other Works of the Flesh of which he says That they that practise such
thing for which they contend that Calvin himself who was the Father of their Discipline could find in it no such Matter For he thought that Presbytery here signifies the Office of a Presbyter and then the meaning would be that Timothy should not neglect but be careful to exercise that Presbyterial Office or Power which was committed to him by Laying on of Hands So that if the greatest Patron of Presbytery and one that had Sagacity enough to discover what might be advantagious to it was not mistaken this Passage of Scripture affords it no support Mr. Selden favours the Interpretation of Calvin and confirms it with Citations from the Story of Susanna from Josephus from Eusebius and from the Council of Ancyra Yet remaining something doubtful of the true meaning of the Word he censures those who from this single place of the New Testament and that of an Vncertain Reading and Sense form'd such strange Notions of the Jurisdiction of a Christian Presbytery as if it had been then founded on a Divine Institution Nevertheless let us suppose that by the Presbytery we are to understand the Persons that did bear the Office we are not certain from the Expression it self who are here intended by it For it is a Name of Dignity not always taken in its limited Sense but sometimes attributed to Ecclesiastical Officers of the highest Rank St. John twice calls himself a Presbyter in his Epistles and St. Peter assumes the same Title where he says The Elders which are among you I exhort who am also an Elder And now the Question is Whether the Supream or Inferiour Presbyters Ordained Timothy That is Whether they did it who had power to Ordain him or they who as far as we can find never had any such Authority And this I think admits of an easie Resolution We do not find in Scripture that to mere Presbyters any such Authority was ever committed nor are there any Footsteps of it in Antiquity But if they must be thought to have quitted it presently after the Apostles Days there were never Men that at such a vast distance of place so Universally and all on a suddain conspir'd to degrade themselves and to yield up their Rights tamely without any Complaint Yet with so much Artifice must they be imagin'd to have betray'd their Trust and cover'd their Shame that no Discovery was made of it for Fifteen Hundred Years We hear of no claim of any such Power made by any Presbyters before the Fourth Century when Aerius and others oppos'd Episcopacy But they were expell'd from the Churches and could no where gain an Establishment nor are they of such a Character as may give Reputation to any Cause Yet if mere Presbyters might Constiture others of their own Character it doth not follow that they could Ordain Timothy who was a Bishop and had Jurisdiction over them as I have shew'd in another place They could not give what they never had nor communicate a Power which they had never receiv'd Thus the Fathers argue in the case And on another occasion Salmasius himself asserts That such reasoning is good concerning the Conveyance of an Authority which is of Divine Institution as that is which is now in question The Dissenters I know contend that Timothy was not a Bishop but an Evangelist and Evangelists say they were Extraordinary Officers they were Companions of the Apostles and of a higher Rank than Pastors But if this be admitted doth it at all mend the matter Who ever saw or read says Salmasius that they who were to have Extraordinary Power were delegated by those who had no more than Ordinary Can you imagine that mere Presbyters can Ordain an Evangelist whose Office was so much Exalted above their own Can you really believe when there is no Revelation for it no Ground for any such thing that the Private Ministers of a Congregation appointed Collegues for the Apostles Surely it is more probable at least if it could not otherwise be discover'd that the Apostles made choice of their own Fellow-Labourers to whom as there was opportunity they committed the Government of the Churches Yet to prevent all câ—villing as much as possible let us suppose what I do not grant That the Persons in the Text were mere Presbyters it does not prove that others who at this time assume that Title have the Power of Ordaining Presbyters and if they attempt it there is nothing in the Text that may be for their Vindication To make this appear 1. It is to be observ'd that St. Paul himself Ordain'd Timothy and says to him on that occasion I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the Gift of God which is in thee by the putting on of my Hands And if he condescended to call to his assistance some Inferiour Officers for the greater Solemnity of the Action it does not follow that they could do it of themselves without him and much less that they could do it in opposition to him or any other that should be in the same Station 2. If mere Presbyters had the Power of Ordination when they are suppos'd to have confer'd it on Timothy it may well be thought to have been some Personal Priviledge which died with them for we find no marks of it in succeeding Times St. Jerome who of all the Fathers is the greatest Favourite of the Presbyterians says That originally a Presbyter was the same as a Bishop and that at first the Churches were govern'd by the Common Council of Priests till by the Instigation of the Devil Divisions did arise and one said I am of Paul and another said I am of Apollos or I of Cephas and then it was decreed all over the World That one chosen out of the Presbytery should be placed over the rest that to him the whole Care of the Church might be committed and so the Seeds of Schism be extirpated And if he has truly related the Matter this Change must have been made when many of the Apostles were alive and transacted by themselves And we need not doubt but when the New Prelates were Constituted they were Distinguish'd from all Inferiour Officers by the Power of Ordination Certain it is that afterwards this Power was every where thought peculiar to the Bishops and when they had been in possession of it much above a Thousand Years common Equity requires that we should judge them to have had it by Right unless the contrary do appear But there is no Ground to believe that they were Usurpers of it No probability that they would ingross it to themselves especially in the early Times when they were generally such Mighty Instances of Humility and Meekness of Patience and Self-denial There is not the least Complaint leâ—t us of any such thing nor is it at all credible that they should so universally attempt it or if they did that they should have the same success in all the Churches upon Earth It follows