§ I Separation of Churches FROM EPISCOPAL GOVERNMENT, As practised by the present Non-Conformists, PROVED SCHISMATICAL From such Principles as are least controverted, and do withal most popularly explain The Sinfulness and Mischief OF SCHISM. In this Treatise The Sin against the Holy Ghost, the Sin unto Death, and other difficult Scriptures are occasionally discoursed of, and some useful Rules are given for EXPLICATION of SCRIPTURE.  
By HENRY DODWELL, M.A. and sometimes Fellow of Trinity-College near Dublin in Ireland.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Ign. Ep. ad Ephes. p. 20. Edit. Voss. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Clem. Ep. ad Corinth. §. 30. 
LONDON: Printed for Benjamin took, at the Ship in S. Paul's Churchyard. MDCLXXIX.   

THE PREFACE.  
THE interests of those many parties which, at present, keep up the Divisions of Christendom, are so highly concerned in the consequences of my present undertaking; And the generality of men are so visibly partial in disputes wherein interest is concerned, so much more inclinable to resent the severity of a conclusion that charges them with dangerous mistakes, than to think how much indeed it is their interest rather to beware of errors that may prove dangerous than to stand out in the defence of what they have once undertaken to defend, and how much it is therefore their interest to examine the premises with all possible accurateness and candour, from whence such conclusions are deduced; as that I cannot but expect some indications of the resentment of concerned Persons, though I have endeavoured that the way of management might be as unoffensive as was possible. Though my design be Peace, yet that itself is enough to alarm the Spirits of many in the contentious Age we live in, who, when they are spoken to of peace will make them ready to battle. And therefore I cannot but think myself concerned to foresee and prevent such prejudices as may hinder such who most need the informations given in the present Work, either from reading them, or from benefiting by them.  
§ TWO I MUST therefore warn my Reader in the first place that when he finds the Title promise him a Discourse concerning SCHISM, he do not understand it in the same sense as it has been considered in so many modern discourses upon that Subject between us and the Romanists. 
SCHISM not here considered as between Churches, but as between particular Members and their own Churches.  I do not here consider the question of Schism between Churches, but between Subjects separating from particular Churches and the Churches from which they separate. This is all for which my present design does concern me, and if my reasons prove, that Subjects separating from their own particular Churches for unsinful Impositions are Schismatics, I shall perform what I intended. But the same reasons will not prove a Church Schismatical for refusing impositions, though unsinful, from another Church. For I suppose all Churches originally equal, and that they have since submitted to prudential compacts, which though they may oblige them as long as the reason of those compacts last, and as far as the equity of those compacts may hold as to the true design of those that made them, and as far as those compacts have meddled only with the alienable rights of particular Churches; yet where any of these conditions fail there the particular Churches are at liberty to resume their ancient rights. And I suppose the power of judging when these condititions fail to be an unalienable right of particular Churches, and not only to judge with the judgement of private discretion, but such a judgement as may be an authentic measure of her own practice.  
§ III I DO not undertake to prove that these things are so in this discourse. I only mention them that the Reader may understand on how different Principles these two questions are to be stated; 
The Romanists can make no advantage of the Principles of this discourse to charge our Church with SCHISM.  and therefore how far it is from following, that if the Non-Conformists be Schismatics for separating from the Church of England, therefore the Church of England must be Schismatical for refusing Communion with the Church of Rome; and how far the reasons which I have here used for proving the Non-Conformists Schismatical, are from being applicable to such a case of the Church of England. I do not now insist upon those reasons which might have been produced to prove that the impositions of the Church of Rome are not unsinful, no nor innocent of so high a degree of sin as might be greater than that of a particular Church's refusing correspondence with another. The things which I have suggested plainly show that the case will prove extremely different, though we consider them barely as impositions, not as sinful impositions. And to let our Romish Adversaries know that I have already foreseen the use they would be likely to make of a discourse of this nature, and how wary I have therefore been of using any reasons that might prove more than I intended, or might hinder us from Principles sufficient for our own defence against them; I shall desire them to consult my two short Discourses published with a design to prepare the way for this Work. There they will find such principles of defence of our Church against them, which will not clash with any thing said here, which I verily believe true, and which being supposed true, I also conceive very sufficient to vindicate our Church from their imputation of SCHISM for our not communicating with them. And I know not what they can desire more who will desire no more than what is equal.  
§ IV BUT as to the main mischief of SCHISM insisted on in this discourse, the Nullity of Orders and Sacraments in the Persons guilty of separation, and the consequent Sacrilege of those who shall presume in such a case to administer the Sacraments without sufficient Authority: That they cannot charge us with, even by their own Principles, purely on the account of the separation. They cannot deny but that Bishops, even according to the design and practice of their own Church when we began our Reformation, had all that power given them by them who made them Bishops, which was requisite, not only for maintaining a Church at present, but also for maintaining a Succession in it through all succeeding generations. They had the power, not only of making other Priests who might administer the Sacraments during their own lives, but also of making other Bishops who might convey this power to others. Whoever they were that nominated the Persons, whether the People, or the Clergy, or the Prince, or the Pope; yet still they were the Bishops who performed the office of Consecration, which was that which was then thought immediately to confer the power. It was then also believed that the Orders given, and the Sacraments administered out of the Church by Persons duly Authorized by such as had power to authorise them, were valid as to the substance of the things, though uncanonical as to the Persons who performed them. This plainly appeared in their deal with the Greeks, and with all such established Churches. They did not think it necessary to reordein their Clergy when they came over to them. They cannot therefore for the same reason deny but that our first Bishops who were consecrated in their own Church had all that power given them at their Consecration, which was requisite for the Succession since continued from them. As for the pretended uncanonicalness of what they have done for maintaining this Succession, besides what might have been said to show the unobligingness of Canons in their case; besides what might have been said to show that they were performed canonically, even by the then established Canons of their own Church; besides, that that is a pretence wherein they are too much parties to be our competent Judges: However if all they said to this purpose were as true as they pretend it to be, yet they can show no such Canonical defect as themselves can, by their own Principles, judge sufficient to invalidate the whole performance.  
§ XIII AND for my part I cannot but look upon it as an Argument that God never intended to oblige particular Churches to as great a dependence on other Churches as that is wherein he has obliged Subjects to depend on their own Churches, because by his contrivance of things it does not follow that separating Churches must be left as destitute of the ordinary means of salvation upon their separation from other Churches, as it has appeared, from our Principles, that particular Subjects are, upon their separation from their own Churches. It rather appears, that abating what obligations they have brought upon themselves by their own compacts, God has made them equal, when he has contrived no obligation in interest to make one yield rather than the other. There is no way of judging who is in the right but by the intrinsic merit of the cause, nor is there any presumption in favour of a particular Church to presume the cause right because it is hers. So that there remains no way of deciding such differences but that which is necessary and very proper for those who are exactly equal. And for my part I do really believe that the true original design of those compacts whereby particular Churches have voluntarily submitted to restrictions of their original power, was only that every particular Church might have her censures confirmed in all other Churches in reference to those who were originally her own Subjects; not to gain a power over any other Subjects but her own; nor to submit to any other power any farther than was requisite to oblige her to observe the same equity to them, which, whatever it may do in that Community of Churches which may be enabled, by such compacts, to maintain a mutual correspondence; yet cannot in any equity be so expounded as to make her absolutely subject to any particular Church of that Community.  
§ VI IN managing therefore this charge of SCHISM in the sense now explained, I have indeed insisted on such Principles which may seem something strange and surprising to the Age we live in, but certainly much more likely to give light to the Subject than any I know of promoted by any other, 
The advantages of the particular way of management of this discourse.  and withal much more consonant to the sentiments of Catholic Antiquity. To show that they are more agreeable to the sense of Catholic Antiquity is to be the Subject of my Second Historical Part. That they are peculiarly fitted to give light to this Subject above any other Hypothesis hitherto promoted, I have shown in the last Chapter of this, whither the Reader may have recourse who desires before his reading of the whole, to have a short account of the peculiar advantages of these Principles. Besides to facilitate his understanding of what is there said, and withal to let him understand in short a Summary of the whole design, and the accurateness of the way by which I have endeavoured to manage it; I have prefixed a short account of it digested into the several Propositions whereof it consists, and ranked in the natural order wherein they follow each other with references also to the Chapters where they are particularly proved. And if any desire to know in short what Topics are insisted on for their proofs, those he may also find in the Contents of those Chapters immediately subjoined. This way of ordering them will be of great use both for him who has not yet read the whole Discourse to know what he is to expect in it; and for him who has to recollect what influence every particular discourse has upon the whole design. Besides it will be a great ease to the Readers of different Principles. Each of them does grant things which others deny. But by these references every one may know where to find that particular Proposition discoursed which he particularly doubts of. This may serve for those who are by all means willing to shorten their pains. Otherwise I should rather entreat him who would be willing to bestow pains on a Subject of so great importance to him, and so worthy of his pains, rather to read the whole, which will best qualify him to judge of the particulars by reason of their connexion. The reason will appear more solid and convincing, when it is found to hold good in all the train of consequences, than when it is applied only to one particular.  
§ VII AND the least that I hope the Reader will find from a candid perusal of what is here said, is that the question is of much greater importance than it is commonly conceived to be. 
The great Consequence of the present controversy.  And this is but very necessary for that multitude of wellmeaning Persons among us who go indifferently to the Church or Conventicle, according as they are affected to the Minister that officiates in either place. I will not undertake to judge how far their good meaning may go to excuse them before God, whilst they are inquisitive and desirous of conviction and cannot find it, but it is certain it cannot alter the nature of the thing. If the thing they do be a great sin, it is never the less so, because it is done with a good meaning, though it may indeed be less imputed, whilst they sincerely seek for information. The Crucifixion of our Saviour was a great sin to the Jews, though they did it ignorantly, and St. Paul calls himself the chief of sinners for having persecuted the Church, though he was conscious of having done it out of a Principle of zeal. Now if there be such a sin as SCHISM possible to be committed, I do not see how the breach on both sides can be excused from it. Either we must be guilty of it for exercising our Authority over them, if we have no just title to such Authority, or they must be guilty of it for refusing their obedience if we have. And if either side prove guilty, these men take the infallible way to make themselves accessary to the guilt, whilst they communicate with both. If our Communion be unlawful, it is certain that no personal gifts, or goodness of a particular Minister among us can excuse them for communicating with him in what they think to be unlawful. If our Communion be lawful, it will then highly concern them to think how they can excuse themselves for separating themselves from them whom they must all acknowledge to have been once their lawful Ecclesiastical Governors, when the Schisms first began; nay, for joining in opposite Communions with the professed Adversaries of such Governors, and for refusing passive as well as active obedience.  
§ VIII AND if the sin of SCHISM be so piacular and mischievous as it must be if our Principles should prove true, then certainly it will oblige them to a care of avoiding it proportionable to the danger, 
What will follow from it.  not only of the sin itself, if they should prove guilty of it, but of our discourses and reasonings, lest they may prove true. Where a great danger is likely to befall men a little probability is thought sufficient to oblige them to great caution. Though the proof should not be necessary, though it may prove very possible that the thing may be otherwise, yet if it cannot be satisfactorily answered, if it cannot be disproved, if there be not great assurance of its falsehood, men think themselves, in all prudence, obliged to keep on the securer side. The danger of the sin will oblige them to yield in all things which are confessedly not dangerous, nay, in all things that are, where the danger is not as great or as probable, though it were of sin, as this. It is no sin but prudence to fall into a less sin for to avoid a greater where both are really unavoidable. Not to say that a greater danger though on less proof is rather to be avoided than a lesser danger or greater proof, where the difference between the dangers is very considerable. And the danger lest our proofs should hold will oblige them not to venture on a thing which, if they should hold, must appear so very dangerous, but upon very good assurance that they do not conclude the thing for which they are produced.  
§ IX AND if our reasonings hold, how sad must their condition be who prove guilty of the sin of SCHISM here described? 
The mischief of the condition of Schismatics, if our Principles should prove true.  They must be guilty of disobedience to the Divine Government, which by the Principles of Government is always counted greater than the violation of any particular Laws. None of them, how momentous soever, can be of greater moment than the Legislative power itself from whence they all derive their obligation. They must be guilty of giving or abetting a Divine Authority in men to whom God has never given such Authority; nay, in opposition to all the Authority he has really established among men. They must be guilty of forging Covenants in the name of God himself, and of counterfeiting the great Seals of Heaven for the ratification of such Covenants. And what can be more Treasonable by all Principles of Government? What is more provoking and more difficultly pardonable than sins of so high presumption as these are? They must be guilty of sinning against the Holy Ghost, and unto Death, and of the sins described in the passages of the Epistle to the Hebrews, with which none do terrify the consciences of ignorant unskilful Persons more frequently than they do. They must be guilty of such sins which, as they need pardon more than any others, so they do in the nature of the things themselves more effectually cut off the offender from all hopes of pardon in an ordinary way. By being disunited from the Church he loses his Union with Christ and all the Mystical benefits consequent to that Union. He has thenceforward no title to the sufferings or merits or intercessions of Christ, or any of those other blessings which were purchased by those merits, or which may be expected from those Intercessions. He has no title to pardon of sin, to the gifts or assistances of the blessed Spirit, or to any promises of future rewards, though he should perform all others parts of his duty besides this of reuniting himself again to Christ's Mystical Body in a visible Communion. Till than there are no promises of acceptance of any Prayers, which either he may offer for himself, or others may offer for him. And how disconsolate must the condition be of such a Person? Who would not think himself obliged to use all diligence, and to yield all possible condescensions, rather than to fall into such a condition, or to continue in it?  
§ X AND if this be so, methinks all interessed Persons should rather take it kindly than be angry for being warned of a course so mischievous to themselves as well as to the public, 
What will follow from hence.  so dangerous upon spiritual as well as worldly considerations. If they should not be warned, their little apprehensions of danger would not make it less, but it would make it less remediable. They are not likely to have a better title to forgiveness of sins, or any other benefit of the Evangelical Covenant, but they are less likely to qualify themselves for a title to them. And why should they take it ill to be warned of their danger; when upon warning they may so easily avoid it, only by returning to Catholic Unity? Why should they censure us as uncharitable who force ourselves on so unwelcome an office wherein we must expect such censures, for thinking so hardly of their present condition, rather than examine our reasons whether they have not reason to think as hardly of themselves? If it should prove so, it were well they would consider that they are the Persons principally concerned in the consequences of such discourses, and then the truth will be more their interest than it is ours, and we cannot show our Charity to them better than by warning them of such truths wherein their greatest interests are so greatly concerned. If a Patient in a bodily distemper should take the Physician for his enemy for thinking him distempered, and should thereupon not only reject his Medicaments, but divert himself from all reflections on his condition, how would they think it possible that such a Patient should be cured of his distemper? I could hearty wish they would consider how exactly this agrees with their own case.  
§ XI IF they think it hard that we should think so hardly of so great Multitudes as are concerned in the consequences of the present Discourse, I confess I should think so too, 
The Objection concerning the multitudes concerned in the consequence of this Discourse. Answered.  if our hard thoughts had the least influence on the hardness of their condition. I should think it cruelty to think hardly of any one, so far I should be from excusing any hard thoughts concerning a Multitude. But if the knowledge of their danger be the most likely means to secure them from it; if more of them will come to understand their danger when they are warned of it by others, than would if they were left to the ingenuity and sagacity of their own reflections: It must be then the greatest cruelty to conceal our apprehensions of their danger as it would be in the other case to reveal them. And the greater the multitude is of them that are endangered, the more pitiable is their case, and the more obliging a tender, compassionate, truly Christian Spirit, to endeavour all he can for their relief. How can such a one who has learned the true value of Souls from what his Lord has done and suffered to save them, endure to see his Lords designs so frustrated, and such numbers of Souls fall short of those favours which were designed for them by what he had done and suffered for their Salvation? Can the danger of his Father's Life extort words from the dumb Son of Croesus? And can any Lover of the Father of Spirits keep silence, when thousands of those Spirits are in danger of perishing for want of seasonable information? To think that there are such multitudes of those who unfeignedly believe the truth of the Christian Religion who yet are destitute of the ordinary means of Salvation, required by that Religion; to think how many more are like to be engaged on the same dangerous courses in all those future generations wherein these SCHISMS may last, if they be not timely obviated; to think how many of these poor Souls neither think of any danger in the state of SCHISM, nor are sensible of the true stating of those disputes which might in all likelihood convince them how nearly they are concerned in that danger, who if they were but rightly informed and made sensible of their danger would in all likelihood receive conviction and escape the danger, at least would be more inquisitive, if they knew their present course to be indeed so dangerous, if they should prove mistaken: To think I say, on these things seriously must sure raise the zeal of him who has any zeal of God in him, or any bowels of compassion for Souls, that is indeed, who has any thing of the Spirit of Christianity. So that hitherto the multitude of them who are concerned ought rather to be an inducement than a dissuasive to a compassionate soul to let them see their danger.  
§ XII BUT if another use be made of this consideration of the multitude of those who are concerned in the consequences of this discourse, for a charge against our modesty for dissenting from so great a multitude, in thinking their condition so dangerous when they think it so secure, in pretending to any thing new that such a multitude have not discovered before us; though I know how little such an Objection becomes the Person of those who are most of all concerned to make it, who make no scruple to practise and avow this liberty of dissenting from greater multitudes than themselves, yet many other considerations may be pleaded for our defence, even in this particular also. First, the multitude though they may seem many when we confine our thoughts to the narrow extents of our own Dominions, yet are really inconsiderable in comparison of the whole Church, I do not say, only, of former Ages, but even of this also wherein we live. And what immodesty can it be to descent from a multitude when we have so much greater a multitude to confront against them? Next, this multitude itself are so disunited among themselves as that no particular party will make a multitude in comparison of the whole. And if they be united in this conclusion that their condition is not dangerous, it is not from any common principles, but purely from common interest that they are so united. It is plain that the different parties do state the question of SCHISM, and their own defence from the charge of it very differently, and are obliged to do so by the different interests of their causes. So that no one set of Principles can pretend even to the patronage of a multitude. And sure a Union in Negative conclusions without any Union in Principles to prove those conclusions, a Union not of unprejudiced Judgement, but plainly suspicious of common interest, a Union of innovaters against the concurrent sense and Principles too of all Antiquity, cannot have any thing very venerable in it for the recommendation of its Authority, though a higher deference were due to Authority than can be allowed by the common Principles of the Reformation.  
§ XIII AS for the multitude of those whose Authority is really considerable in this case, I mean that of Catholic Antiquity, I hope hereafter to make it appear in my Second Part, that I have said nothing as to my general charge but upon their common Suffrages and Principles too. And why should we presume a multitude of innovaters better acquainted with the principles and practices of the Apostles than they who had so much better advantages of knowing them by living so much nearer to their times? I do not prejudg against their actual knowing some things better than the ancients. But if there can be no general presumption in favour of them, but the enquiry, in what particulars they do so, be resolved into particular information; that is enough to overthrow their Authority as a presumption against us in point of modesty, which is all for which I am concerned at present. Besides that this acknowledgement that Persons of less advantages for finding the truth in general, and therefore of less Authority, may yet be so happy as to light upon better information in some particulars, is that which might be a very satisfactory plea, (and by them against whom we plead it undeniable,) for our dissent from them in these particulars, though we had been more destitute otherwise of Authority for our dissent than indeed were are. And to know when the case may prove so that Persons more unlikely may discover some particular truths which have escaped the observation of others who were otherwise much more able to have made the discovery, a better rule can hardly be given in general, than that this may be then expected when either some false Principle was taken up unwarily at first by them who, (though they were themselves as subject to humane frailties as others, yet by their being the first) had the Authority with their Successors as to recommend them as Principles to posterity, so that all their future inquiries were only into their consequences, not into the truth of such Principles themselves; or when some other means of information were made use of, which either were not known, or not made use of, by those more able Persons. Thus it is very justly pleadable against the Romanists, that whilst they made unwritten traditions of equal Authority with the written word of God, and the present sense of their Occidental Church the standard of Tradition without recourse to the monuments of the Primitive times, and admitted withal so many incompetent ways of bringing in new opinions, as new pretended revelations attested by justly-suspicious miracles, not to mention the Authority of the Pope, whereby it came to be in the power of a few to impose upon the whole; it could not be admired that the further they pursued the consequences of these Principles, the more they should prove mistaken, and that meaner Persons who had the happiness to examine things by more certain Principles should discover many things which they had overseen. And as to the means of information, that those Ages of Popery wherein their errors were introduced, wanted many such means with which God had blessed the World at the beginning of the Reformation. Such were the edition of many of the unquestionable Records of the Primitive times, the study of the tongues wherein the Scriptures and those Primitive Monuments were written, the exacter skill in Ecclesiastical Antiquity by which they were better enabled to distinguish counterfeit from genuine Writers. With these assistances it could not be admired if meaner Persons made greater discoveries than great multitudes of others who were otherwise more sagacious, if they wanted them.  
§ XIV THE same plea I have to make against our present Adversaries, both as to Principles and as to the means of information. As to Principles, that one great Principle by them opposed to the other extreme of the Romanists, That the Scripture alone is the adequate Digest of all Ecclesiastical Practices as well as of matters of belief, was by rational consequence like to lead them into multitudes of errors, into a contempt of Authority, into a rejection of Ecclesiastical Constitutions prudently fitted to circumstances of present practice, into an impossibility of Ecclesiastical Peace, till all sorts of Persons, Laics as well as Clergymen, may be agreed on which side the Scripture is clear in many things whereof (if this Principle should prove false) no account at all is to be expected in the Scripture. Now the mistake of these men is not in any thing that concerns their abilities, but merely in their infelicity in lighting on such a very fallacious principle. They judge of the consequences, and judge rightly, and I am so far of their mind that these and the like things are indeed just consequences from that Principle. But the Principle it self they take up as a Principle, that is precariously, either without any reason at all, or upon such reasons as could signify nothing with any but such as are already possessed with a great favour to it. They do not ordinarily dispute it without some indignation at the supposed impiety of him who questions it, and, by their whole behaviour, clearly show that it is rather their affection and the insensible prejudices of education that has engaged them in defence of it than any show of reason either that it is true, or that it is impious to question it. And can we think it any reflection on the abilities of such, to be insensibly carried away into a belief of such Principles, when they make so little use of their abilities in judging concerning them?  
§ XV THE like may be also said concerning our means of information, that our Adversaries generally use such means of understanding the Scripture, as must necessarily leave them ignorant of many things which yet might certainly have been designed by the sacred Writers, and by the Holy Ghost who inspired them. Which is one general way of their making disputes endless, by requiring a resolution in such cases wherein their own unwary stating of things have made them uncapable of a resolution. They are for expounding the Scriptures only by themselves, especially in matters doctrinal; without allusion to the sense of those times in terms of Art which were plainly suited to the capacities of them who used those terms; without allusion to the Notions and Doctrines of those times which were either confirmed or confuted by the sacred Writers; without allusion to the whole Systemes of Principles then maintained, though they are very forward to expound difficult obscure passages by their modern Systemes, without so much as offering to show that any then maintained them, which yet they call expounding it by the Analogy of Faith; without allusion to the Systemes of the immediately succeeding Ages of the Church, who certainly took up their Systeme from what they understood of the Apostles minds from their Writings, and Preach and Conversations, to whose capacities the Sacred Writings themselves were more immediately accommodated than they were to ours. Upon these and the like Principles most of those things are grounded which may look like Paradoxes in my Expositions of the Scripture. And I shall say no more at present in defence of them, because something has been suggested to that purpose in several parts of this discourse, but principally and professedly in my Prolegomena to my Tutor's Book de Obstinatione, whither I must again by all means refer my Reader who shall be curious to know what I have to say in favour of these seeming Novelties. All that I shall at present remark to my present purpose is, that by either not thinking on these things, or by utterly neglecting them if they did think of them, they must have deprived themselves of all possibility of understanding those Scriptures which were not intelligible without them. And then what wonder is it that many things may be cleared by these assistances which they had never thought on? nay, that they should be cleared by one who had been incomparably less able to clear them, if he, as well as they, had wanted these assistances?  
§ XVI BUT to give them all they can, with any show of reason, desire, Suppose I were as much mistaken, as it the interest of their cause to wish I should be; suppose their condition were not indeed so dangerous as I conceive it to be: Yet why should they take it ill to be warned of a danger which I thought to be a danger, though I were mistaken in thinking so? Can I do otherwise if I would let them see my hearty well-wishes for their welfare? Can I do it more fairly or with less suspicion of imposing on them than by tendering my reasons why I think their condition dangerous, to their impartial consideration? And what hurt is done them, if my reasons should prove less convincing? Must it not be a great satisfaction to themselves to be assured that those reasons are not convincing which make others think their condition dangerous? Must it not be much more satisfactory even to themselves to know the uttermost of those reasons, than only to be left to indefinite suspicions, which usually, in matters wherein men's fears are concerned, make men apt to think they may be more solid than they appear to be upon enquiry? No doubt they would think so who were as serious and sincere for their spiritual security as they are for their temporal. And would it not become their Charity, and their concernment for the public peace, to satisfy us that our fears are groundless, and that we may join with them on easier terms to which themselves may be more willing to condescend? These are so useful and excellent designs as that no good Spirit could think his pains and diligence ill bestowed in knowing and examining what we have to say upon this Subject, how weak or fallacious soever it might prove upon examination.  
§ XVII IF after all I cannot avoid the popular odium of those who are otherwise minded, I confess I am likely to be the less solicitous on my own account by how much I am the less conscious of having deserved it. I know our Saviour himself had the like return of his wellmeant endeavours. I know it has always been the fate of Peacemakers and faithful Monitors. And I hope I shall always be hearty willing to suffer more than this is like to signify to me, in so good a cause. The best is, I cannot foresee any occasion of such a trial from truly pious and ingenuous Persons who will understand before they censure, and who will reflect on the considerations now mentioned. For others I cannot think them so competent Judges, nor do I see any reason to reverence their censures.  
§ XVIII THERE is also one thing more of which I am to warn the Reader. That is, that the following discourse was first designed as a defence of a Sermon preached on this Subject before the Lord Mayor. 
Mr. John Sharp on Rom. xiv. 19.  But having made some entrance on it, I did not think it so convenient to be confined to another's method in delivering my own sentiments, nor to concern any particular Author in the Controversy, but rather to undertake the whole Subject in a method most natural to my own conceptions of it. And the rather so, because most of the Answerers Objections would have no place on my way of stating the Controversy, and I could not think it worth the while to spend time on such things as were grounded on misunderstandings. I speak not this with the least design of disparaging the performance of the Adversary, for the misunderstandings are no other than such as are common to him with the generality of the dissenting parties. Otherwise his management is more accurate for the destructive part, (which is the Talon of those Persons) than usual, and with better temper to his Adversary. However these considerations being approved by several of my worthy Friends to whom I communicated them, and among others by the Author of that excellent Sermon, I easily obtained his leave to proceed in my own way. Yet I thought it convenient withal to give this warning of it, that the Answerer, whoever he be, may know that his Objections have been allowed for in my Hypothesis, though they be not expressly mentioned, and that he may not look on the silence of his Adversary as an Argument of any neglect of him.  
§ XIX IF any shall think of a Reply, I shall humbly desire▪ That he would keep to the cause, avoiding all personal reflections as far as the cause will permit; 
Requests to him who shall think of a Reply.  That he will not take any advantage against the propriety of particular expressions, in which it is as usual for Adversaries to be mistaken in misunderstanding the expressions, as for the Author who has used them; That he would rather judge concerning my particular expressions by the exigency of my Cause and Principles, which will be the surest way, not only to assure himself of my meaning, but to make his Arguments against such expressions conclusive against my cause itself; That he would be pleased to remember how easy it is to object against any thing Arguments more plausibl● than those are on which the vulgar believe the truth itself; and therefore that he would object nothing but what a serious impartial enquirer after the truth, would think fit to be urged as an Objection; nothing but what he thinks true; nothing but he thinks he has reason to think so; nothing but what he is willing to stand by the consequences of, if it should be retorted against him; no inconvenience of the thing which he opposes but such as may be greater than the conveniences of it; no reasons but such as may have greater evidence of their truth than those have which are produced for the thing which he opposes; that he would oblige the world with another Scheme of Principles suited to his own cause, (which may not only solve the Phaenomena accounted for by ours, but may also not be liable to those Objections which he conceives uncapable of a solution by our Hypothesis) rather than only content himself with the Person of an Objector; and that all may be managed with those commendable presumptions which all disinterested Persons do commend for the securest guides where the reasonings are less evident, a hearty love of truth, of peace, and of Government, and such a love of these as may be prudent, as may secure the practicableness of what they pretend to love, without which it is in vain to love, or to pretend to love them.  
§ XX IF these things be punctually observed on both sides, there will be many advantages to the common cause, which methinks may prevail with any who wishes well to it, not to be difficult in suffering himself to be persuaded to observe them. We shall avoid many things which the Reader, who is only concerned for the cause, and for his own conscience, will certainly think impertinent. We shall on both sides be better qualified for finding the truth, and leave the way more open for mutual ingenuity. We shall neither prejudice our Readers nor our selves to judge otherwise than the merit of the cause, and our own convictions of it shall oblige us. We shall intermingle nothing unbecoming the seriousness wherewith matters of this nature ought to be handled. We shall thus be surest to improve the common stock of knowledge with which the world has been hitherto acquainted in this matter. I have endeavoured what I was able to observe these things myself in the following Discourse, and shall be willing to be corrected, if I have failed in any of them. The things themselves are so intrinsically reasonable, as that I cannot doubt but they who are reasonable will readily accept of these conditions, and will withal be so grateful to the unengaged Reader as that even he who were less solicitous for truth, should yet think himself concerned, even to rival me in the glory of observing them. Not to mention that it is indeed more glorious to be overcome by truth than to obtain the cause we contend for.   

The general Proposition to be proved in this Work.  
THAT all are obliged to submit to all unsinful conditions of the Episcopal Communion where they live, if imposed by the Ecclesiastical Governors thereof; and that the nature of this Obligation is such, as will make them who, rather than they will submit to such conditions, either separate themselves, or suffer themselves to be excluded from Communion by such Governors for such a refusal of submission, guilty of the sin of SCHISM.  
Here are two Parts.  
I. That all are obliged to submit to all unsinful conditions of the Episcopal Communion where they live, 
α  if imposed by the Ecclesiastical Government thereof.  
This proved by these two Degrees:  
1. That the supposition, of their being less secure of Salvation out of this Episcopal Communion than in it, is sufficient to prove them obliged to submit to all terms, not directly sinful, however unexpedient, rather than separate themselves, or suffer themselves to be excluded, from this Communion. Ch. I. §. 7, 8, 9, 10.  
2. That there is indeed less security of salvation to be had even on performance of the moral conditions. of Salvation, out of this Episcopal Communion than in it.  
This proved from two things:  
(1.) That they cannot be so well assured of their salvation in the use of extraordinary as of ordinary means; nay, that they being left to extraordinaries is a condition either very hazardous, or, at least very uncomfortable at present, whatever it may prove hereafter. Ch. II.  
(2.) That these ordinary means of Salvation, are, in respect of every particular Person, confined to the Episcopal Communion of the place he lives in, as long as he lives in it.  
This proved from two things.  
(I.) That these ordinary means of Salvation are confined to the external Communion of the visible Church.  
This proved from four things.  
1. We cannot be assured that God will do for us what is necessary for our Salvation on his part, otherwise than by his express Promises that he will do it. Ch. III. §. 1, 2.  
2. The ordinary means how we may assure ourselves of our interest in his Promises is by our interest in his Covenant, by which they are conveyed to us. Ch. III. from §. 5. to the end.  
3. The only ordinary means, by which we may assure ourselves of our interest in this Covenant with him, is by our partaking in these external Solemnities by which this Covenant is transacted and maintained. Ch. VI, V, VI, VII.  
4. The participation in these external Solemnities with any Legal Validity is only to be had in the external Communion of the visible Church. Ch. VIII.  
(II.) That this visible Church, to whose external Communion these ordinary means of Salvation are confined, is no other than the Episcopal Communion of the place where any one lives, whilst he lives there.  
This proved in both parts.  
(1.) That the visible Church to whose external Communion these ordinary means of salvation are confined is the Episcopal Communion.  
This proved by these Degrees.  
I. That Salvation is not ordinarily to be expected without an external participation of the Sacraments.  
1. Negatively, Not by those other popular means which ordinary Persons are apt to trust in to the neglect of the Sacraments, that is, 

1. Not by hearing the Word Preached. Ch. IX.  
2. Not by private Prayer, nor ind●ed by any, out of the Communion of the Church. Ch. X. XI, XII, XIII, XIV.    
2. Positively, That Salvation is ordinarily to be expected only by this external participation of the Sacraments.  

1. Proved concerning Baptism. Ch. XV.  
2. Concerning the Lord's Supper. Ch. XVI, XVII.   
II. That the validity of the Sacraments depends on the Authority of the persons by whom they are administered. Ch. XVIII.  
III. No other Ministers have the Authority of administering the Sacraments but only they who receive their Orders in the Episcopal Communion.  
This proved by four Degrees.  
1. That the Authority of administering the Sacraments must be derived from God. Ch. XIX.  
2. That though it be derived from God, yet it is not so derived without the mediation of those men to whom it was, at first, committed. Ch. XX.  
3. That it cannot be so derived from those men to whom it was, at first, committed without a continued succession of Persons orderly receiving Authority from those who had Authority to give it them from those first times of the Apostles to ours at present. Ch. XXI.  
4. That this Authority is not now to be expected any where but in the Episcopal Communion. Ch. XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV.  
(2.) That the Episcopal Communion to which every particular Person is obliged to join himself, as he would enjoy the ordinary means of his own particular salvation, is the Episcopal Communion of the place wherein he lives, whilst he lives in it. Ch. XXVI.  
II. That the nature of this Obligation to unsinful conditions of their Episcopal Communion is such as will make them guilty of the sin of SCHISM, 
β  who, rather than they will submit to such conditions, either separate themselves, or suffer themselves to be excluded from Communion by their respective Diocesan Ordinaries. Ch. XXVII.   

INTRODUCTION.  
THE CONTENTS.  

The concurrent sense of all, Irreligious as well as Religious, concerning the present necessity of our Ecclesiastical peace, and the great mischief of our Ecclesiastical Divisions. §. 1. The management of Religious Controversies with a design of peace, will best answer the qualifications of an useful Controvertist. §. 2. It is most agreeable with the most prudent Rules of managing Controversies either for finding the truth itself, or, where humane frailty might fail of that, for making the error innocent and excusable. §. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. What influence this design of peace would have particularly in those Controversies which are debated between us and our Nonconforming Brethren. How far the unpeaceableness of a Position of this kind may be urged as an Argument of its falsehood, and on the contrary. §. 8 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. That our present undertaking is not unsuitable to the Office of a peacemaker. §. 30, 31, 32. How much the peace of the Church is concerned in this Controversy concerning SCHISM. How differently the Notion of SCHISM must be stated by them who make the Church a Body Politic, and by them who make it not so. Our Adversaries Notions of SCHISM, and of the duty of a peacemaker, exactly fitted to the supposition of the Churches being no Body Politic, and indeed very rational on that supposition. What is to be thought of the Independent ●enet of placing all Ecclesiastical Authority originally in the people, and how far that will clear their practices from the charge of SCHISM. §. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40. How the Notion of SCHISM must be stated on supposition of the Church's being a Body Politic. §. 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51. An account of the Division of this Work into the Rational and Historical parts. Some intimations concerning the usefulness and design of the Historical. §. 52. page 1.  
CHAP. I. 1. That for proving our Obligation to enter into the Communion of the visible Church it is not requisite to prove that we must otherwise be excluded from all hopes of Salvation, but it is abundantly sufficient to make it appear, that we cannot be so well assured of it. This proved as to both parts: 1. As to the Negative, That it is not requisite for this purpose to prove that we must otherwise be excluded from all hopes of Salvation. §. I, TWO, III, IV, V VI 2. As to the positive part, That, for proving this Obligation to enter into the external Communion of the visible Church, it is sufficient to show that, without such an external Communion with it, we cannot so well be assured of our Salvation; and that this supposition, of our less security without it, is sufficient to prove us obliged to submit to all terms not directly sinful, however inexpedient, in order to the procuring this external Communion. §. VII, VIII, IX, X. An Application of what has been said in this Chapter to the Adversaries. §. XI, XII. p. 55.  
CHAP. II. The second Head, That for proving this want of so solid assurance of the welfare of particular Persons out of Ecclesiastical Communion as may be had in it, it will be sufficient to show that, however God may provide for the Salvation of particular Persons, in an extraordinary way, without this external Communion, yet, that this is a case indeed rare and extraordinary, and not easily to be expected, and therefore not to be trusted with any confidence; and that, at least, the ordinary means of Salvation are confined to the external Communion of the visible Church. The difference betwixt the ordinary and extraordinary means of Salvation. §. I, TWO, III, IV. The former Head proved in both particulars. 1. That we cannot be so well assured of our Salvation in the use of extraordinary, as of ordinary means. The extraordinary means whereby we may be assured of our Salvation are conjectures concerning the Divine Uncovenanted goodness. Concerning these it is proved. 1. That the assurance grounded on these conjectures is not such as can afford any solid comfort to the Person concerned. The extreme difficulty of making application of what might be concluded from this Divine Uncovenanted goodness to particular cases. §. V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X. The particulars necessary for assurance in this case are such as God is not obliged to by his Uncovenanted goodness. §. XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI. XVII. 2. The comfort that might otherwise have been expected from these conjectures is not comparable to that which may be had from those general ordinary means which God hath provided for by express Revelation. This proved by three Degrees. §. XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII. 3. These expectations from extraordinaries not seasonable in our Adversaries case who might obtain the ordinary means by concessions not sinful. §. XXIII. 4. The relief by extraordinary pretences to Gods Uncovenanted goodness must needs be rendered more difficult since the establishment of ordinaries. §. XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII. p. 66.  
CHAP. III. The ordinary means whereby we may be assured of Salvation must be promises conveyed to us in a Legal way by the Solemnities of a Covenant. §. I, II. 2. The ordinary means of Salvation, at least, whereby we may be satisfied of it, and receive any comfort from it, are confined to the external Communion of the visible Church; and that the Episcopal Church under whose Jurisdiction any one lives is that visible Church out of which these ordinary means of Salvation are not to be bad by any whilst he lives under that Jurisdiction. This to be proved in two Parts: 1. That these ordinary means of Salvation are confined to the external Communion of the visible Church. §. III, IV. This proved by three Degrees: 1. The ordinary means whereby we may assure ourselves that we in particular have any interest in the Divine Promises is by assuring ourselves that we in particular are in Covenant with God. §. V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX. p. 89.  
CHAP. IU. 2. The only ordinary means whereby we may assure ourselves of our interest in this Covenant is by our partaking in the external Solemnities whereby this Covenant is transacted and maintained. This cleared in two particulars: 1. That the partaking of these external Solemnities of initiation into, and maintenance of, this Evangelical Covenant is the only ordinary means of procuring and maintaining a Legal interest in it. §. I, II. An Objection urged and Answered. The Assertion proved from God's actual establishment. §. III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI. The same proved from the reason of the thing. 1. God is concerned to take care that these external Solemnities be punctually observed as he is a Covenanter. §. XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XVI. p. 109.  
CHAP. V. 2. God is also concerned to see the same external Solemnities observed as he is a Governor. 1. He is as a Governor concerned to confederate us into a Body Politic. 1. That he may thus secure the performance of his own will. The great usefulness of the distinction betwixt God as a Governor and as a Covenanter. §. I, TWO, III. The forementioned point proved. §. IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X. 2. That it may thus appear, even to men, that his will is performed by us because it is his will. How necessary this is for Government. How necessary a visible Society is for making this appear to others. §. XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV. 2. He is, as a Governor, concerned to oblige us to the performance of our Duty by such means as may prove most likely to prevail with us for its actual performance. §. XVI, XVII, XVIII. p. 131.  
CHAP. VI Both the ends now mentioned concerning God as a Governor are more likely to be atteined by admitting us to the benefits of the Covenant by the external Solemnities of it than otherwise. §. I. 1. That of confederating us into a Body Politic. A short account of the usefulness of the whole Hypothesis promoted in this discourse for this purpose. §. TWO, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV. 2. That of securing our performance of Duty. §. XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX, XXXI, XXXII, XXXIII. p. 138,  
CHAP. VII. 2. That, at least, our partaking in the external Solemnities of this Evangelical Covenant is the only ordinary means whereby we may be satisfied of our title to the Covenant itself. §. I, II. This proved by three Degrees: 1. That, for our satisfaction, it is requisite that we have positive Arguments for us, as well as that there appear no positive Arguments against us. §. III, IV, V, VI, VII. 2. That no Arguments can comfort but such as may externally appear, and so be capable of being judged of by the Persons concerned. §. VIII. 3. Our partaking of the external Solemnities of the Covenant, is, at least the only Argument appearing to us whereby we can be assured of any Legal title to the benefits of it. §. IX, X, XI, XII. A further presumption for proving the same thing. §. XIII. p. 156.  
CHAP. VIII. 3. The participation in these external Solemnities, with any legal validity, is only to be had in the external Communion of the visible Church. §. I. The Church as taken for the body of the Elect uncapable of being communicated with externally. §. TWO, III. That all things here contrived are exactly fitted for a visible Church, and no other. §. IV, V p. 163.  
CHAP. IX. 2. That, in reference to the duty of particular Persons, the visible Church, wherein they may expect to find these ordinary means, is the Episcopal in opposition to all other Societies not Episcopally governed; and particularly that Episcopal Communion under whose Jurisdiction the Persons are supposed to live. §. I. 1. The Episcopal Communion in opposition to all other Societies not Episcopally governed is that visible Church to whose external Communion these ordinary means of grace are confined. This proved by several degrees. §. II. 1. The ordinary means of grace are now confined to the Sacraments. Two things premised. The former. §. III, IV. The later. §. V The thing to be proved. §. VI Proved two ways: 1. Exclusively, of other means of gaining that Grace which is necessary to Salvation besides the Sacrament. §. VII, VIII. 1. Of the Word Preached. Some things premised. §. IX, X, XI, XII. 1. Much of the Grace conveyed by the Word Preached in the Primitive times was undoubtedly proper to those times, and not fit to be expected now. §. XIII, XIV, XV. 2. There were reasons proper to those times why such Grace might be expected then, which will not hold now, for the conviction of the Persons who then received the Spirit. §. XVI. 3. There were also other proper reasons necessary for the conviction of those with whom they had to deal. §. XVII. 4. That Grace which might otherwise have been expected in attending on the Word Preached, is yet not so probably to be expected in the Preaching of Persons unauthorised; especially if they Preach in opposition to those who are Legally invested with Spiritual Authority. §. XVIII, XIX. 5. It is yet further doubtful whether the Grace, which which may now be ordinarily expected at any Preaching whatsoever, be so great as to be able to supply the want of Sacraments, at least so great, as to secure the Salvation of those who enjoy this Ordinance whilst they want the Sacraments? §. XX XXI. 6. It is also very doubtful, whether all the Grace which is supposed to accompany the Word Preached be any more than what is necessary to dispose the Auditors to receive and believe the truth of the Doctrines Preached to them? or whether there be any the least ground to believe that they shall there receive that further Assistance which is necessary to help them to practise what they have thus received and believed? §. XXII, XXIII, XXIV. 7. This first Grace of persuasion, if we suppose it alone to accompany the Word Preached, will fully answer the design of the Word Preached. § XXV. 8. The Grace here received seems to be only some actual influences of the Spirit (which wicked men may receive whilst they continue so, and which therefore cannot alone be thought sufficient for Salvation) not the Person of the Divine Spirit himself. §. XXVI. p. 166.  
CHAP. X. The exclusive Part proved. 2. as to Prayer, That neither this alone, nor the Grace which may be expected in the use of it, are sufficient for Salvation without the Sacraments. The Objection proposed, §. I, II. The Answer. 1. That no Prayers can expect acceptance with God but such as suppose the use of the ordinary means, and consequently of the Sacraments if they should prove such. §. III. 2. No Prayers can expect acceptance which are offered by a sinner, continuing in the state of sin, even at the same time when he offers them. §. iv 3. It is more to be considered what is the ordinary means appointed by God, than what is ordinarily observed by the best and wisest men. §. V 4. It is no way safe for us to venture on our own Judgements, concerning the design of God in instituting the Sacraments, to neglect them. This proved by several degre●●. It is hard to know the true design of the Sacraments §. VI They are not sure that raising Devotion by the sensible representations was the principal design of these Sacraments. §. VII. They cannot assure themselves that this use of the sensible representations was the only, or the principal end of the Sacraments. §. VIII. Though they were sure of these things, yet they have no reason whereby to be assured that God will be pleased with their taking upon them to judge of his designs, and by that means allowing themselves the liberty of paying their obedience at their own discretion. §. IX. 5. Another design of the Sacraments has been proved, the confederating Subjects into a Body Politic, and the obliging Subjects in it to a dependence on their Governors. It is no way convenient that any should be excused from these establishments upon pretences to perfection. They who were really perfect would not make this use of such pretences for their own sake. §. X. They would not do it for the sake of the public. §. XI, XII, XIII. They would not do it on account of the Divine actual establishment, and the Divine assistances conveyed by the Sacraments, which are necessary for perfection of the Person. §. XIV. And of his Prayer. §. XV. 6. The Scripture no where allows such a degree of Perfection atteinable in this life, as can in reason excuse from the reason of the Obligation to Ecclesiastical Assemblies. All Members of the Church need the gifts of each other. §. XVI. They need particularly those gifts which belong to Government. §. XVII. All the other Members need the Head, which cannot be understood of Christ, but of Persons eminently gifted. §. XVIII. This Head not a Head of Dignity only, but also of influence, and Authority. §. XIX. Though they needed not the gifts of others, yet they are obliged to join themselves in Ecclesiastical Societies, in regard of the good they may do to others. They are obliged to this as Platonists, and as Christians. §. XX. p. 191.  
CHAP. XI. 7. The Scripture gives us no encouragement to believe that any Prayers shall be heard which are made out of the Communion of the Church, or even in the behalf of those that are so, excepting those which are made for their Conversion. This proved from St. John who was the only Apostle who lived to see the case of separation. §. I. St. Joh. xvii. 9. §. II. Where by being given to Christ is meant a being given by external Profession §. III. By the World all they are meant who were out of the visible Society of the Professors of the Christian Doctrine. §. IV, V They are said to be in the World purely for this reason, because they did not keep to the Society of the Church. §. VI The same thing proved from 1 St. Joh. v. concerning the sin unto Death. The Argument according to the Alexandrian MS. §. VII. According to the vulgar reading. The sin unto Death is leaving the Orthodox Party. § VIII, IX, X, XI. The same thing proved from 2 St. Joh. 10, 11. §. XII. Pardon possible for Persons out of the Church's Communion upon their admission into it, according to the Doctrine of those times, but much more difficult for Relapsers than others. The later part proved from 2 Pet. two. 21. §. XIII. And from Heb x. 25, 26, 27. §. XIV, XV. And from Heb. xii. 15, 17. 1 Joh. v. 16. §. XVI. And from other Arguments. §. XVII, XVIII. The actual practice of the Primitive Church not to pray for spiritual benefits for those who were not actual Members of the Church's Communion. §. XIX, XX. An Application of what has been said. §. XXI. Obj. That these things are spoken of a total relapse from Christianity, not from one party of Christians to another. §. XXII. That Life was properly ascribed to the true Christ as the Messiah according to the Notions of the ordinary Jews. §. XXIII and according to the sense of the generality of the first Converts to Christianity. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was thought to be the proper Principle of Life. §. XXIV. That the Messiah as Messiah was to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also. §. XXV. Answ. 1. It were well our Brethren would allow the same candour in expounding other Texts produced by them as they do in these produced against them. §. XXVI. 2. It is not likely that the Antichrists of those times did generally deny the true Christ to be so. §. XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX. 3. Whatever the occasion was, yet the reasoning used in those disputes is to prove their being separated from Christ from their being separated from the external Communion of the visible Church. §. XXX. p. 212.  
CHAP. XII. 8. This very pretence of abstaining from the external Ordinances under the pretence of Perfection seems to have been taken up, even in those Primitive Ages. The Philosophical N●tions of those Ages concerning the worship of the Supreme Deity. §. I. How this Hypothesis was received first into the Elective Philosophy, thence taken up by the Hellenistical Jews and from them to the first Converts to Christianity. §. II. The several reasonings of the Primitive Christians that might make them, in interest, favourable to this Hypothesis. §. III. Particularly their pretending to a Mystical Priesthood might make them less solicitous for their dependence on the Levitical external Priesthood. §. IV. Instances of several like mistakes of those times in reasoning from Mystical titles. §. V How the Genius of this Philosophy has inclined men to this way of reasoning, wherever it has prevailed, even among our modern Enthusiasts. §. VI Inference 1. That what the Apostles did resolve in this particular, they did resolve with a particular design upon our Adversaries case. §. VII. That the prudential establishments of the Apostles are sufficiently secure. §. VIII. Inf. 2. Hence may appear the insecurity of this way of arguing in general, from Mystical Titles to the neglect of external Observances. §. IX, X, Inf. 3. It plainly appears to have been against the design of the Legislator in the very case of the Jews from whom the Christians borrowed it. §. XI. Inf. 4. That the whole contrivance of things by the Apostles plainly supposes that they did also not allow of this plea for excusing any from the public ordinances. §. XII. Inf. 5. The Philosophers themselves never intended this plea for their exemption from the Mysteries and external Rites of Initiation then used, to which the Sacraments are answerable among Christians. §. XIII, XIV. Inf. 6. The great design of this way of arguing was to excuse themselves from paying any external worship to the supreme being, and so destructive to the very foundation of the Christian Religion. §. XV. And this very rationally on the Hypothesis then received. §. XVI. But the reason of this Argument does not hold against those exteritors which are observed by the Christian institution. §. XVII. It is very probable that our Adversaries case is particularly spoken to in Heb. x. 22, 23. §. XVIII. p. 247.  
CHAP. XIII. Lastly, This sin of withdrawing from the public Assemblies, on any pretence whatsoever, is highly condemned in the Scriptures, and the condition of Persons guilty of it is described as extremely dangerous. §. I. This proved from Heb. vi. The design of the sacred Authors in those kinds of discourses is to warn the Persons with whom they had to deal, against Lap●●s, not, from a good Life, but, from the true Communion. §. JI.III. This proved particularly to be the design of this place. Illumination put for Baptism, both because of the interest Baptism gave them in Christ who was the true Light. §. IU. And in regard of the visible Glory which then seems to have accompanied Baptism, in which regard this title was more likely to have been taken up in the Apostles Age than afterwards. §. V How properly this title was given it as a lesser Purgative Mystery. Fire the most Purgative Element, §. VI And that by which the Purgativeness of our Saviour's Baptism had been before particularly described. §. VII. The other Expressions of this Text applied to Baptism. §. VIII. That separating from the visible Communion of the Church was a breach of their Baptismal Obligations proved from the design of the Baptisms of those times. Baptism a solemnity of admission into their Schools, and an obligation to adhere to the Master. §. IX. And not only to the first Masters, but to the lawful Successors to their Chairs. §. X. The dishonour to Christ by falling away mentioned in the Text to be understood only interpretatively. How this was proper to the Case of Desertors in those times. §. XI, XII. How it is applicable to our present Adversaries. §. XIII. The punishment of this crime mentioned in the Text. §. XIV. The Application of this also to our present Adversaries. §. XV. What it is to baptise in the name of the Spirit. §. XVI, XVII. What is meant by the impossibility to renew the Lapsers here spoken of. §. XVIII. An Objection. §. XIX. Answered. §. XX. Application to our present Adversaries. §. XXI, XXII. p. 267.  
CHAP. XIV. The danger of the sin of separation and the difficulty of its pardonableness are very prudent and lawful reasons for bearing with a lesser sin that is more easily pardonable. §. I, II. What is meant by grieving God's Spirit, and how it comes to be unpardonable. §. III, IV. Two influences of the Spirit resisted by the Israelites. §. V This applied to the state of the Gospel. How the Christians were likely to understand these things according to the Mystical way of expounding the Old Testament which prevailed among them. §. VI Our Saviour used herein a way of speaking notorious to the Jews. §. VII. Grieving the Spirit the same with grieving of Christ. §. VIII. 1. As to the testimony which the Spirit gave him by miracles. §. IX. How our Saviour's threatening was fulfilled. §. X. The sin against the Holy Ghost a resisting of the Gospel-Dispensation. §. XI. 2. Murdering of the Prophets a sin against the Holy Ghost as he is particularly a Spirit of Prophecy. §. XII. This particularly applied to our Saviour and the state of the Gospel. §. XIII. 3. Resisting the influences of the Holy Ghost in us. Applied to the Jews. §. XIV. to the Christians. §. XV. According to the Hellenistical Philosophy. §. XVI, XVII, XVIII. 4. Resisting the Government of the Church which was then ordered by the Spirit. §. XIX. Separation from the Canonical Assemblies of the Church a sin against the Holy Ghost. §. XX. Concerning the punishment of this sin against the Holy Ghost, and the way of arguing used by the Writers of the New-Testament from Old-Testament precedents. §. XXI, XXII. p. 294.  
CHAP. XV. 2. Directly, That Salvation is not ordinarily to be expected without Sacraments. §. I. This proved, 1. concerning Baptism. 1. By those Texts which imply the dependence of our Salvation on Baptism. 1. Such as speak of the Graces of Baptism. §. II. 1. The Spirit of God is said to be given in Baptism, and so given as that he who is not baptised cannot be supposed to have it. §. III. The Spirit itself is absolutely necessary to Salvation, as to his actual influences. §. iv as to his constant presence as a living and abiding Principle. §. V That the Spirit is first given in Baptism. This proved from our new Birth's being ascribed to our Baptism. §. VI It is safe to argue from Metaphorical expressions in a matter of this nature. St. Joh. iii. 5. considered. §. VII. Water to be understood in this place Literally. §. VIII. These words might relate to our Saviour's Baptism. §. IX. The Objection concerning the supposed parallel place of baptising with the Holy Ghost and with fire. §. X. The fire here spoken of a material fire, and contradistinct to the Holy Ghost. §. XI. Our Saviour's baptising with the Holy Ghost and with fire as well applicable to our Saviour's ordinary baptism as to that of the Apostles at Pentecost §. XII. The true reason why this descent of the Holy Ghost in Pentecost, is called a Baptism, was because it was a consummation of their former Baptism by Water. §. XIII. The reason why this part of their Baptism was deferred so long. §. XIV. Other instances wherein the Holy Ghost was given distinctly from the Baptism by Water. §. XV, XVI, XVII. Our Saviour alluded herein to the Jewish Notions concerning Baptismal Regeneration. §. XVIII. What the Rabbinical Notions are. §. XIX. How agreeable to the Doctrine of the New-Testament. §. XX. The Notions of the Hellenistical Jews, and of the Philosophers. §. XXI, XXII, XXIII. How imitated by our Saviour. §. XXIV. An Objection. §. XXV. Answered. §. XXVI, XXVII. 2. Grace of Baptism, forgiveness of sins. §. XXVIII, XXIX, XXX. That unbaptized Persons cannot be supposed to have received the benefits of the washing of the blood of Christ, or of the Mystical Baptism, proved from two things: 1. That all who would be christian's are obliged to receive even the Baptism by Water. §. XXXI. 2. That every one who comes to Baptism is supposed to continue till then under the guilt of his sins. §. XXXII, XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV. 2. The same dependence of Salvation on Baptism proved from those Texts which speak of the Privileges of Baptism. §. XXXVI. The same thing proved 2. from those Texts which expressly ascribe our Salvation to our Baptism. §. XXXVII. A sum of the Argument from 1 Pet. three 21. §. XXXVIII. from other Texts. §. XXXIX. The Application, §. XL. p. 321.  
CHAP. XVI. Things to be premised. §. I. 1. That this dependence on the Episcopal Communion for a valid Baptism will alone suffice, so far, for my purpose, as to discourage the perpetuating any opposite Communion. §. TWO, III, IV. Inference 1. That, if this were granted, even the abstaining of pious Persons from the lawful Communion would be very rare. §. V Inf. 2. That, even those few pious Persons who, after all diligence used to inform themselves, and all lawful condescensions, could not submit to the terms of the lawful Communion, would yet never perpetuate so much as their Non-Communion. §. VI, VII. 2. Premisal, That it cannot be expected that this Sacrament of the Lords Supper should be as necessary as that of Baptism. §. VIII. The necessity of the Lords Supper to Salvation proved from the Mystical style by which this whole matter is expressed in the Scripture. And that by these degrees: 1. The Life of particular Members of the Mystical Body of Christ is in the Scripture supposed to depend on a constant repetition of vital influences from the common vital Principle, as the Life of particular Members in the Natural Body does. §. X. 2. The Scripture also supposes the Life of particular Members to depend as much on their conjunction with the whole Mystical Body, in order to their receiving these repeated influences, as the Life of particular Members in the natural Body depends on their conjunction with the whole natural Body. §. X. 3. The Church with which it was supposed so necessary for particular Members to be united in order to their participation of this Spiritual Life is plainly supposed to be the Church in this World, and that visible Society of them which joined in the same public exercises of Religion in that Age when these things were written. §. XI, XII. 4. The Reasons used by the Sacred Writers for this purpose are such as concern the Church as a Church, and so as suitable to the later Ages of the Church as those earlier ones wherein they were used first. §. XIII. 5. In order to this Mystical Union with the Church it is absolutely necessary as far as an ordinary means can be so, that we partake of the Lords Supper. This proved from 1 Cor. x. 17. §. XIV. The same thing proved from the true design of the Eucharist rightly explained. This done by these degrees. 1. The design of our Saviour seems to have been the Mystical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so much spoken of in the Philosophy then received as the peculiar Office of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2. In this Union the reason of our being in Christ is his being in us. 3. Two things, according to the Scripture, to be distinguished in Christ, his Flesh and Spirit, and in both regards we are concerned that he be united to us. §. XV. 4. There are very material reasons why our Saviour should require this bodily Union in contradistinction to the Spiritual, viz. the benefits which our Bodies in contradistinction to our Spirits may receive by it: 1. That by this Corporal Union with Christ we may be made sensible of the interest he has in our Bodies, and of our Obligation to serve him with our Bodies, and to abstain from those sins which are seated in the Body. The great necessity of this in that Age. §. XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX. 2. That by this means they might be assured of the Resurrection of their Bodies. §. XXI. 5. Therefore, according to the Practices and Conceptions then prevailing, the Eucharist was the most proper means whereby this Bodily Union with Christ could have been contrived, whether it be considered, 1. as a Sacrifice, and that either as an ordinary Sacrifice. §. XXII, XXIII, XXIV. Or as a Federal Sacrifice. §. XXV. Or, 2. as a Mystery, and this of the greatest sort. The likeness between the Heathen Mysteries and the Blessed Sacrament. The Mysteries were Commemorative, and that generally of the sufferings of their Gods. §. XXVI. They were performed by external Symbols. Particularly Bread was a Sacred Symbol of Unity. Observed in the Rites of Mithras, among the Pythagoraeans. §. XXVII, XXVIII. In the ancient way of marriage by Confarreation, and in Truces. §. XXIX. And among the Jews. §. XXX. The Mysteries designed particularly for the good of the Soul, and that in the state of Separation. §. XXXI. In the Mysteries they were obliged to Confession of sins, and to undertake new Rules of living well. §. XXXII. In the Mysteries it was usual to change the Names of the things used in them without any thoughts of a change of Nature. §. XXXIII. 6. Upon these Principles, and according to the nature of these Mystical contrivances▪ this Bodily Union may very well be supposed to be made by our Saviour's changing the Name of Bread into that of his own Body. §. XXXIV, XXXV, XXXVI. p. 352.  
CHAP. XVII. It is probable that our Saviour spoke the words in St. Joh. vi. with relation to the Sacrament which he was to institute. §. I. It is probable that St. John also understood and designed them so. §. II. Being so understood they agree very well with the account of the design of this Sacrament already given. §. III. The meaning of the signs expected from Prophets. §. iv Manna the sign of Moses, which our Saviour designed to imitate in giving the Bread here spoken of. §. V An account from the Hellenistical Philosophy of those times how the Bread given by our Saviour is called the true Bread. §. VI, VII. Mystical Manna understood by Philo of the ΛΟΓΟΣ §. VIII. The Bread given by our Saviour Bodily as well as Mystical. §. IX. The way of reasoning in the New-Testament from Mystical Expositions of the Old. §. X. The prudence of this way of reasoning. §. XI. The course this way of reasoning obliged them to in proving the Christian Sacraments. §. XII, XIII. The Ideal Manna communicated to us by the Eucharistical Bread. §. XIV. The consequent danger of wanting this Eucharistical Bread. §. XV. The usefulness of the method here proposed for understanding this, and many other like places in the New-Testament. Submission to Superiors. §. XVI. p. 389.  
CHAP. XVIII. 2. The validity of the Sacraments depends on the Authority of the Persons by whom they are administered. This Assertion explained. §. I, TWO, III, iv Proved by these degrees. 1. The Spiritual advantages of the Sacraments are not immediately conveyed in the external Participation of them. §. V, VI 2. The reason of this holds not only in acts of Authority, that no Authority can be derived from God unless the Persons pretending in his Name to give it be Authorized by him to give it, but also in deeds of gi●t. §. VII. 3. There is much less reason to expect that God should perform what is done in his Name by such Unauthorised Persons than to expect it from ordinary Governors. §. VIII. 4. The case we are now speaking of is such as where it does not oblige him to performance, will oblige God to punish such Usurpers of his Authority. §. IX. It will oblige him as a private Person §. X. It will oblige him as a Governor. §. XI. The heinousness of sins against Authority. §. II. An inference by way of Application. §. XIII. 5. All these Reasons will particularly hold in those places where these Usurpations are in danger of proving injurious to the rights, even of subordinate Governors, that is in a place already possessed. §. XIV. How God as Supreme Governor is concerned for the honour of the Supreme visible Governors. §. XV, XVI. This honour due to inferior Governors impossible to be preserved if Subjects be allowed the liberty of setting up opposite Societies as often as they are of another mind, and of perpetuating such disorders by the validity of what they do in such their Usurpations. §. XVII, XVIII. It is inconsistent with Government that Subjects should be allowed to r●fuse their duty in case of inevidence against a presumptive title. This proved in two particulars: §. XIX. 1. It is necessary for the security of visible Government, as such, that a presumptive title be not rejected, but on very evident proofs to the contrary. §. XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII▪ XX▪ V, XXV. 2. The failures of this presumptive title in those who were at present possessed of the Government cannot justify the like Usurpation in them who should discover it. §. XXVI. It cannot secure their do from a Nullity. §. XXVII. It cannot secure their Persons from a crime which may oblige God to take the uttermost advantage which the Legal invalidity of their proceed might afford him. §. XXVIII. The case proposed concerning the assuming an Authority to administer the Sacraments in a desolate Island. How impertinent this is to our Adversaries case, and therefore how little temptation we have to be partial in answering it. §. XXIX. Answer. §. XXX. Their Persons could not be excused from presumption. §. XXXI. Their proceed could not be secured from Nullity. §. XXXII. p. 404.  
CHAP. XIX. 3. No other Ministers have this Authority of administering the Sacraments but only they who receive their Orders in the Episcopal Communion. This proved by several degrees. §. I. 1. he Authority of administering the Sacraments must be derived from God. Explained. §. II. The importance of this Proposition. §. III. Though this were not proved, yet our Adversaries practices are unjustifiable by the Principles of Government in general. §. iv As they were at first unjustifiable by the Principles of Government, so they can plead nothing which may make that justifiable now which was then unjustifiable. They cannot plead a lawful prescription. §. V If they could, yet this Proposition will cut them off from pleading it against God. §. VI, VII, VIII. The Proposition proved, 1. From the reason of the thing. §. IX. This performed by two degrees: 1. It is God alone that has the right of disposing the Spiritual benefits here conveyed §. X, XI, XII. The reason of the Adversaries mistakes. §. XIII. 2. It is none but he that can give Possession of them. §. XIV. 2. From the actual establishment of God. No such Authority actually conferred upon the people. §. XV, XVI, XVII. The weakness of the Argument from bare Primitive precedent for proving a right conferred shew● from the many condescensions of those times, and the prudence of the reasons that required them. §. XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII▪ XXIV, XXV. The unreasonableness of this way of arguing▪ §. XXVI. There were then circumstances proper to that Age which required particular condescension. §. XXVII. Though the Negative Argument be not good, yet the Positive is, that the actual claim of Governors than is a good Presumption that they had a right to the Power so claimed by them. §. XXVIII. Persons extraordinarily gifted at length made subject to the ordinary Governors of the Church. §. XXIX, XXX, XXXI. This derivation of Power rather from Governors than from the People agreeable to those Precedents whom the Primitive Christians were m●st likely to imitate. §. XXXII▪ XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV. A way proposed for accommodating the several interests concerned in Ordinations according to the practice of those times. §. XXXVI, XXXVII. The Apostles unlikely to confer this right of Government on the People, if left by God to their own Liberty, according to the Notions which then prevailed among the Christians. §. XXXVIII. Remarks tending to the satisfaction of the lovers of Truth and Peace: 1. This way of arguing from the actual establishments of God, as it is much more modest, so it is also more secure for finding out the right of Government, than any conjectures we can make from the reason of the thing. §. XXXIX, XL. 2. Though the People had this inherent right of Government originally, yet it cannot exclude a right of God who may, when be pleases, resume this right into his own hands. §. XLI. 3. If the people ever had such a right originally, yet all that has been done since for alienating that right which could be done. §. XLII. p. 423.  
CHAP. XX. 2. This Authority of administering the Sacraments must be derived from God by the Mediation of those men to whom it was at first committed by him. The Negative to be proved, That none can be presumed to have a call from God without, at least, an approbation from the Supreme visible Governors. §. I. 1. It is, in reason, and by the Principles of visible Government, requisite that this Negative be granted for the Conviction of false Pretenders to a Power received from God. 1. It is necessary that Pretenders should be discovered. §. TWO, III, IV. 2. It is also requisite that the means of discovering Pretenders be notorious to all, even to ordinary capacities. §. V, VI 3. These notorious means for discovering Pretenders must be common to all Ages of the Church, not proper only to that of the Apostles. §. VII. 4. Hence it follows that God left them to the same ordinary means of judging concerning the right of Spiritual Governors as had been used in judging concerning the right of their temporal Superiors. §. VIII, IX. 5. By this Rule of judging concerning Spiritual right the same way as we judge concerning temporal, none can be presumed to have this Power, but they who have received it from them to whom it was at first committed. §. X, XI. 6. This Inference will especially hold when access to the Supreme is most difficult. §. XII, XIII. This is the case of Ecclesiastical Government. §. XIV. Application to the Principles of a Modern Writer. §. XV, XVI. 2. Our Brethren must be obliged, in equity, to grant this way, because they cannot pitch on a more certain way for the trial of Pretenders. §. XVII. 1. They cannot do it by deriving their Authority from God immediately. §. XVIII, XIX, XX. 2. They cannot do it by pretending to receive their Authority immediately from the Scriptures independently on the Act of their ordinary Superiors. §. XXI. An Objection answered. §. XXII. p. 438.  
CHAP. XXI. 3. This Ecclesiastical Authority cannot be derived from those men to whom it was at first committed, to the Age we live in, without a continued Succession of Persons orderly receiving Authority from th●se who had Authority to give it them. §. I. 1. This Authority could not be derived from the Apostles themselves to any beyond their own times: Neither by their own Persons, nor by their deed of Gift, nor by their Writings. §. II. 2. It hence follows that the only way they could use for conveying this Authority to others, after their decease, must be by appointing sufficient Substitutes who might act for them after their departure. §. III. 3. The same reasons which prove it impossible for the Apostles to convey this Power to any who did not live in their own Age do also prove it impossible for any of their Successors to do so. §. IV, V 4. This Negative Argument will only hold concerning the only substitutes of the Apostles, and concerning them it will hold, That they who have not received Power from them who are alone substituted by the Apostles to convey their power to others, cannot at all receive any power from the Apostles. §. VI, VII, VIII, IX. 5. That this Negative Argument applied to any particular Age will hold concerning the only substitutes remaining in that particular Age. Bishops were the only substitutes of the Apostles then remaining when our Brethren began their Innovations. §. X. p. 476.  
CHAP. XXII. 4. The Authority of administering the Sacraments is not now to be expected any where but in the Episcopal Communion. §. I. Hence it follows that all the Authority which can be pretended in any other form of Government now, must be derived from the Episcopal Government of that Age wherein that form first began. §. II. The first Dividers of the several parties had never a Power given them of ordaining others by them who made them Presbyters. §. III, IV. 1. They have actually received no more Power from God than they have received from their Ordeiners. §. V 2. They have actually received no more from their Ordeiners than what their Ordeiners did actually intent to give them, according to their presumable intention. §. VI 3. That is to be presumed likely to be the intention of their Ordeiners which may be presumed likely to be thought becoming by Persons in their circumstances. §. VII. 4. The securest way of judging what the Bishops, who first ordained these Dividers, thought becoming must be by the Notions then prevailing when these first Dividers were ordained. §. VIII. p. 483.  
CHAP. XXIII. The Objection concerning the Opinion prevailing in the modern Schools that Bishops and Presbyters differed not in Order but Degree. Answ. 1. It seems rather to have been Interest than Conscience that inclined men to the belief of this Opinion. This cleared from a short History of this Opinion. §. I, TWO, III, IV, V Answ. 2. Though this Opinion had been received more universally than it appears it was, by the Multitude, yet it is not likely that it would be so received by the Bishops, upon whose intention the validity of the Orders conferred by them must depend. §. VI Answ. 3. Though the Bishops of those Ages had been universally of this Opinion, yet it does not thence follow that they must have given the Presbyters ordained by them the Power of ordaining others. It does not follow from the Notions of those times. §. VII. Nor from the reason of the thing. §. VIII. IX. The Principles on which these Persons proceeded in making on● Order of Episcopacy and Presbytery did not oblige them to believe that the Power of ordaining others was a right of simple Presbyters. §. X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV. Answ. 4. They who then held this Opinion, did, in all likelihood, neither intent, nor think of, any consequence from it prejudicial to the establishments then received. §. XV, XVI. p. 491.  
CHAP. XXIV. This supposition, That the Bishops had the right of Presiding over Ecclesiastical Assemblies sufficient for our purpose. §. I. 1. In regard of that Power which must be granted due to him, even as Precedent. This proved by these degrees: 1. Even by the Principles of Aristocratical Government, no Power can be given but by the act of that Body wherein the right of Government is originally seated. §. II. 2. No act can be presumed to be the act of that Body but what has passed them in their public Assemblies. §. III. 3. No Assemblies can dispose of the right of such Societies but such as are Lawful ones according to the constitutions of the Societies. §. IV, V 4. The Indiction of the Assembly by the Precedent is a right consequent to the Office of a Precedent as a Precedent, and a circumstance requisite to make the Assembly itself Lawful. §. VI, VII. 5. The Bishops have always been the Precedents of Ecclesiastical Assemblies, even as high as our Adversaries themselves do grant the practice of Presiding Presbyters. §. VIII, IX. This invalidates the Orders of our Adversaries. §. X. This was a right which no Bishops, how great Assertors soever of the Identity of their Order with that of Presbyters, ever did renounce. or could renounce, without making their Government unpracticable. §. XI. Though the Bishops had received their Power from their Election by men, yet that would not suffice to make valid any acts of the same men without their consent after their Election. §. XII, XIII. This right of Presidency might hold, though the whole right of their Power had been purely Humane. §. XIV. But supposing that right Divine, all that men can do can be only to determine the Person, not to confine the Power. The reasoning here used will proceed though Bishops had been made by Presbyters alone without the concurrence and consecration of other Bishops. §. XV. The Primitive Bishops seem indeed to have been made so by Presbyters without Bishops. §. XVI. p. 508.  
CHAP. XXV. 2. The Nullity of the same Ordinations proved even from the Principles of Aristocratical Government, from the right which Episcopal Presbyteries ought to have in giving Orders as they are considered as Presbyteries. §. I, II. This proved by these degrees: Though a Presbyter, when he is once made, is a Presbyter in the Catholic Church, yet the reason that makes him so is the correspondence of the whole Catholic Church with that particular one of which he was made a Member at his Ordination. §. III, IV, V, VI 2. Hence it follows that he who cannot validly make out his Authority in the particular Church in which he pretends to have received his Orders, cannot, in reason, expect that the Exercise of his Authority should be ratified in other Churches who cannot thus be satisfied that he has received them. §. VII. 3. The Church, by which the validity of the Orders of every particular Presbyter must expect to be tried, must not be a Church that derives its beginning from him, but such a one as must be supposed settled and established before he could be capable of any pretensions to Orders. Applied to single Presbyters. §. VIII. To whole Presbyteries made up of over-voted single Presbyters. §. IX, X, XI. 4. No Orders can be presumed to have been validly received in any particular Episcopal Church as Presbyterian without the prevailing suffrages of the Presbyteries. §. XII. A smaller over voted number of Presbyters cannot validly dispose of the common rights of the whole Presbyteries. §. XIII, XIV, XV. The Power given in the Ordination of a Presbyter is a right of the Presbytery in common, by the Principles of Aristocratical Government. §. XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, An Objection Answered. §. XX, XXI, XXII. Another Objection. Answered. §. XXIII, XXIV. Retorted. §. XXV. The reason of the Retortion given. §. XXVI. p. 525.  
CHAP. XXVI. 2. The Episcopal Communion to which every one is obliged to join himself, as he would secure the ordinary means of his own particular Salvation, is the Episcopal Communion of the place wherein he lives, whilst he lives in it. §. I. This proved against the several sorts of the Non-Conformists according to their several Principles. §. II. 1. As to the Presbyterians, and those who acknowledge an Obligation of Government antecedently to the consent of particular Subjects. And that by these degrees: 1. That, by the obligation of Government in general, all those particulars must be obliging without which it cannot be practicable. §. III. 2. Many of the Presbyterians themselves do acknowledge the determination of particular circumstances, and the Application of general rules to particular cases, to belong to the Office of Ecclesiastical Governors. §. iv 3. It is absolutely necessary for the practicableness of Government in general, that every Subject know his Governor, and him particularly to whom be in particular owes Obedience. §. V 4. The means whereby every particular Person may be convinced, to whom it is, that he in particular owes Subjection, must be such as may be presumed notorious to the whole Community, and such whereof others may judge as well as the Person particularly concerned, and by which they may judge as well concerning his Duty, as their own. §. VI 5. The Authority of these means must be from God. §. VII, VIII. Two Consequences inferred from hence: 1. Positive, That they must be under a Divine Obligation to own the Authority of these Jurisdictions whilst they live within them. §. IX. 2. Negative, That from this Divine Authority of Jurisdictions, they must find themselves obliged to forbear all opposite Communions or Assemblies within those Jurisdictions. §. X, XI, XII. Application made particularly to the Presbyterians. §. XIII. 2. As to the Independents, who deny all Ecclesiastical Authority antecedently to the voluntary obligation of particular Persons. §. XIV, XV. That there is really a Power of Government in the Church. §. XVI. That this Power is not derived from the Multitude. §. XVII, XVIII. p. 547.  
CHAP. XXVII. 2. That the nature of this Obligation to submit to all unsinful conditions of the Episcopal Communion is such as will make them guilty of the sin of SCHISM who will rather suffer themselves to be separated than they will submit to such conditions. The Notion of SCHISM as it is only a breach of correspondence not sufficient for my purpose. §. I. As it is a breach of a Body Politic it is. Application to our Adversaries. §. II. That by the Principles here proposed, the Persons from whom they separate must be their Governors. §. III, IV, V, VI, VII. Other things proved that are necessary for this Application. §. VIII. That this separation from their own particular Churches must necessarily infer a separation from the Catholic Church also. The Objection proposed. §. IX. Answ. If it were otherwise, it would destroy all Discipline, and therefore all the dividing parties who are for Discipline are obliged, as well as we, to answer this Objection, and to be favourable to what we shall say in answer to it. §. X, XI. A more particular Answer proving the thing principally designed. 1. This pretence of Union with the Catholic Church can be no encouragement for any to neglect any means of continuing his Union with his own particular Church, unless he may be assured that, whilst he wants it, he may notwithstanding continue united to the Catholic Church. §. XII. 2. That Union with the Catholic Church, of which we may be assured, must be such as may appear to us by the use of those external ordinary means which God has appointed for maintaining that Union. §. XIII. 3. In this way of judging, He that would assure himself of his being united to the Catholic Church, must do it by proving himself united to some particular visible Church by an external Communication in their Sacraments. §. XIV. 4. The external Communion of another Church, which while a separated Person does maintain, he may have hopes of keeping still his interest in the Unity of the Catholic Church, must not be any other Communion within the Jurisdiction in which he lives, and from which he is supposed to be separated. This proved in regard of Usurping Members of the same Church. §. XV, XVI. And of Unauthorised Members of other Churches, within the same Jurisdiction. §. XVII, XVIII. 5. Such Separatists cannot maintain their title to Catholic Unity by being received into any other Churches, though otherwise absolute and unaccountable to the Church from whence they are separated. §. XIX, XX, XXI. This proved. 1. The nature of the inconvenience, incurred by deprivation of Communion in a particular Church, is such as that it is impossible that the censure can be valid in that particular Church, unless it be valid in others. §. XXII. 2. Hence it follows that, if such a Person be received to the Sacraments in another Church without as good an Authority, for uniting him to the Unity of the Catholic Church, as that was by which he was deprived, only on supposition of the continuance of his invisible Unity with the Catholic Church notwithstanding his visible separation from a part of it, such Sacraments must, as to him, be perfect Nullities. §. XXIII. 3. No particular Church can, by its Authority alone, restore any too Catholic Unity who has been separated from it by another Church, without the consent of the Church by which he was at first separated. §. XXIV. 4. Hence it follows, That all that can be done by other Churches receiving a Person separated from the Communion of his own Church, can only be to judge of his case, not so as to oblige the Church to which he belongs originally to stand to their judgement, but only so far as concerns their own Jurisdiction. §. XXV, XXVI, XXVII. 5. Whatever is necessary for the design of God's establishment, that he must, by his design, be obliged to ratify, whether he has expressly said he will do so, or no. This applied. §. XXVIII. The validity of the separation proved when it is the act of the Separatists themselves, without any censures of Ecclesiastical Authority. §. XXIX, XXX. p. 564.  
CHAP. XXVIII. The usefulness of this discourse as to its two great designs. §. I, II. 1. For the most likely Notion of SCHISM. Two advantages of this way of stating the Government of the Church above others. §. III. 1. That the Government thus contrived will be most wisely fitted for practice. §. IV, V Because best fitted to the capacity of the illiterate multitude. §. VI Who will, 1. By these Principles, be best enabled to distinguish their true Superiors from false pretenders. §. VII. As to the Ordination of our Ministers. §. VIII, IX, X, XI, XII. As to that of the Non-Conformists. §. XIII. 2. They will hereby be best enabled to judge of the extent of their Duty to their true Superiors themselves. §. XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII. 2. This Hypothesis is peculiarly suited to the practice of such a Society as the Church is, for preserving Unity and a due respect to Authority in it, especially in times of persecution. §. XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX, XXXI. 2. The usefulness of this discourse as to its second great design, the showing the real danger and mischievousness of the sin of SCHISM. The impossibility of doing this on our Adversaries Principles. §. XXXII, XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV, XXXVI, XXXVII, XXXVIII, XXXIX, XL, XLI. On our Principles the Notion given hereof is popular, derived from the nature of the sin itself. §. XLII, XLIII. And suited to the affections and relish of pious Persons, though illiterate. §. XLIV. The great advantage of reasons suited to the affections of the Persons to be persuaded by them. §. XLV. These Principles are more easy to be judged of by popular capacities, in three regards. §. XLVI. 1. Most of those disputes which are matters of Learning are here avoided. §. XLVII. 2. The remaining disputes are reduced to such things which even illiterate Persons must be supposed experienced in, even in their worldly affairs. §. XLVIII, XLIX. 3. The main Principles of this discourse are such as are granted by our Adversaries themselves. §. L, LI, LII. The great advantages of proceeding on granted Principles. §. LIII, LIV. Particularly in relation to the accommodation of our present disputes. §. LV. p. 593.    

ERRATA.  
§ I PAge 15. line 12. read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 57 l. 12. r. this it. p. 62. l. 7. r. Church for want of such. p. 72. l. 27. r. World. p. 98. l. 21. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 112. l. 6. r. unloosening. penult. r. promise. p. 114. l. 36. r. also that. p. 116. marg. r. Tertull. p. 119 penult. del. of. p. 133. l. 21. r. so. 136.11. r. aggravable. p. 175. l. 1. r. Their design in producing those. l. 6. del. no. after are add not otherwise. l. 7. for this r. the disproof of these. p. 182. l. 17. r. be so. p. 185. l. 25. for unwilling r. willing. p. 187. l. 17. for not r. that. p. 193. l. 2. for nay r. so. l. 6. externals: Whence. p. 195. penult. r. Prayers. p. 199. l. 22. r. but l. 24. r. rigour. p. 206. l. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ult. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 220. l. 11. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 28. r. apposite. p. 221. l. 4. del. it. p. 222. l. 15. r. thus. p. 223. marg. 6. r. vulgatâ. p. 229. l. 36. r. crime in. p. 237. l. 25. r. pretend. p. 239. l. 8. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 240. l. 23. r. that as. p. 241. l. 30. r. also separated. p. 245. l. 35. r. therefore as. p. 247. del. marginem, and add ad not. (a) p. 248. p. 248. l. 6. r. excuse. marg. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 249. l. 16. r. to them. p. 250. marg. 10. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 254. l. 15. r. there. p. 256. l. 14. del. that. p. 259. l. 21. r. severity. p. 261. marg. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 262. marg. 17. r. Poliorcetes. p. 263. marg. Psal. L. p. 276. l. 15 r. Xeno. 279.32. ingenuously. p. 281. l. 1. r. guilt. p. 291. l. 34. r. extremely. p. 295. l 14. r. then. l. 35. r. sin. p. 297. l. 33. r. far. p. 307. l. 17. r. faxit. p. 308. l. 29. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 35. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ib. r. breath. p. 309. l. 17. r. of purer. l. 24. r. wink. p. 310. l. 21. r. which. l. 26. r. Soul. p. 311. l. 18. r. and. l. 23. r. Poets is. l. 26. r. is yet. p. 313. l. 4. del. if we deal ill with. p. 35. l. 5. r. think strange. l. 31. r. which. p. 319. l. 4. r. on. l. 9 r. be yet. p. 323. l. 29. r. proving. Without. p. 326. r. Spirit, only. p. 336. marg. 11. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 337. r. the return of Souls. p. 342. l. 23. r. are not. p. 361. l. 19 r. for. l. 27. r. consider we. p. 362. l. 21. r. then. p. 363. l. 4. r. need a. p. 369. l. 16. r. propagation. l. 17. r. invention. p. 373. l. 5. r. intention. l. 35. r. the. p. 376. l. 19 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 31. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 377. marg. 11. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 378. marg. 14. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 380. l. 38. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 394. l. 6. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. marg. 4. r. Numenio. p. 396. l. 10. r. knew. l. 30. r. a Mystery. p. 397. l. 22. r. were. p. 403. l. 9 r. new. p. 425. l. 17. r. pleases. Whatever. p. 442. penult. r. Texts. p. 443. l. 34. r. there. p. 447. l. 21. del. his. l. 22. del. to. p. 450. l. 25. r. the Spirit. p. 461. l. 25. r. prosecution. p. 463. l. 25. r. Power. p. 478 l. 18. r. former. p. 482. l. 1. r. loss. p. 495. l. 10 r. favourable. p. 498. marg. l. 8. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 546. 11. r. it. p. 550. l. 22. del. not. p. 597. l. 22. r. the. p. 604. l. 1. r. lot. p. 614. l. 31. del. not. p. 619. l. 17. r. another's.   

THE INTRODUCTION.  
THE CONTENTS.  
The concurrent sense of all, Irreligious, as well as Religious, concerning the present necessity of our Ecclesiastical Peace, and the great mischief of our Ecclesiastical Divisions. §. 1. The management of Religious Controversies with a design of Peace, will best answer the Qualifications of an useful Controvertist. §. 2. It is most agreeable with the most prudent Rules of managing Controversies, either for finding the Truth itself, or, where humane frailty might fail of that, for making the Error Innocent and Excusable. §. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. What influence this design of Peace would have particularly in those Controversies which are debated between Us and our Nonconforming Brethren; How far the Unpeaceableness of a Position of this kind may be urged as an Argument of its Falsehood, and on the Contrary. §. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. That our present undertaking is not unsuitable to the Office of a Peacemaker, §. 30, 31, 32. How much the Peace of the Church is concerned in this Controversy concerning SCHISM. How differently the Notion of SCHISM must be stated by them who make the Church a Body Politic, and by them who make it not so. Our Adversaries Notions of SCHISM, and of the Duty of a Peacemaker, Exactly fitted to the Supposition of the Church's being no Body Politic, and indeed very Rational upon that Supposition. What is to be thought of the Independent Tenet of placing all Ecclesiastical Authority Originally in the People, and how far that will clear their Practices from the charge of SCHISM. §. 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40. How the Notion of SCHISM must be stated on Supposition of the Church's being a Body Politic. §. 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51. An account of the Division of this work into the Rational and Historical Parts. Some intimations concerning the usefulness and design of the Historical. §. 52.  
THE Peace of the Church is a thing at present so extremely desirable, not only in regard of its intrinsic Charitableness, but it's many happy influences on our dearest Interests, not only Sacred but Secular, that he must be as Imprudent as Impious, as Inhuman as Vnconscientious, as little deserving the name of a Friend of his Country, as of a Lover of his Religion, who can still be unconcerned for a design (I do not say of such worth, but) of such importance for our settlement. For though there are few so Prudent as to foresee Inconveniences at a distance, or of so tender sense as to be vehemently concerned for Absurdities in Reasoning, or of so Spiritual an apprehension as to be moved by the purely Spiritual Threats or Rewards of the Gospel; yet every one is apt to be affected by his own Experiences. And accordingly we find, not only the Practisers, but, the very Enemies, of Religion to be now more than ordinarily inclinable to a Reconciliation: Not only such who are endued with that Modesty which would hinder Men from Imperious Dogmatizing or easy Censuring of Dissenters; or that ardent Charity for their Brethren of the same Profession, which would hinder them from either giving or taking any Offence which were by any Lawful means avoidable; or that Humility which would incline unskilful Persons to submit to the Judgement of Persons more skilful, at least in such matters wherein they might be convinced of their own Unskilfulness, and would make them diffident, if not in their Judgement, yet, at least in their Practice, when contrary to the sense of the more Judicious (which would very much conduce to secure the Church from disturbing Innovations) or that Pious Prudence which would make Men especially cautious of Errors, either in Opinions or Practices, which would prove extraordinarily mischievous, if Erroneous, as those must do which are destructive of the Government of that Society to which the Erroneous Persons are related, and yet more especially Cautious in such Cases wherein their past Experiences might be sufficient warnings against future Inconveniences, as they may here, where Men may find how little available the goodness of their Intention is for preventing the dangerous Events of their mistakes, when they have found themselves transported or deluded into Events very distant from their Original designs. But even the Enemies of Religion seem so far, at least, desirous of the Reconciliation of the Religious, as they think nothing of Religion worth contending for with that eagerness and bitterness which they find so very prejudicial to their worldly Interests. And considering that Providence has thus found out inducements to prevail with all Parties and all Interests to be thus Inclinable to receive, if not Industrious to promote and offer, terms of Reconciliation; it will now less than ever become the Sons of Peace, the Subjects of the Prince of Peace, the Professors of the Gospel of Peace, to be averse to it. And as there are not many Truths whose momentousness might in any Case make amends for public disturbances; so it may be Questionable whether any may now, when so many Parties and Conditions, so many different and great Interests, are concerned in the Consequences of it, when even the Reputation of Religion itself, and its most Fundamental Maxims are involved in the same success, and it is thought no very good Argument for the Prudence of an Institution, that its Votaries are conceived by it to be made implacable in their Contentions for many Propositions so impossible to be decided to the satisfaction of the different Parties; whilst they expose their common Belief to the derision of common Adversaries, and cause them to blaspheme that worthy Name by which they are called, and weaken their own Credit for the things of principal Importance by their mutual Reflections and Animosities and extreamly-partial behaviour for Propositions of inferior moment and Credibility. And as these very weighty Considerations of the present mischiefs of our Divisions must highly aggravate the Sinfulness and Disingenuity of such as cannot clear their Consciences from the guilt of having contributed to them; so the great Benefit of avoiding them, besides the many Positive advantages of Peace, must now more than ever entitle the endeavours of Peacemakers to that peculiar Beatitude promised to them by our Saviour himself in his Sermon on the Mount. 
Mat. v. 9.   
§ TWO BUT however seasonable it be for this present Age, yet it is not so absolutely necessary for my present design, to enlarge on a Topick so acknowledged as this, of the necessity of Catholic Peace, is. My desire only is to let my Dissenting Brethren know that, as it is my hearty desire to make this the design of all my Studies, and the employment of my Life; and as I am not Conscious to myself herein of any partial favour, but am induced to it by a hearty conviction of the value and necessity of the design itself, that there is indeed no other end more Pious, or more Generous, or more effectually conducive to the Service of God or the good of Mankind; so it shall be my particular endeavour to demean myself accordingly in the following Discourse; as not to oppose, so neither to abet, any Party as a Party, that is, as subsisting by any peculiar Principles inconsistent with Catholic Peace. And if I might prevail with my Adversaries to concur with me in the observation of the same Rule, I am confident that as our Disputes will prove more Edifying to all truly Christian Spirits, both for discovering the Truth, and prevailing with our Readers to receive it in the love of it; so our Errors, if after all our diligence we shall prove mistaken, must needs prove more Innocent, and, in regard of their good design; incomparably more excusable than otherwise. And I am the rather induced to believe that this is indeed the best way of managing these Disputes, because it does not only best comply with, and preserve, that temper which would most of all accomplish an useful Controvertist, and best fit him for public Service; but also, because it will in regard of the Considerations now mentioned, answer the most Prudent Advices for the manner of their management.  
§ III THIS way of managing Controversies will best comply with the Qualifications of an useful Controvertist. And he must needs be a Person very little versed in our modern Controversies who has not observed the great influence of the humours of the Controvertists on the Event. For when Men are Angry and Airy, forward to give and to receive provocation, how very easily do they digress to Personal Quarrels? And such, as they are perfectly useless to the Public, so they have a very ill influence on such as might otherwise prove useful. For by that means they are blinded in the search of Truth, and indisposed for following their own Convictions where they know it, and inclined to engage the Public in their private animosities. It makes them favourable to such Principles, not which are true, but which are for their purpose; It naturally loosens and and emasculates that closeness of Discourse which is absolutely necessary for our security where the Truth is obscure, and the Error dangerous; It takes them off from that awe of Conscience which would both quicken their Diligence, and oblige them to Sincerity; It naturally diverts them from sober reasonings to Popular flourishes and Rhetorical Arts of insinuation. And the shame of owning their mistakes in matters wherein they had been extremely confident, or of yielding to a despised, yet upbraiding, Adversary, or of losing their Authority and Interest in a Party which had admired them, when they cannot be Ingenuous at any lower rate than that of a public Penance for their Extravagances, does many time's necessitate them to poor and palpable contrivances of Evasion. And yet the concealment of their mistakes is not the only inconvenience to the Public from the disingenuity of these Persons, but many times they think themselves obliged to justify their former vehemence by a continued eagerness, and so to maintain their own reputation by ruining the Church's Peace. To which might have been added that averseness to conviction, to which such a way of dealing does naturally incline the Adversaries for whose conviction such Discourses are designed; how little they can value their Authority when they find them so palpably swayed by other motives than the merit of the Cause and the real conviction of their Consciences; with what regret they must be likely to bear with any Victory, though even of Truth itself, from such an Adversary who gives such indications of unkindness and hostility against their very Persons; how very unwilling they must be to prove mistaken when they must expect to be upbraided with their mistakes; how glad of any shifts that may silence either their Adversaries or their own Consciences. And to Persons thus disposed, it is hard to conceive a Cause so bad that cannot afford sufficient and plausible Palliations. But on the contrary all the Qualifications requisite for fitting a Controvertist for public use, whether of Industry or Vnprejudicedness, or Sincerity, or of a fair and candid demeanour which may sweeten the temper of the Erroneous Person, and dispose him to receive Conviction, which are absolutely necessary to recommend his Endeavours for the direction of the Judicious, or the Authoritative Guidance of the Multitude, are not only very reconcilable with, but very naturally consequent to, the temper of a Pious and Peaceable Person.  
§ IV BUT this way of managing Controversies with a design of Peace, is not only fitted to the Qualifications of an useful Controvertist, but the most Prudent Rules of managing that Employment. For the true design of an useful Controvertist being the discovery of such Truths wherein Mankind is concerned for their Practice▪ those means must be most Prudent for this purpose which may either secure us of finding the Truth itself, where it is capable of being found, or make the Ignorance excusable, and the Practice secure, where it cannot. And for both these purposes this design of Peace in our Religious Disputes does best fit us, especially in such as these concerning Government, for which we are at present concerned.  
§ V OUR Enquiring with a design of Peace does best fit us for the discovery of Truth itself, I do not now mean only as it provokes our Industry in our search, and makes us Candid both in judging, and in acknowledging the success of our own Convictions; but also as the Peaceableness of a Proposition of this nature may be made an Argument of its Truth itself. For considering that the Catholic Peace of the Christian Churches within themselves and with each other is an End not only worthy of the Divine Providence, but actually designed by him; and considering that it is not agreeable to the Divine Prudence that he should have designed an End without Means, or with Means repugnant to it; and particularly in our Case that he should design an End to be procured by the Church (as certainly in all Bodies Politic whatsoever is necessary for the preservation of its public Peace is inseparably and peculiarly the Province of its Governors) without Means in the power of the Church for procuring it, or with Institutions directly contrary; and considering withal that God in dealing with the Church, has not considered her Abstractly, but as she is at present in this Life, under all her frailties and disadvantageous Circumstances: We may therefore argue both Positively, that whatever is necessary for preserving this Peace of the Church in this Life as consisting of Persons, though wellmeaning, yet generally frail, and obnoxious both to mistakes and Prejudices, that has certainly been provided for by God; and Negatively, that what is necessarily destructive of that Peace, (I mean with a Moral Necessity considering the frailties of the generality, even of wellmeaning Persons) that is certainly contrary to the true design of God. So that though we had no other Argument against our Adversaries Principles and Practices but this, that Catholic Peace is by them rendered unpracticable and Morally impossible, at least, in this Life, and that by ours alone it is capable of being maintained, this alone were sufficient to prove as well their Falsehood, as their Inexpediency and mischievousness, and as well to prove the Truth of our own Principles and Practices, as the convenience of them on Politic Considerations. I am ware what ill Arguments some Men have deduced from this Topick, whilst they argue what God must have done, or not have done, independently on Revelation. But then I consider also that their mistakes are not deduced from this Proposition in the general and indefinite way wherein I have expressed it, but from their particular Applications, whilst they gratuitously presume either that an End was intended by God which was not, or that some Means was conducive or necessary for it, which has proved otherwise on a particular Examination. And I confess that before this can be applied to our Dissenting brethren's Case, it will need several other more particular improvements. But though this Principle or its Application were indeed as fallible as they are concerned to believe it to be, yet I add farther,  
§ VI THAT it will, at least, even in that Case, secure the Practice Innocent, and render the Error Excusable. In Reason and Conscience, as well as in Policy, we are obliged to be more wary, where our mistakes are like to prove of dangerous Consequence; and where the mischief will be very great, there the necessity of the thing and our Conviction of it must be proportionable, that may secure our Practice. For besides that no Error of our Judgement is ever likely to be imputed to us to our Prejudice, but that which is joined with some ill disposition of our Will, and that it is certainly no such ill disposition of our Will to prefer a Duty of greater, before another of lesser consequence, and to prejudg in favour of it where there does not appear such evident conviction to the contrary, as may make amends for the danger of venturing on it (for in matters of Practice, the dangerousness as well as the Falsehood of an Assertion is very Justly and Conscientiously considerable, especially when the danger is of offending God, and ruining our own Souls) and besides that no Prudent and Good Legislators could think it convenient for the Public, that their greatest and most important commands should be neglected as often as there might appear some little probable Evidence for some lesser Duty that were inconsistent with them, and that they must therefore be better pleased with him who in such a Case should stick to the greater Duty and neglect the less, than with him who should extremely prejudice the Public by a too scrupulous adherence to his own Convictions, and must judge it reasonable to be better pleased with him though in the Event he should prove mistaken, not only in regard of his good meaning and the pitiableness of his condition, but also in regard of the real usefulness of such a Presumption for the Public in such a Case, wherein it were managed with Sincerity and Candour, (and it can certainly be no dishonour to Presume him pleased with that, which we have reason to believe would please a Good and Just humane Legislator, in regard of its reasonableness and good influence on the Public, for which he were concerned) and besides that this is a certain Rule in all Positive Commands, where the omission is not intrinsically evil, that all such things cease to be, so much as Duties when they prove inconsistent with others of greater consequence to the Public, nay and that this is a Rule approved by God himself in the practice of his own Commands, as is professedly proved by our Saviour himself, 
Mat. XII. 7.  in that of the Sabbath (which is an Observation which I believe might prove very useful to facilitate our Dissenting brethren's compliance if they would be pleased to consider it) I say besides all these Considerations, the very want of such an Evidence for smaller Duties as may make amends for their consequential Prejudice to the Public, is indeed a more rational Argument to prove them false, than such Probability as falls short of it is to prove them true.  
§ VII FOR considering God only as a Good and Prudent Governor, and who withal cannot be forgetful of doing what he knows to be most Prudent, as Humane Governors may, it is not Credible that he should not give that Evidence of Conviction for every particular Duty which is suitable to the moment of the thing required in it, that, as he is, by his Government, obliged to value Duties differently according to their different influence on the Public; so he might accordingly secure their performance, that those which are more necessary for the Public may be principally secured, which he cannot be conceived to have done if he have not proportioned their Evidence to their momentousness. And therefore where a Duty doth interfere with the public Interest, though we may have some probability for it, yet if the Probability be not so great as, upon the account now mentioned, may be expected for an Action of such consequence, whatever we may think of it in regard of its Probabilities, yet this will be a much more certain Argument to us that God never intended in such Circumstances to oblige us to it. But, to omit any further reasonings, this Presumption is in itself so very Equal as that, I think, all Parties will acknowledge it to be so where they are unconcerned, that is indeed, where they are Equal Judges. And as, I think, all Protestants will believe that that degree of Probable Appearance, which might have excused an Erroneous Conscience in Practices of inferior concernment, could not yet be admitted as a sufficient Apology for Ravilliac, and the Powder-Traitors, for their attempts against the Lives of their Princes, and the welfare of their Countries; so the Romanists themselves will pass the same Censure on those Laws and Severities against themselves, which they call Persecution, that these are less easily excusable in us than our Heresy; because they are more mischievous. And certainly the disturbance of the Church's Peace, not only by forbearing Communion (which would expire with the Persons Life) but also by erecting opposite Communions (which is the means to perpetuate the disturbance to all succeeding Generations) would in the Judgement of every Peaceable, that is indeed every truly Christian Spirit, be reputed a mischief so great as that the moment of very few Propositions would be able either to excuse, or make amends for it. Which is sufficient to show that it is as Safe as Wise, as Pious as Politic, to be favourable to the Church's Peace in judging concerning the merit of particular Controversies.  
§ VIII IN pursuance therefore of this Discourse it would concern every Conscientious Person in our Adversaries Case, dissenting from the Church wherein he was Born and Baptised, to Inquire Impartially 1. Whether the thing maintained by him be True or False? And if upon the most accurate and Sincere Enquiry he still think it True, than 2. With what degree of Evidence it appears so to him, whether Certainly, or only Probably; and with what degree either of Certainty or Probability? For it is certain that variety herein will vary the Case of the Lawfulness of the compliance of such a Person, for it may be much more Lawful to suppress his sentiments in Probabilities than Certainties, and in less than greater Probabilities. If he conceive it Certain, then 3. Whether it be also Necessary, and with what degree of Necessity? Whether it be only Necessary for himself who is already convinced of it, or it be Necessary for others that they be convinced also? For it can only be in this latter kind that any can pretend to any Obligation to divulge their Sentiments. If it be conceived also necessary for others, than 4. Whether it be necessary to be taught them by a Person in his Condition? For it is certain that according to the difference of men's Conditions their Obligations are also very different; and some men's Conditions may free them from those Obligations to which others may remain obnoxious. If even this be so, that he be the Person obliged to Teach and Propagate his different Sentiments, yet 5. Whether the mischiefs naturally consequent to such an attempt be not greater than those which are likely to follow from his omission, and therefore sufficient to excuse it? For it is, in Conscience, as well as Prudence, Lawful to permit a lesser Evil for avoiding a greater, though it be never Lawful to incur the guilt of a Sin for avoiding any; and the Obligation incumbent on us for instructing others is to be deduced from their Interest in the Truth wherein they are to be instructed, and therefore where this Interest proves inconsistent with a greater, there it can be no Sin, but only a lesser Evil, to omit it. If these mischiefs should not be conceived sufficient to disoblige him, than 6. Whether he be obliged any farther than only to propose it, and so to leave it to the Judgement and Approbation of his Superiors, I do not mean in order to the determination of his own Internal Assent, but as competent Judges of what is fit to be externally transacted for the Proselyting of others? Or whether he be also obliged to resist their determination, when different from his own? If he conceive himself obliged to resist them, than 7. How far he is so obliged? Whether only so far as to suffer himself rather to be cast out of Communion than to comply? Or, whether he may also be Active in withdrawing his own Communion, even before he is Judicially Excommunicated? Or whether, being Excommunicated for such a Cause, he be not so much as Obliged to give Passive Obedience to such Censures of his Lawful Ordinary Superiors, but may also be Active, not only in encouraging and favouring, but also in erecting, an opposite Society; seeing that if he himself should prove the Person mistaken (as he has no reason to think himself more Infallible than his Superiors) this is a way to perpetuate the Quarrel, and that, in such a Case, very Injuriously? Especially 8. If he be a Person to whom the power of Governing and maintaining Ecclesiastical Societies, either by an administration of the Sacraments in his own Person, or by providing for an Ordinary Succession in Ordaining others, has never been in an ordinary way communicated (which is generally the Case of our Separating Brethren) Whether this supposed Justice of his Cause can excuse or warrant such an arrogating of a Power never received? Or whether he can expect that God will countenance him in such his Usurpations?  
§ IX IF all these Inquiries were made with that accurateness and exactness with which they ought and would be examined by every truly Pious and Peaceable Person; though Men, whilst they are Men, might still be supposed likely to descent in matters truly Disputable and of inferior concernment, yet, I believe, the Cases would be found very rare wherein themselves would Judge it safe or excusable to prosecute their differences so far as to divide the Church for them. And if the Persons concerned would be pleased to consider further (what all wise men that are any thing conversant in Controversies will acknowledge from their own Experience) that it is in all Questions much more easy to Object than to establish any thing Positive; that especially matters of Practice are only capable of high Probabilities, or Morally Certain Presumptions, which not amounting to a proof a priori may therefore be conceived very consistent with the unaccountableness of many Phaenomena, so that if we were never to presume any thing true in order to Practice till we were able to give a Positive account of all Objections against it, much the greater part of Man's Life must be spent in a Pyrrhonick 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; that seeing this is so, and that it must be therefore Prudent to proceed to Practice in many Cases wherein we cannot Answer contrary Objections, therefore it must be the wisest course to rule ourselves by Positive consistent Notions fitted for the Difficulties on both sides, rather than by particular Objections.  
§ X WHICH if our Dissenting Brethren would observe, and would therefore consider the Interest of the Church in a due respect to be paid to Governors in order to the establishment of a Just and solid Peace, as well as in preserving the Liberty of private Christians, and preventing Tyrannical Impositions; and would therefore be so wary in their Arguments for the latter as that they may not prejudice the former; but would therefore first think of a Prudent Mean which might avoid both Extremes, and reconcile both Objections,, and then be wary that the Arguments insisted on might prove no more than what they ought to do consequently to such an Hypothesis; if, I say, they would seriously consider these things, this would prove both a more Prudent Expedient for finding out the Truth than that which is usually observed by them; and I verily believe, would, in the Event, discover to them the Fallacies of many of their Arguments.  
§ XI IT would better help them to find the Truth; for they would thus be forewarned how much their Arguments must prove, and therefore which if they exceed they may justly be presumed Fallacious, though their particular Fallacy be not as yet discovered, which must needs be of excellent use in affairs of Practice. Thus they who admit of the Churches being a Body Politic and subject to a Government properly so called, and yet withal hold the unlawfulness of some Impositions on Subjects, must Consequently be assured that all those Arguments in favour of the Liberty of the Subject which either encroach on the Rights of Government in general, or render the Government of that particular Society unpracticable in such Circumstances with which all humane Government is to be considered, or overthrow the Moral possibility of Catholic Peace, on the one side; and those which so favour the Governors of the Church as to make all their Impositions obliging, even in those Instances wherein their Subjects have a Right to Liberty, on the other; they must, I say, proceeding on these Principles, be assured that both these sorts of Arguments, how plausible soever they may seem, yet are really Fallacious.  
§ XII IT would also discover to them the fallaciousness of their own Arguments. For let this Principle only be taken for granted, that all Arguments pleading for the Liberty of Subjects from Ecclesiastical Impositions (so that by an unavoidable Parity of Consequence they overthrew the Moral possibility of Catholic Peace) conclude too much, and therefore indeed conclude nothing at all; and it will then concern them to beware that their own Arguments be not chargeable with this Fallaciousness.  
§ XIII BUT because Men are extremely partial in Judging concerning a Cause which they have already espoused, therefore it would be much more equal to represent their own Case in others Persons before they pass their Censure concerning it. I take it therefore for granted that God hath established Catholic Unity on such Terms as are not likely to fail frequently and perpetually among Pious well-disposed Persons, nay not at all perpetually. This I do not therefore take for granted because I think it difficult to be proved, but because I conceive its proof easy and unnecessary. This therefore being supposed, it will follow that, if, by the general Principles of our Nonconforming Brethren, many and perpetual Divisions must in all Probability happen even among Pious well-disposed Persons, the Preservation of Catholic Peace is on these Principles Morally impossible, and therefore that the Principles themselves are certainly Fallacious.  
§ XIV AND that our Dissenting Brethren themselves may understand this, I shall entreat them to consider, Whether upon the same Principles by which they excuse their Separation from us, and their Erecting opposite Communions, which is the way to perpetuate their Separation, they have not given other Pious Persons an Apology, by themselves unanswerable, to separate also from themselves, whom yet they will undoubtedly blame for doing so? Which will consequently oblige them, when this is proved true, to acknowledge the Fallaciousness of their own Arguments. For what can be pretended in defence of their Separation from Us, that may not be pleaded by others against themselves, for Justifying eternal Subdivisions of their own Congregations into inconsiderable Fractions?  
§ XV IS it the moment of the things? But they are as little momentous as is possible, even such as themselves confess to be only Circumstantials of Religion, and in their own Nature perfectly Indifferent. It were easy here to retort the Arguments themselves make use of to persuade our Governors to yield them. For can they pretend that they are Indifferent to be yielded by Governors in condescension to their weaker Subjects? And can they at the same time think them not Equally Indifferent for Subjects to be complied with in Submission to their Governors? Or can any Cause be thought too frivolous and inconsiderable for Justifying a Separation when such as these are thought sufficient for it?  
§ XVI OR is it the Imposition of such things that is thought so very grievous, though the things themselves were (as Calvin was pleased to call them) tolerable Follies? Indeed this might rationally be urged to persuade Governors to forbear the interposition of their Authority in such Cases where there were so little need to interess it. But that itself were only rational when Governors were also persuaded of their needlesness. But when it is further urged, as it is by them, to Justify the Separation of Subjects in such Cases wherein Governors cannot be convinced of their needlesness; how can they Answer such as, on the same Terms, should be desirous to separate from themselves? For if this be so, Governors must never expect to be obeyed but in such Cases wherein Subjects are equally convinced with themselves of the particular Necessity of their Impositions. Which must make Government perfectly useless, and must necessarily leave themselves destitute of an Apology against Subdividers.  
§ XVII IT must make Government perfectly useless. For Government must needs be unsignificant without a Coercive power over Dissenters, and on th●se Terms it will be impossible for it to have any such power. For how easy is it for Dissenters to pretend that they are not satisfied with their Impositions if by this Means they may expect to be excused from their Jurisdiction? And if this Plea be not conceived sufficient to exempt such Subdividers from themselves, why do not themselves think of a better for their Exemption from ours?  
§ XVIII POSSIBLY they will Reply that it is impossible to establish any Preservatives of Peace which may not be abused by Pretenders. I confess it is so, and from this very Concession I infer the necessity of Governors following their own Judgement in their Government, how different soever it may prove from that of their undutiful Subjects. For if Pretenders may evacuate the best Preservatives of Peace, when they may be permitted not only to Judge concerning them, but to conform their Practice to such their Judgement; and it be also impossible to distinguish Pretenders from such as descent on account of real Conviction, as certainly it is impossible to know their thoughts, and without that impossible also to distinguish them; it will follow that no preservatives of Peace thus permitted to the Judgement of Subjects can be significant, at least, that Governors cannot, in that way of proceeding, of suiting their own Decrees to the Consciences of their Subjects, fix on any certain Rules how the Public Peace may be preserved, and therefore that they must be put on an unavoidable Necessity of trusting their own Judgements. If a Coercive Power be necessary for the ends of Government, certainly there are no Subjects more proper on which it should be exercised than such Pretenders. And because such Pretenders cannot be distinguished from others; and, if they Can, yet generally the Arguments for the Merit of the Cause are more cogent than those which prove the Sincerity of any particular Person whatsoever; and because in the Judging concerning such Arguments, every one, and much more Governors, can better assure themselves of their own Industry in Enquiring, and their own Sincerity in following Conviction; therefore every one who is capable of Judging (which sure must not be denied to Governors only) must find it much more reasonable to trust his own Judgement than that of any other, which if he do, he must also conceive it most Prudent to Practise accordingly. I cannot imagine what use there can be of Government, if, after its determinations, private Persons must still be permitted to Dispute their own Duty, nor with what confidence our Brethren can deny this Liberty to others which they have so freely Practised themselves.  
§ XIX IF they say further, that if Governors did their Duty, and were careful either to impose nothing but what themselves, at least, conceived very Necessary and very Reasonable, or to Inquire into the Merit of the Thing before they imposed it; they would not be likely to impose any thing that the generality of wellmeaning Persons would not think reasonable as well as themselves: And that Providence is only concerned for the generality of Persons so qualified, that they have means sufficient to inform them of their Duty if they be not deficient to themselves (for that some few wellmeaning Persons, or that even greater numbers of such of them as are not sufficiently Industrious to inform themselves of their Duty through their own fault, or that even the generality of ill-meaning Persons, should be permitted to be mistaken, is so far from being derogatory to Providence as that indeed it is very agreeable to the Rules of its proceed) and that in such a Case there could be no Inconvenience if Governors were indeed rigorous in urging the observation of their own Decrees when it might justly be presumed that either none but ill-meaning Persons, or, if any others, yet but few of them, or such of them as were otherwise culpable for not using sufficient diligence in procuring a better information, would suffer under such Severities. This I do indeed conceive to give the most tolerable account of the Practicableness of any Authority on their Principles who conceive it necessary that Subjects be particularly convinced of the reasonableness of those things which are made the Instances of their Obedience. Only for deducing even this Consideration itself nearer home to Practice, several things would be further considerable to let our Brethren understand that even by these Principles themselves, if Prudently applied, their own Separation cannot be excused; or if it may, it must be by such Arguments as may be urged unanswerably by Subdividers from themselves. For I would entreat them to consider, Who must be Judge of this Presumption? What things may be presumed so necessary and evident as that wellmeaning and Industrious Persons may generally be presumed capable of being convinced concerning them? What kind of things especially may be presumed capable of that Evidence, and so fit for the Exercise of Authority? And in what Cases there is indeed any need of such particular Conviction in order to the Practice of Obedience?  
§ XX 1. WHO must be Judge of this Presumption, Whether the Impositions may be presumed so Necessary and Evident as that the generality of wellmeaning and Industrious Persons may be presumed capable of being convinced concerning them? By Judge I mean not, as the Romanists do, such a one as must never be supposed by his Subjects to be capable of being mistaken, and therefore whose Authority must be allowed as a certain Argument of the Justifiableness of his determinations; but as it is understood in our ordinary Secular Courts, whom none think Infallible, and yet all Equal Persons think fit to be submitted to in Practice, with an Active Obedience in all things Lawful, however inconvenient, and a Passive even in things unlawful. Now if we do not agree who shall Judge of this Presumption, it will be in vain to pretend there may be such a one for reconciling our Differences, or healing our Divisions. For if every private Person must still Judge of this Presumption in order to his own Practice, it will never be serviceable as a Presumption. For can they think that he, who dissents from his Superiors, can at the same time presume their Determinations (so repugnant to his own present Sentiments) to be so Necessary, and Evident, and so capable of affording him sufficient Conviction? And yet the whole Use of this Presumption as a Presumption is only for Dissenters. For to such as are already of the same mind with their Superiors, what need can there be of any Presumption to make them so? If therefore the Superiors themselves must be taken for the competent Judges of this Presumption, how can they excuse themselves for so manifest an opposition of them? Or what can they pretend to implead the Separation of others from themselves, when they have given them so pregnant and undeniable a Precedent of opposition to their own Superiors?  
§ XXI BUT admit that some things were indeed so Evident as that no Industrious and Ingenuous Persons could differ concerning them; yet it would further have concerned our Brethren to have Enquired 2. Whether the matters wherein they differ from their Ecclesiastical Superiors be generally capable of such a degree of Evidence? For if they be only capable of Probable Evidence, it cannot be Presumed that the Generality of those whose Unanimity must, on these Principles, be necessary for the preservation of Ecclesiastical Peace, can be induced to an Unanimity by the intrinsic Merit of the Cause. And generally matters of Practice, such as are the Subjects of our dividing Disputes, are not capable of stronger Arguments than Probabilities, especially such of them as are Prudentially fitted to present Circumstances. Either therefore they must acknowledge themselves obliged to yield to the Judgement of their Superiors, which may especially prove oftener reasonable in such Cases where many times the Extrinsic Probability deduced from such Authority may be greater than that which is Intrinsic from the Merit of the Cause: Or they must (as indeed they seem inclinable to do) deny the use of Authority generally in such Prudential Interpositions. If the former, that, though it be indeed an excellent Expedient for Peace, yet I doubt they will never be able to explain how it is reconcilable with their own Practices. If the latter, they must deny all Authority in those Cases wherein Authority is principally needful. For indeed this is the principal use of a Succession of Authorized Persons, not only to make application of the perpetual standing Laws of a Society to particular Cases, (though even that must require a decision of many doubtful Cases undecided by the Laws themselves, and many times capable of as little Evidence as those we are discoursing of, and yet in such our Brethren cannot themselves deny the necessity of a standing Authority, which yet is not Intelligible, at least, not Practicable, without a reciprocal Duty of Submission in their Subjects) but also to provide for those varying Cases, which, because they are themselves so obnoxious to change in variety of Circumstances, are not therefore so fitted for the determination of Laws perpetually obligatory. For though the Circumstances themselves be of their own nature indifferent, yet their determination is many times absolutely necessary for rendering those general Laws Practicable, so that in such Cases they are not properly so indifferent as our Adversaries conceive them. And yet if they were prescribed by general immutable Laws they must have been prescribed in such Cases wherein they had not been either expedient or good, which, I believe, our dissenting Brethren themselves will Judge unreasonable. And if when they are good or evil there be no power to make provision concerning them, methinks all wise men should look on it as a considerable defect in the Polity of that Society which is concerned for them. But if any Provision be, it must either be by a particular conviction of every particular Person (for it is the Unanimity of their Observation that makes them edifying and useful) and that cannot be expected in matters of so obscure Evidence, and so variable a nature; or by the determination of Superiors, which is the thing they are so desirous to avoid.  
§ XXII ACCORDING to the Topics insisted on by our dissenting Brethren against these Impositions, I cannot conceive any Evidence so great as that (if themselves would be pleased candidly and calmly to reflect on it) they could think it sufficient to persuade all Inquisitive unconcerned Governors infallibly to their Opinion. As for clear Scripture against them, it is not as much as pretended. All that is pretended, to prove their contrariety to it, is its Silence concerning them. But how far from Infallibly-convincing Evidence are those Arguments which they produce to prove this Silence to be a sign of Disapprobation? That the Scriptures are perfect none will deny them; nor that they adaequately contain all those things for which they were designed by the Holy Ghost as an adequate Rule. But what those things were for which the Holy Ghost designed the Holy Scripture as an adequate Rule, seeing they depend on his unsearchable Counsels, and his Arbitrary pleasure, we have no reason to be very confident of, till we be assured by very particular, and very express, Revelation. And here, where the true stress of the Controversy lies, where is that Evidence which may be presumed sufficient to prevail with all Candid Industrious Persons to make them Infallibly of one mind, if any Probabilities may be allowed so inevident in themselves as even such after all their Industry and Candour may be presumed still likely to differ concerning them? How do they prove that the Holy Ghost ever intended it as an adequate Rule of Discipline, I do not only mean so as to prejudg against all Provisional Constitutions of Ordinary Governors fitted to the Circumstances of future Ages, but even so as that any Platform of Government, even of that Age, was designed to be explained to us, much less recommended or imposed as an unalterable unimprovable Precedent to all succeeding Generations? None of the Sacred Writers ever tell us that this was so much as designed by them, nor can it be necessarily concluded from the design of any particular Book in it. Nay rather, by all the ways by which we can judge of such a thing, we have reason to presume that even those parts of Discipline, which are occasionally alluded to, were never designed for the Information of Posterity. For no more is mentioned concerning them than what fell in very appositely with their other designs, and even those that are mentioned are not explained, but presumed as Notorious to those to whom their Writings were addressed, as other Antiquities and Customs peculiar to that Age in which Posterity was never likely to be further concerned. And where is then this Evidence which may be presumed by our dissenting Brethren themselves Infallibly convictive of all Candid and Industrious Persons?  
§ XXIII BUT that which would have been more likely to have discovered to them the Fundamental mistakes of this kind of Discourse, is to consider 3. In what Cases there is indeed any need of this particular Conviction? Indeed where the mistake might involve them in a Sin, that might be imputed as such to their particular Persons, I confess they could not be too wary in Enquiring after particular Conviction. But where the matter is of itself naturally Indifferent, where it is only the Unanimity of its observance that makes it good and useful, and it is plain that this Unanimity is best procured by standing to the Arbitrement of Governors; such Submission must, even in the Judgement of every private Person, be esteemed the most Prudent Expedient for securing a good Practice, which is as much as a Private Person is concerned for. And indeed this preserving Order, and a due respect to Governors, is a Consideration so principal in this kind of performances as may make amends for any mistakes in the Expediency of particular Impositions. Nay I might have shown that the great Ends of public Edification might, on these Supposals, have been as effectually promoted in many mistaken Impositions, as if there had been no mistake at all. And where the mistake is so no way dangerous, where it has so very little, if any, influence on that which alone, in the estimation of Equal Persons, makes the Practice commendable, nay where Disobedience is certainly a greater Evil than can be feared from any mistake in the Imposition itself; what imaginable reason is there why we should be refractory?  
§ XXIV BESIDES the mistake, if any were, belongs not to our Province, and consequently cannot be imputable to Us, but our Superiors. And though the mistake were chargeable on us as an Imprudence, yet how can it be reputed as a Sin? Especially considering that it neither involves us in the violation of any of the Divine Commandments, nor even in a sinful violation of the Moral Obligation of Prudence itself. For can they think all our less discreet Actions to be Formal Sins on account of their being so? Or can it be a Sinful violation of the Law of Prudence itself to do that which is not so serviceable to its immediate end with a design upon a greater? And is not that the Case exactly here? Is not the preservation of the Church's Peace by a compliance with less Prudent Impositions a more considerable End than the Edification of particular Persons by the suitableness of every particular Ceremony? Will themselves think it agreeable to the Laws of Christian Prudence, sometimes to comply with the weakness, nay with the humoursomness of wellmeaning Brethren, whom they think mistaken? And can they think the same condescension Sinful and Imprudent only when it connives at the equally-pardonable mistakes of a Lawful Authority? If these Presumptions be not sufficient for Governors to exert their Authority over Refractory Subjects, that either the matters themselves are of so little concernment as that the Consciences of their Subjects cannot be reasonably prejudiced by any mistakes concerning them; or if otherwise, that the native Evidence of the things is sufficient to satisfy all Inquisitive wellmeaning Persons; I confess I do not see how they can avoid making the Duty of Governors intricate and unpracticable, which certainly is to make it otherwise than God has made it. And if Governors acting bona fide on these Presumptions must necessarily interfere with the Consciences of the generality of their wellmeaning and Inquisitive Subjects, (as I think it follows unavoidably from our dissenting brethren's Principles) this methinks would be sufficient to discover the Falsehood of them. For certainly the Catholic Peace of the Church as a Body Politic is Fundamentally grounded on this reconcileableness of the Duty of wellmeaning Conscientious Governors with the Duty of the generality of their wellmeaning Conscientious Subjects; and therefore those Principles which hinder the possibility of reconciling them, must, on that very account, remain convicted of being False, as well as Vnpeaceable.  
§ XXV AND if our Brethren do not allow this power to the Governors of their own Parties, why do they Censure or separate from Dissenters from themselves? If they do, how can they excuse themselves for separating from their own Governors at first, and giving others a Precedent by them unanswerable? I am confident their own Doctrines and Decrees are not in many Cases capable of higher Evidence than ours, as little clear from express Scripture, or any obvious Consequence deduced from it, and according to the sense of any Judicious impartial Person as liable to mistake. If therefore notwithstanding this they think their Proof sufficient to ground a Presumption of their Ingenuity, even in Persons dissenting from them, I do not understand any disparity why they should not admit the like Presumption for our Ecclesiastical Governors.  
§ XXVI I KNOW there is a complaint taken up by some of our modern Adversaries, that we misrepresent them as often as we tell them that they break off Communion with the Church, of which they were Members, for things Indifferent▪ Nor do I conceive it necessary on this occasion to convince them of their mistake, and our own Fidelity, by references to their own more ancient and famous Authors. For my part I do not think that there is any real difference betwixt even them and their Predecessors, but only in a misunderstanding of the Notion of Indifferency that is ascribed to such Impositions of their Superiors. For if by Indifferency be meant an Indifferency in the Circumstances of Practice after they are Imposed; we are so far from thinking that they believe them thus Indifferent, as that we ourselves do not believe them so, nor consequently have we here that ordinary occasion of such mistakes of ascribing our own Sentiments to them. We ourselves believe them as Necessary to be done when they are commanded by our Lawful Superiors, as they believe them Necessary to be omitted. The Indifferency therefore which we ourselves believe to be in them, and wherein we believe our Brethren also to be of our mind, is in the nature of the things themselves antecedently to the determination of ordinary Ecclesiastical Superiors.  
§ XXVII AND if they do not believe them Indifferent in this sense, why do they insist on the same Arguments with their Predecessors concerning Christian Liberty and the Perfection of the Scriptures? For can they pretend Christian Liberty in such Instances wherein Christ himself has imposed on their Liberty? Or do they think that the Scriptures taking no notice of a thing is sufficient not only to make the thing so omitted unlawful to be Imposed, but unlawful also to be Practised?  
§ XXVIII THIS acknowledged Indifferency therefore of the things Antecedently to the Interposition of Ecclesiastical Authority is the thing we conceive them to believe. And their belief that the things are thus Indifferent Antecedently to Ecclesiastical Authority, and yet are Unlawful when Authority has interposed, this, I say, we conceive perfectly destructive of such Authority. For by this means such Authority can never oblige us to do any thing for its own sake, when its interposition in a thing otherwise Lawful in itself is conceived sufficient to make it Unlawful. For it cannot be discerned what is done for the sake of this Authority, but only in such instances where no other reason of doing a thing can be pretended. If therefore nothing be done for it, it cannot be conceived to have any obligation of its own, which if it have not, it is impossible it should be owned as an Authority.  
§ XXIX AS for the Authority of proposing Divine Laws obligatory Antecedently to their Proposal, besides that when it comes to Practice, it will not be found very significant with our Brethren, when every private Person among them is permitted to Judge so freely for himself, and so freely to practise according to his own Judgement, however different from that of these Authoritative Proposers of the Divine Pleasure to him; I say, besides this, the Authority thus acknowledged is not confined to the Office or Jurisdiction, but is wholly grounded on the Personal skill of the Persons Authorized, and consequently is not the Authority of a Body Politic, so that at least this is utterly subverted by these Principles and Practices of our Brethren, which is all that I am concerned for at present. This therefore may suffice at present to show the inconsistency of these Principles and Practices of our Brethren with Catholic Peace, because I am desirous to hasten to my principal design.  
§ XXX I PROCEED therefore to show that my present undertaking is not unsuitable to the Person I am here desirous to observe, viz. that of a Peacemaker. This is the rather fit to be taken notice of, because it is conceived that the Apostles Precedent in that great Dispute, concerning eating things offered to Idols, does oblige Peacemakers to avoid maintaining either side of such disputed Propositions, or abetting either Party. So the Apostle advises even them, 
Rom. XIV. VIII.  whose better informed Consciences were sufficiently convinced of the Indifferency of such meats in regard of themselves, to yield their own Right rather than offend their weaker Brethren, who might take their eating them for an honour to the Idol, and might be tempted not only to hard and undeserved censures of such a Precedent, but might be induced, by Authorities so revered by them, to believe such honours innocent, and by degrees to give those honours which themselves conceived to reach the Idol, which, in regard of Consciences so persuaded could be no better than downright Idolatry. In such a Case as this he professes himself so tender of the welfare, even of such weak Brethren, and so willing to abridge himself even of his own Liberty where it might prove prejudicial to it, that he would rather never eat at all than scandalise a weak Brother by doing so. 
1 Cor. VIII. 13.  Which way of accommodation seems rather to silence the Disputes than to decide them, and is thought as suitable to the office of a Peacemaker in these Controversies which occasion our present Divisions as in those which occasioned those Discourses of the Apostles, both of them being alike conceived to concern only things indifferent.  
§ XXXI BUT the Answer will be very easy, whether we consider the reason of the thing, or the Authority of the Apostle. I confess it is very agreeable with the Office of a Peacemaker not to interpose with any earnestness in such Controversies which are not momentous for Peace, and wherein his earnest interposition may weaken his Authority with that Party with which he engages, especially then when he foresees his Authority not to be so great with the contrary Party as to oblige them to acquiesce in his determination (which is a Consideration of more efficacy now when no particular Person whatsoever can pretend to such an Authority with those of a different Persuasion as the Apostle might then) and I confess withal that this is a Case very applicable to many of our present Controversies, that either they are no more than mutual misunderstandings, or if real (like those in these Texts) yet they are not worth contending for, especially when they are debated betwixt private Persons, whereof neither are under the others Jurisdiction. But does it therefore follow that, even in such as these a Peacemaker may not declare his Opinion, and offer his Reasons, in a way Modest and unprovoking? Nay is it not warrantable by the Apostles Precedent, who plainly takes their part who esteemed all meats alike, 
Rom. XIV. 14.  the Controversy then so fiercely disputed? Or do they, think it unbecoming a Peacemaker so far to interess himself in a Party, as to let Dissenters understand the reason they had, rather to yield to those for whom he had declared? Did not the Apostle even so, whilst he defends his own Party as strong, 
v. 1, 2, 3.  and only excuses the other as tolerable in their weakness and frailty? Wherein therefore is it that we deviate from the Apostles Precedent? Is it that, though we do not persuade to, yet, we also do not dissuade Superiors from, the prosecution of Dissenters? But this is plainly none of the Apostles Case, who had not to do with Differences betwixt Superiors and Subjects, but only betwixt private coordinate Christians. So he argues: Who art thou that Judgest another's Servant? 
v. 4.  To his own Master he standeth or falleth; Clearly implying a want of Jurisdiction in their mutual Censures, which sure our Adversaries themselves cannot understand of the Censures of the Church▪ if any such had been interposed, especially considering her, as She was then to be considered, as under the extraordinary Privileges of the Apostolical Office, and several other Extraordinary, both Officers and Assistances of those earlier Ages.  
§ XXXII BUT as the limitation of the Apostles Case plainly destroys the Conclusiveness of his Rule in a latitude disproportionable to his design; so the reason of the thing does oblige Peacemakers to abett some Controversies. For sure it will not be denied but that there are some Controversies of that sort, that, Men differing in their Judgements concerning them, and Practising consequently to such Differences, must be obliged to violate the public Peace. And sure it cannot be thought dissonant to the Office of a Peacemaker that he should oppose himself to such Opinions as are themselves so opposite to his great design. It is easy to discern how improperly the Topics, on which our Adversaries would have us insist, are applicable here, so easy as that I cannot think it necessary to instance in them. Nay indeed the very same reason which would prove it advisable for Controvertists not to abett Parties in matters of inferior concernment, will, I do not say, prove it only advisable, but oblige them to do it here. For can there be a more suitable employment for a Peacemaker than to show his Zeal against the obstacles of Peace? And can any obstacles of Peace be more mischievous than such as necessarily engage Men into Parties and Factions, and when they are once so engaged make their differences irreconcilable? And what can more effectually do this than Dividing Principles? For what can more seriously terrify wellmeaning Persons from their compliances with Men, than to think that such compliances cannot be purchased at an easier rate than the loss of their Peace with God? Or what can make them more implacable to one another, than when all Moderation is interpreted as a defect of Zeal? Nay when they are not only actually so persuaded, but even in their cooler humours can have no reason to be persuaded otherwise as long as they were serious in the belief of their first Dividing Principles? For such there are no other Means of making them Peaceable than either the Contradiction, or the better Information, of their present Consciences; and I am confident our Brethren themselves are more Ingenuous than to assert the former only for avoiding the latter. But besides this agreeableness to the Office of a Peacemaker to engage in Controversies necessary to be abetted for the interest of Peace, I might have added farther, that it is very suitable to the Office of a Lover of Peace to be favourable to such endeavours; which how near it will concern our dissenting Brethren as they would approve themselves Lovers of it, themselves will easily understand without any application of mine. And how far even a favour to Peace might proceed towards an actual reconciliation, notwithstanding men's other differences in Opinion, I have already intimated. 
§. 8, 9   
§ XXXIII AND certainly if the Peace of the Church be concerned in any Controversies, it cannot be denied to be most considerably so concerned in these of Schism. Which the rather deserve an exact discussion, because, as Schism is the great Ecclesiastical Crime of our Age and Countries, so the Persons guilty of it have rendered the very Notion of it intricate, that they might clear their own Practices from such an Aspersion. Nor indeed have these false Notions only found acceptance among such as are at present concerned to clear themselves from its Gild, but have been taken up from several disorderly Practices of some of the first Reformers, who were not obliged to Inquire into it by the opposition of their Romish Adversaries, who generally in the last Age did not insist on the charge of Schism, but Heresy, against them; Nay have been too much countenanced by several less wary Sons of our own Church, who partly being themselves ill Principled in the Right of Church-Authority, which they made very deeply, if not wholly dependent on the power of the Secular Magistrate, (and such a Party there has been among us from the beginning of the Reformation to this very day, occasioned by the first Disputes concerning the Supremacy in these Kingdoms, as it is not ordinary for the generality in such Disputes of Interest, and especially where there were so great and intolerable Encroachments on the Secular Power challenged by their Competitors, to avoid Extremes) on which Principles it was easier to charge Dissenters with Sedition in the State, than Schism in the Church; And partly being favourable to some Foreigners who were hardly, if at all, excusable from that Notion of Schism with which our own Non-Conformists have been chargeable; And partly finding so much advantage in the Particulars Disputed of to convince Dissenters of the Unreasonableness and Injustice of their Separation on such Pretences without engaging themselves in those less grateful Controversies wherein they were likely to expose themselves to the Odium of the Populacy and Civil Magistracy; And partly being unreasonably fearful to give their Romish Adversaries any advantage either against themselves, if they defended themselves by such Principles as might reach all the Cases of the several Reformers or against their Friends in the main Cause, if they had thus a vowedly disowned their proceed in the manner of its management; These, I say, seem to have been the real Motives which in all likelihood prevailed with the more Prudent and Intelligent Controvertists to divert them to another way of managing those Disputes, and the Authority of these may have been conceived sufficient for influencing others.  
§ XXXIV IT is therefore easy to foresee the Odium to which an Enquiry of this Nature must be obnoxious, and the great advantage our Adversaries have of us in the Sentiments of the vulgar. Yet the establishing the true Notion of Schism is so extremely necessary for fixing any solid grounds of Catholic Peace, as that I hope our Judicious and Candid Brethren will not only excuse us, but conceive themselves obliged in Equity and Conscience to hearken patiently, and to Judge favourably, especially when they shall find in our way of management nothing offensive to such as are not ready to be offended with Truth itself when it shall declare itself their Adversary. For though it cannot be thought incredible here what we Experience so usual in other Instances wherein particular Interests are concerned, that Men in reducing their general Notions to Practice are many times swayed, and many times misguided, into Extravagances unjustifiable by their general Principles, and that wellmeaning Persons as well as others are obnoxious to the same frailties; yet many of our Nonconforming brethren's Errors in Practice are so naturally consequent from their Principles, as that indeed they cannot be sufficiently prevented without discovering the Errors of the Principles themselves.  
§ XXXV THUS, as their Doctrine in this Question perfectly overthrows all exercise of Ecclesiastical Government, nay plainly supposes that either there is no such thing, or that it is perfectly Democratical (if indeed that may be called properly so much as Democratical Government itself where there is no obligation to submit acknowledged even in the smaller part, when Government is exercised upon them, but what arises from their disability to resist) so I confess their Notion of Schism and the Duty of a Peacemaker as described by them are exactly fitted to this Hypothesis. For supposing the Church as established by Christ not to have been confederated, as all Commonwealths are, by a Political Subordination of Governors and Governed, but only to have been a Multitude of Men not otherwise united among themselves than by the Unanimity of each particular, or, at the uttermost, only as the Schools of the Philosophers were, by a reverential respect, and gratitude, of Disciples to their Teachers; no Man can here be supposed to have any reason to impose his own Judgement on another; or if he does, he cannot in reason expect that the Person so imposed on should conceive himself obliged to yield to the Imposition, or think the others proceed Just if he should endeavour to force him to it, any further than he is satisfied that the other has reason to justify his proceed.  
§ XXXVI FOR this Unity being, as I said, founded on the Unanimity of the particulars, they cannot be obliged further to maintain this Unity of Amicable Correspondence than as they are on all sides convinced concerning the reasonableness of the Particulars exacted as Conditions of that Correspondence; or if any yielding may be thought reasonable in such a State, even in particulars which are thought unreasonable, yet it can only then be thought obliging, when the Particulars are of absolute Necessity for maintaining such an Amicable Correspondence. Otherwise, where the things themselves are not thought true, or yielding them is not thought absolutely Necessary, I do not say, for humouring the Person, but, for maintaining an Amicable Correspondence with the whole Multitude; though it may be Lawful, nay sometimes Noble and Generous, to bear even with the humours of particular weaker Persons, and much more when they are Numerous; yet there being no Jurisdiction on either side, there can also be no obligation to yield. And therefore they who deny their Correspondence without submission to Terms unnecessary and humoursome, cannot in any reason exact a compliance from Dissenters who believe their Terms to be of that nature; and such Dissenters, refusing such Terms, and consequently such Correspondence which cannot be had without them, do no more than what they can justify (which in this Case cannot be pretended concerning the Imposers, who are supposed to arrogate a Power not belonging to them, without any pretence either of Authority or even of Necessity for maintaining a confident Correspondence) and consequently the blame of such a breach cannot be charged on such Dissenters, but such Imposers.  
§ XXXVII AND as, upon this Hypothesis, that the Church is only such a Multitude united on no other Terms than the necessity of an Amicable Correspondence betwixt the particulars, this must indeed be the true Notion of a Formal and Culpable Schism; so it would be very congruous to the Office of a Peacemaker, not to persuade the Dissenters to yield, but the Imposers to forbear Imposing. For seeing in such a Case there can be no other Necessity pretended for submitting to such Impositions, in order to the signifying their own desires of maintaining an Amicable Correspondence with their Brethren, but either their willingness to be convinced of the Reasonableness of the things exacted from them, or their willingness to yield in things necessary for a Correspondence, that is, which the Exacters think themselves obliged to exact, and which they from whom they are Exacted do not Judge more intolerable than the loss of their Correspondence, which must not be hoped for but on such Concessions; They must as well be guilty of the interruption of this Correspondence who confine it to Conditions which even themselves confess unnecessary to be imposed, as they who so undervalue it as to refuse to purchase it by some inconsiderable Submissions even to humoursome Conditions.  
§ XXXVIII AND as little as our Brethren are ware that their Discourses of this kind are founded on this Hypothesis of the Churches being no Body Politic, especially when themselves are obliged in Interest to urge Authority for the restraint of their own refractory Subjects; yet, if any do yet doubt of it, I shall, without Digression, only desire them to consider the natural and obvious tendency of those Principles so eagerly maintained among them concerning the Power of the Church's being not a Power of Coercion but only of Persuasion (which coordinate private Persons may as well challenge as Governors) and concerning the Justice of their defending their Christian Liberty (as they call it) even in things Indifferent and in opposition to Ecclesiastical Governors (which plainly overthrows the Duty of Submission in Subjects which necessarily answers Authority in Governors) and the great Disparities, which they always pretend when they are urged with any Parallel Instances wherein themselves acknowledge any Coercive Authority, betwixt such an Authority and that which they will acknowledge in the Church, that I may not now charge them with such Extravagancies of particular Persons as are neither generally owned, nor are Fundamental to their Nonconformity.  
§ XXXIX AND from this Irreconcilableness of their Practices in urging the same Authority to their own Subjects which they have denied to their Governors, it comes to pass that they are unable to give any Positive consistent Hypothesis agreeable with itself, and exclusive of the pretences of Seditious Persons. Though I must withal confess that of all the Non-Conformists the Independents, as in other Cases, so here, seem to me to speak most Consequently to the Principles granted them by the Presbyterians (who shown them the first Precedent of Division) in placing the first Seat of Government in the Common People. For this gives the most consistent account of the Calling & Succession of their Ministers notwithstanding their not being empowered by such Officers as, according to the Government established, from which they separated, were only possessed of the power of Calling in an Ordinary way, and will afford the best Apology for their resisting the first Church-Officers, whilst they were countenanced by the Communality, to whom they conceive the Officers themselves accountable.  
§ XL BUT besides that this Hypothesis is very Precarious, and because that, though the Communality had been Originally invested with this power, yet, the Peaceable Prescription of so many Centuries against them wherein this Power has been exercised by, and acknowledged as the Right only of Church-Officers, and unanimously submitted to as such by the concerned Commonalties themselves (which is certainly sufficient to alienate even a Just Title that is by any Humane Means alienable, and, by the Principles of Government, must make it as Schismatical for them forcibly to retrieve it without the consent of those whom they found actually possessed of it, as it would be Seditious now for any to attempt to restore the old British, or Roman, Title to England, because they were once good and Legal) I say besides these Presumptions which lie against this power of the People for legitimating their Usurpations; yet if this were granted to be the People's Right, there are further very Just Exceptions against their Dissenting brethren's Proceed which may make it questionable, whether what has been done in favour of them be fit to be reputed as a valid Act of the People themselves. For either they must establish some. Ordinary Rules of Assembling and Acting by which it may be known what is really transacted by the Communality, and what is only pretended to be so by a few Seditious Dissenters (without which no Notion of Government, not so much as Democratical, is intelligible) and upon these Principles either they will, I doubt, find it more difficult, than they seem to be ware of, to Justify their first Separation from any Regular Proceed of the Commonalties themselves, (neither their Assemblies being Legally indicted, nor their Suffrages being Legally managed, according to the necessary Laws of Democratical Government:) Or they must allow a liberty of Separation to every one who can persuade so many of the Communality to join with him as may make a distinct Church, that is according to them, Seven Persons. That is, two Parties, two Witnesses, two Judges and an odd Person that the Suffrages of the Judges may not be even. And thus they plainly overthrow all Government, so much as Democratical, unless over such small Numbers as Seven, and allow every Seditious Person, who can Proselyte them, a Liberty of Subdividing from, and in opposition to, themselves, by the same Precedent as they have done from others.  
§ XLI BUT if on the other side the Unity of the Church be supposed to be that of a Body Politic, the true Notion of SCHISM must be this, that it dissolves the Church's Unity in such a sense as this. And because this Unity consists in a due Subordination of Governors and Governed, therefore the Notion of Schism consequent hereunto must be this, that it is an Interruption of this Subordination. And therefore 1. such a Separation as denies not only Actual Obedience, but the Lawful Jurisdiction of Superiors, and withdraws Subjects from the proper Legal Coertions of such a Society, especially if continued in the same Districts where Separation from Government is not intelligible without opposition to it, must needs be Schismatical. For where there are two Governments not Subordinate there must needs be two Bodies Politic, and therefore that Separation which interrupts this Subordination, and erects an Independent Government must consequently dissolve this Political Unity, and be Schismatical. This therefore, being the true ground of this Notion of Schism, must be the principal thing requisite to be proved against our Adversaries. And whether it be proved directly, that the Church is such a Body Politic, and it be thence inferred that such a Separation as that I have been speaking of is properly Schismatical; or whether the Separation be first proved Schismatical and this Political Unity of the Church be thence deduced, both ways of proceeding will come to the same event.  
§ XLII ESPECIALLY considering 2. that though indeed we can by Reason prove it very convinient and available for the Salvation of particular Persons, that they be thus confederated into Political Societies, yet we cannot prove it so necessary as that, Antecedently to all Positive Revelation, we might have been able to conclude that God must have thus confederated them. For besides the great Presumption and Uncertainty of this way of Arguing what God must have done from what we esteem fit and convenient, (acknowledged by all Equal Persons in Instances whereof they may be presumed Equal Judges, that is, when this Argument is produced in favour of Adversaries) the Argument is then more especially Weak and Imprudent when the conveniences are no greater than still to leave many things to the determination of Humane Prudence (and such they are here) and when we can have securer ways of Arguing, as none will doubt but that it is much more secure to Inquire what God has actually done from actual Revelation, than from our own fallible. Conjectures what was fit to have been done by him, especially in things so Indifferent and Arbitrary as these are concerning which I am at present discoursing. If therefore it may appear that God has actually made the Church a Body Politic, it will follow that resistance to Ecclesiastical Governors must be actually condemned by God as Shismatical; and, on the contrary, if it appear that God has actually condemned Resistance to Ecclesiastical Officers as Schismatical, it will also follow that he has made the Church a Body Politic, there being no other difference betwixt these two ways of Arguing, but that one of them is a priori, the other a posteriori, but in both of them the Connexion is equally certain from its own rational Evidence.  
§ XLIII 3. THEREFORE, As this actual Constitution of the Church is most proper to be proved from Scripture, so the most satisfactory way of proving it thence will be, not only to prove thence the Duty of Obedience to be required from Subjects to their Ecclesiastical Superiors, but also to discover from thence the mischief likely to befall Subjects upon their Disobedience. For 1. it is in vain to constitute a Government, or a Body Politic, properly so called, without a Coercive Power over its particular refractory Members. And therefore if, in the Constitution of the Church as established in the Scriptures, there appeared nothing Coercive over its particular Members to force them to the performance of their Duty under pain of a greater Prejudice to be incurred by them in case of refusal than that of barely acting irrationally and indecorously, this very Omission would make it suspicious that the Duty exacted from them were no more than that Reverential respect which we commonly conceive due to Persons of excellent accomplishments, or from whom we have received particular Obligations, though they have no Right of Jurisdiction over us; but not that Obedience which is properly due to Governors of Societies by virtue of their Offices, without any regard to their Personal accomplishments, and our Obligations to them. So that this real Prejudice which is likely to be incurred by the Subject in Case of Disobedience, is very necessary to be discovered from the nature of the Constitution of the Church, as it is expressed in the Scripture, even in order to the clearing the Nature of the Duty, and the extent of the obligation of this Authority.  
§ XLIV AND 2. the Church being, on this Supposal, an External Body Politic, its Coercive Power must also be External. And therefore, though the validity of her Censures be derived from Gods seconding them, that is, from his remitting or binding in Heaven what she remits or binds on Earth, yet this power will indeed be very little Coercive if God's confirmation be thought easily separable from the Churches Act. For seeing that a Society of this nature cannot imply any External Coercion of the External Act, all the Coercion she can pretend to, can be no other than a Deprivation of those Privileges which are enjoyed and may be pretended to by virtue of her visible Membership, and an exposing the Person so deprived to all the Calamities consequent to such a Deprivation. But if the Confirmation of these censures by God be wholly resolved into the merit of the Cause for which they were inflicted, they can never be feared, nor consequently prove Coercive to their Subjects who are not convinced of the merit of the Cause itself. Which in the event will make them never properly Coercive at all, especially in regard of a Government which is acknowledged Fallible, as the Church is generally by Protestants. For it is to be presumed that all who stand out so obstinately against the Church's Authority as to provoke her Censures, either are not, or pretend not to be, satisfied with the Justice of her Decrees; and therefore if their own Judgements may be taken (as all the Coerciveness of such Censures as these are, which are not Externally Coercive must be derived from the Judgements of the Persons lying under them concerning their validity) there can be no hopes of reclaiming them by Censures who are not already such as may be presumed satisfied concerning the Justice of the Cause for which they were inflicted, and yet such alone are the proper Objects of Coercive Power.  
§ XLV BESIDES those Censures which are supposed only Declarative, not Operative, are not properly the Acts of Authorized, but Skilful, Persons; for it is Skill, not Authority, that is a Prudent Presumption that any thing is such as it is Declared, and therefore the Opinions of Learned Doctors, though but private Persons, would, in this way of Proceeding, be much more formidable than the Peremptory Sentences of Ecclesiastical Governors as they are considered only under that Relation. I cannot see how this can be denied by those who conceive the Declaration to be purely-Speculative, and to be of no further force for obliging particular Persons than as upon particular examination of its Grounds it may appear to be well grounded. But if the Declaration be conceived to be Authentical as it is performed by such Persons, the meaning of that must be, that it must be generally presumed valid, so that the cases may be but rare wherein the Person obnoxious to it may presume his own cause so good as to venture to stand out in opposition to it. And to that purpose it will be requisite that the Sentences be presumed valid before God even in cases wherein Governors may themselves be mistaken in the Causes of their Infliction (as I see no reason why they may not where the mistake is at the uttermost no more than an Imprudence, not a Sin, either to Governors, or Governed; for in such a case though the Omission itself be not Sinful as considered Precisely, yet it may as Obstinacy against lawful Governors, and Disobedience and violation of Peace, which will oblige us to condescend in Instances, howe'er Imprudent, if not Sinful, may make it so) or that the Instances wherein they may prove Invalid before God be either so rare, or so difficult to be known more securely by a Man's private Judgement than by the public, as that it can very rarely be Judged Safe or Prudent for a Man to rely on his own private Judgement concerning them in opposition to the Public.  
§ XLVI ESPECIALLY considering 3. that this Church Government is by all acknowledged Fallible in matters of that nature for which we are concerned in our present Controversy. The very Romanists themselves confess their Ordinary Ecclesiastical Governors, at least, Fallible in matters of Fact, and in Rules of Prudence; and our dissenting Brethren themselves do not charge our Impositions with Heresy or Immorality. But if the Censures of a Fallible Church cannot be presumed valid in any Instances wherein we cannot be assured that she is not actually mistaken, and the nature of the thing is such as does not afford certain Arguments on either side, but generally contrary probabilities on both; such a Government must generally prove useless and Vnpracticable, and therefore unlikely to have been settled by God.  
§ XLVII AND then 4. the very design of the Constitution of this Body Politic being Spiritual, the Rewards and Punishments must be so too. And therefore that Subjects may be encouraged to Obedience, and discouraged from Disobedience, it will be requisite that they may as confidently presume that they shall receive such Spiritual Advantages by virtue of their admission into such a Society to which no private Dispositions whatsoever could, so assuredly, entitle them (I do not say, if they had proved negligent in their Addresses to be admitted into it, but also if they had not submitted to all Impositions not Sinful in Order to their reception into it) and have as Just and Probable Reasons for fearing Spiritual Inconveniences by their exclusion from it as Secular Subjects are assured of Secular Advantages or Disadvantages by their admission to, or exclusion from, Secular Societies.  
§ XLVIII AND 5. it is very agreeable to the same design, that where exclusion does not (as it did in the Apostles time) expose the Person to external visible Corporal Inflictions, (as now generally it does not) there it be at least understood to deprive the Person excluded of all the Privileges he enjoyed by virtue of his being a Member of such a Society, and so to expose him to those mischiefs, whatever they be, that are necessarily consequent to such a deprivation.  
§ XLIX AND 6. it is also very consequent to the same purpose, that the Privileges of such a Society be understood to be all the Advantages designed by God in its Erection. And therefore whatever good was designed to Mankind in the Gospel there is no reason to believe that he designed it for any particulars, any farther than as they should approve themselves willing to submit to such Terms as he was pleased to prescribe them; and it is not Credible that, if he were pleased to erect a Body Politic, he should be thought at the same time, to allow such encouragements out of it, and independent on it, as that it should be left to the Liberty of particular Subjects either to enter themselves into it, or not to enter themselves; or to submit to its constitutions, or to refuse submission.  
§ L AND 7. that these hopes and fears may prove in an external way Coercive, it is very convenient that their application to particular Persons be transacted with particular external Solemnities. For it is by this means that particular Persons may be justly terrified with the loss of the Spiritual Advantages when they are excluded from the external Solemnities of Application, without which they are not Ordinarily to be expected. And this is all which can be done by Governors, to exclude particular Subjects from such Solemnities, which can be of no efficacy for terrifying Conscientious Persons if the Advantages to be gained by them may also be easily expected without them. And as all this is very naturally consequent to a design of Erecting the Church into a Body Politic, and does effectually promote that design by letting Subjects understand their obligation to submit to all Impositions not Sinful, under pain of losing all the Ordinary means of intitling themselves to the Privileges of the Gospel; so certainly it must give Men the most satisfactory account that God has actually intended such a design, to let them understand that this is the very Method observed by God in the actual Constitution of the Church under the Gospel. And indeed whoever denies any of them will make Government so unpracticable as that it would be improbable to have been designed by God.  
§ LI But for proving all this I cannot think it reasonable to confine my Discourse to express Scriptures, both because (as I have already observed) we do not find the Scripture to enlarge professedly on Instances of this nature, but rather Occasionally to intimate them as coincident with its principal design, as presuming them already sufficiently Notorious from the Practices of the Church to the capacities of the meanest Idiotes then living; And because it is not usual for the Scriptures, even where they do indeed allude to notorious Practices, to insist Critically on their true design and usefulness, which were then also so very notorious from the manner of their Practice as that the weaker fort of Christians (for whose use the Scripture was principally accommodated) could not be presumed Ignorant of them as they were then concerned to know them; And because it is not the Letter, but the Sense, of the Scripture for which I am at present principally concerned, and it is in Prudence the most advisable means to expound the Sense of all Laws, especially concerning Power, by the actually avowed Practices of the Courts of their respective Jurisdictions; And because the Practices of the Churches in those Primitive Ages, especially those concerning the power of the several Orders of Governors undoubtedly established by the Apostles, were not permitted to the Judgement of Church Officers only as they were able to inform themselves out of the Scriptures, but were as undoubtedly settled by the Apostles themselves Personally, where themselves had propagated their Doctrine, and therefore as agreeably to their minds as if it had been expressed in the Scripture itself, and accordingly those Primitive Authors on whose Credit alone we can be rationally assured of the Books of the Scriptures themselves, were as confident that what they could thus make out from such Practices instituted by the Apostles was as agreeable to the Apostles mind as what was written by them, and were as confident that several of these Practices were indeed derived from the Apostles as they were that several of these Books, which they have recommended to us, were written by them; And because the usefulness of Arguments deduced from Scripture-Consequences is generally owned by that sort of Adversaries with whom I am at present dealing. But yet I do not intent to make use of any other Arguments for clearing the design of the Scriptures in these Particulars, but such as are, in Prudence, most proper for discovering it, and such as were in all likelihood made use of by those then living for whose use the Scripture was Primarily written, either plain Consequences, or plain Correspondencies to those Patterns from which they were Originally derived, and Notorious and Vniversally-received Practices then prevailing. And certainly if the Holy Ghost had any design to be understood by them, he must have expressed himself so as that the Sense, which he saw them inclinable to conclude from the use of those Means they were likely to Judge most Prudent, must have been that which was intended by himself; and it cannot be reasonable for us to fear that We should be misguided by those means now, by which they were securely conducted then. The distinct Proof of these Particulars I shall endeavour as they fall in with the principal design of my following Discourse, not being willing to be more tedious than my Subject will necessarily Oblige me.  
§ LII BUT as that Noble Society which has entitled our Nation to the Honour of being the first that has carried on a Public design for the Reformation of Natural Philosophy, and rendering it useful for material purposes in Humane Conversation, have now unanimously agreed on it as the most Prudent Course for erecting a rational solid Hypothesis, first to inform themselves accurately of the Phaenomena by a Natural History Prudently collected, and Credibly attested; so the like Method of adjoining Historical Experiments to our other Informations, in Order to our passing an accurate Judgement of the whole, must needs be of Universal use in all kind of knowledge, which is only Probable and Conjectural and a posteriori, but more especially in matters of Practice, and even among them yet more especially in such as depend on Arbitrary Institution, as matters of Government generally do. Nor will it only be a pleasing entertainment to the Reader in affairs of this nature to find the Principles so exactly agreeable to Practice and Experience and the Reasons so illustrated by all the stages and Periods of History, even where there could be nothing to reconcile them but the intrinsical agreeableness of their natures; but a very solid Argument for mutually proving both the Reason and the History. For as it will appear that the Practice of that Power cannot be excepted against as unfit to be proposed to us as a Precedent when it is found agreeable to the Principles of the Government; so it must needs be a very strong Conviction that those Principles of the Government are genuine and natural which exactly are found Answerable to all its justifiable Practices. It is certain that the true Hypothesis (whatever that be) must necessarily be supposed agreeable with all its justifiable Practices; and though it may be possible that a false one may be so too; yet neither is it likely that it should be false which is found to do so, and if it were, yet it will serve our purpose for the direction of our Practices (which is all for which we are concerned in its Truth) so well as that our mistake cannot prove Prejudicial to us, and we may therefore as confidently rely on it as ordinarily Astronomers do on their Hypotheses of the Heavens in their Calculations for which they have no better security. Besides this way of Proceeding will mutually supply each others defectiveness. For as there are some things so clear in Reason and express Testimony as that by them we may be able to Judge concerning Practices whose allowableness or unlawfulness is not so clear from the Histories by which they are delivered to us; so on the other side there are some Practices of whose allowableness we may be better assured from their Histories, than by the Antecedent Evidence of those Principles, on which they are immediately grounded; so that from both, a much more entire account may be expected concerning this whole affair, than from either singly. This is the reason that has induced me to divide my Discourse accordingly into two Parts, the Rational and Historical. For I conceived it more convenient thus to consider them distinctly than to mix them together, both that I might thus confine them within more Legible limits; and because in a Discourse of this nature wherein a Series of Principles is endeavoured, the very Interruption which must have been occasioned by so frequent Digressions, must needs hinder the Reader from discerning the closeness of the Discourse. In this former Part, I keep close to my Method, and am more solicitous to prove my Assertions and to prevent any Adversaries Exceptions than to make formal Answers to every one particularly, which will be very easy to any who has understood my Principles; but I do not intent to neglect any thing that I conceive considerable, and to multiply words concerning such things as upon my stating of the Question appear to be plain misunderstandings of it, I cannot conceive likely to prove grateful to the Intelligent Reader. In the later I intent, not only to show, that, by the Notion of Shism which was condemned for such in the first and purest Ages, our Separating Brethren cannot be excused from its Gild, but also, that the several Principles on which I ground it were owned by them, and are certainly agreeable to the sense of the Apostles.   

Separation of Churches from EPISCOPAL Government as Practised by the NON-CONFORMISTS' Proved Schismatical, etc.  
CHAP. I. Lesle security of Salvation out of the Episcopal Communion, than in it, sufficient to oblige to submit to all unsinful Conditions of continuing in it.  
THE CONTENTS.  
1. That for proving our Obligation to enter into the Communion of the visible Church it is not requisite to prove that we must otherwise be excluded from all hopes of Salvation, but it is abundantly sufficient to make it appear, that we cannot be otherwise so well assured of it. This proved as to both parts. 1. As to the Negative, That it is not requisite for this purpose to prove that we must otherwise be excluded from all hopes of Salvation. §. I. JI.III.IU.U.VI. 2. As to the Positive part, That for proving this Obligation to enter into the External Communion of the visible Church, it is sufficient to show that, without such an external Communion with it, we cannot so well be assured of our Salvation; and that this supposition of our less security without it, is sufficient to prove us obliged to submit to all terms not directly sinful, however inexpedient, in Order to the procuring this external Communion. §. VII. VIII.IX.X. An application of what has been said in this Chapter to the Adversaries. §. XI.XII.  
§ TWO FIRST therefore, for proving our Obligation to enter into External Communion with a visible Church, and of that part of it for which we are at present more particularly concerned, it is not requisite to prove that we must otherwise be excluded from all hopes of Salvation, but it is abundantly sufficient to make it appear that we cannot otherwise be so well assured of it; And this want of so good Assurance of Salvation out of a Church-Communion as may be had in it, is sufficient to oblige a Subject to submit to all unsinful Impositions (how grievous soever otherwise) of them who have the power of such a Communion, rather than suffer himself to be excluded from Communion by them for want of such submission. Here are two things to be considered distinctly: 1. Negatively, that for this purpose it is not requisite to prove that we must otherwise be excluded from all hopes of Salvation. For supposing that their exclusion from all hopes of Salvation could not indeed be proved; Yet what possible security can we have, upon that account, to conclude that it is not true? It is certain many things are actually true whose truth may not appear to us who are so short sighted in our Informations, and so easily seduced in our Reasonings. And the uttermost that, in any Prudence can be concluded from this way of arguing is, only that, for aught we know, the Salvation of such may be possible, and that, considering the unavoidableness of this case to some particular Persons, and the Divine Goodness and Indulgence in such cases as are really unavoidable, and the Divine Arbitrary freedom, if not in inflicting Punishments, yet, at least, in forbearing them, and in the dispensation of his Favours, notwithstanding his Covenant, it may be also Probable. But what then? Can any of our Brethren assure themselves that this is their case, and that they are in these Pardonable Cercumstances, and entitled to these extrordinary unpromised favours? No prudent considerative person can think that they are as easily excusable who cannot find conviction, when offered to them, as they who never had it offered. And is not this exactly their case? If they should prove mistaken, and they should really, as we suppose them to do, deprive themselves, by their separation, of the Ordinary means of Salvation; can they to excuse themselves pretend that they want any evidence of which the Cause is capable, or of which their dissenting Brethren are able to inform them?  
NOR must they think that the supposition of their being mistaken is precarious or unseasonable here where we are discoursing concerning the excusableness of such a mistake so supposed. For this is sufficient to show that the confessed excusableness of the case of some Persons not communicating with the Church, and consequently the possibility of the Salvation of such Persons, is not sufficient to infer the possibility of the Salvation of our Brethren, unless their case be proved equally pardonable with that of those whose Salvation is acknowledged possible; so that in both cases a mistake is plainly supposed, and its excusableness is the only thing disputed of.  
§ III BESIDES none can think them who venture on a course certainly mischievous, where nothing but the great apparent merit of the cause on an impartial examination can make amends for their personal guilt, as excusable as they whose Practices need no excuse, whatever their Opinions may. None can think them who separate only for indifferent Practices and probable Opinions as excusable as they who do not separate, but are driven out, because they cannot profess to believe gross Falsehoods, and to approve undefensible Immoralities. None can think them who Usurp a power never given them, and who refuse passive, as well as active, Obedience, and who propagate their Errors and perpetuate them to the perpetual disturbance of the public Peace as excusable as they who confine themselves within their due bounds, discharge their duty to their Superiors as far as their Consciences will permit them, by a passive where they cannot with an active Obedience, and who neither propagate nor perpetuate their Errors, nor disturb the public Peace. So that in all these particulars, to repeat no more, the disadvantage lies plainly on our dissenting brethren's side.  
§ IV AND can these general hopes and possibilities of Salvation give any comfort to them whose case is so extremely different? Can they still assure themselves so well of their Title to them as to venture all that is precious and valuable, their very Souls and their Eternity upon it? If notwithstanding all these heavy aggravations, Schismatics may still be rationally confident of the security of their condition; I must then indeed confess that Schism will be no more than a Theological Scarecrow (as an Advocate for it has been pleased to style it) and it will then be so generally true that their Salvation is possible, 
Mr. Hales.  as that the Cases must be rare where they can be presumed likely to fail of it, which must perfectly overthrow the terror and abhorrency which God as a Prudent Governor must necessarily be supposed to have obliged men to, against a Sin of so extremely malignant influence on the Public as this is.  
§ V BUT suppose they were able, from this acknowledged Possibility of some men's Salvation out of the External Communion of the visible Church, to make out their Title to a Pardon for their mischievous Practices better, than I doubt they can; yet what wise man would not be very wary of committing that which must need a Pardon in hopes of obtaining one? Who would not rather choose that side on which the most probable presumtions lay, and where fewest miscarried? Who would not think it safer to yield to any Imposition, how heavy so ever it were, if it were not directly sinful than so much as to hazard the guilt of a sin so criminal and mischievous as real Schism is? Especially considering that the cases wherein a Possibility of Salvation is to be allowed to persons out of Ecclesiastical Communion, must be rare and difficult, that the condition itself may be rendered formidable; and the very hazarding such a guilt rather than yield to an Imposition that is not sinful is certainly none of the most excusing Circumstances. Though it were possible for such a Person to nourish some hopes, yet it is not so easily intelligible how he could rationally enjoy any comfort.  
§ VI THIS I am sure seems agreeable to the common sense of mankind, and I think I might appeal to the Judgement of our dissenting Brethren themselves concerning it, where they are disinteressed. It is well known what advantages the Romanists make of the Ingenuity of the Reformed Churches in acknowledging a Possibility of Salvation to particular Persons of their Communion; and it is as well known how unreasonable as well as unequal they are thought by Protestants in this way of proceeding. And yet there are no Arguments producible by them to prove it unreasonable, which may not be applied to show the unconclusiveness of our dissenting brethren's supposal of the security of some persons out of the External Communion of the visible Church to prove the Prudence of their venturing on it. For will they say that, notwithstanding this Salvability of particular Persons in the Romish Communion, yet it is so little to be ascribed to their being of that Communion, as that their being so is rather a Prejudice, than an Advantage, to their Salvation, to be rather excused, than recommended; nay that their danger is so great, and the escapes so rare, and so incapable to be made out to the comfort of the Person concerned, as that not only that Communion cannot Prudently be chosen upon equal terms where a better may be had, but that all tolerable terms, that is, all that are not sinful, are rather to be born with than that a better should not be actually obtained? And is not this a plain Confession that a bare possibility of Salvation out of the external Communion of the visible Church is not sufficient to excuse them from submitting to all lawful, however inconvenient, terms of obtaining this external Communion? Especially when it may appear that this state of wanting this external Communion, is, and may be, notwithstanding this Argument, as prejudicial to Salvation, and as dangerous, and as rarely escaped, and as little capable of administering comfort to the Party concerned, as that of Popery. And this is as much as I am concerned for at present, only to show the weakness of this Argument, from the acknowledged salvability of some particular Persons out of the external Communion of the visible Church to overthrow the necessity of our joining with it in order to our comfort and assurance of Salvation; whence it also appears clearly how little we are concerned to disprove that Salvability.  
§ VII I PROCEED therefore 2. To show farther Positively, that for proving this Obligation to enter into the external Communion of a visible Church it is sufficient to show that without such an external Communion we cannot so well be assured of our Salvation; and that this supposition alone of our less security without it is sufficient to prove us obliged to submit to all terms not directly sinful, however in-expedient, in Order to the procuring this external Communion. This will be easy if it be considered. 1. That there may be a Rational Obligation in Prudence to secure our own Interests, and what may prove conducive thereunto, and to avoid such things as may prove prejudicial to them, as well as an Authoritative Obligation to submit to the Impositions of any Superiors whatsoever. Nay this Rational Obligation is so far from falling short of that which is Authoritative, as some less wary persons may conceive, as that on the contrary it is the Foundation of all Authoritative Obligation. For all Authoritative Sanctions are imposed on Subjects only in virtue of the Rewards and Punishments annexed to them, so that, as he who undervalues the Rewards and Punishments can have no rational inducement to submit to the Laws, so the only Original reason of valuing the rewards and punishments can only be the value of those interests which are concerned in them. And as, in this regard, this kind of Obligation is generally greater than that which is Legal, so there cannot be a securer measure for discerning the greater or lesser Obligation of things of this kind than by the greater or lesser momentousness of the Interests concerned in them. For as it is certain, that lesser Interests ought in Prudence to give way to greater, and consequently may be denied in compliance with those Impositions which are necessary to be submitted to in Order to the securing those which are greater; so the greatest of all are most Obligatory, and can never yield to any Laws whatsoever, because no Rewards or Punishments whatsoever can be ever supposed sufficient to countervail them. Now this is the Case exactly here, there being no other Interest comparable to that of our eternal Salvation.  
§ VIII HENCE it will be easy to infer, 2. That all terms not directly sinful, however in expedient, are necessary to be submitted to in Order to the securing this great Interest of our Salvation. For as this obligation to secure our greatest Interests in the first place is the first fundamental Principle of all Laws, so the second is this, That for securing our greater Interests we are in prudence obliged to yield those which are inferior. For this is the reason why we are obliged to Laws even contrary to our own humours and interests of lesser concernment, because the Interest yielded in obedience to Laws is less than the Interest procured by the rewards and other advantages of the society established by them, and because the prejudice incurred by the performance of Duty is less than the Prejudice of the Penalty, or of the Dissolution, or disturbance, of the Society itself. Seeing therefore that all terms not sinful are lesser evils than the loss of our Salvation, it will follow by this second fundamental Principle of humane Societies that they are all to be yielded as far as such yielding may prove necessary for the security of this. But because it is not so much the hazard of our Salvation it self, as the hazard of our assurance of it, and consequently of our present comfort of it, that we can so properly take for granted in our present discourse, therefore it will concern us to show that though our Condition were never so secure in itself, yet even the loss of our Assurance that it is so, and of that Evidence which is requisite for grounding a prudent rational Assurance, is a mischief to us greater than any we can suffer by the most, I do not say Imprudent, but Oppressive, Ecclesiastical Constitutions, if they be not sinful. Which will therefore by these principles of Obligation, oblige us rather to yield to all compliances of this nature than to hazard the loss or considerable diminution even of this Assurance.  
§ IX TO this purpose I consider further, 3. that this security of greater Interests designed in the practice of this compliance in yielding of lesser is not indeed barely for the securing those Interests in themselves, but also and Principally the securing them to the Judgement of the Person complying, that he may also Judge them to be secure; and that this is not only actually true in practice, but also that it must be so considering the reason of the thing. For neither indeed can any real security of any external Object whatsoever be really for our Interest any further than it may be known and judged to be so; nor if it were capable of being our Interest, yet is it capable of being a reason of any of our compliances; nor is it capable of being either our present Interest, or the present Reason of our Practice without a present satisfaction of our Judgements concerning it that we really believe it to be our Interest, and really believe it secured by this compliance, so that it is in vain to pretend that the excellency of the promises of the Gospel can be a rational inducement to us, to do any thing for them at present any farther than we may at present be satisfied that by doing so we shall secure our Interest in them. These things I conceive so easy as that I cannot think it necessary to digres so far as to prove them: and accordingly we find that no man can be rationally induced to enter into any Society, or to submit to any Impositions barely on account of the real conduciveness of such submissions to his greater Interests, unless he may be rationally convinced that they are his real Interests which are promoted by such submissions and that they are really promoted by them. So that, in order to our present design, it comes to the same purpose in reference to our present actings, whether we lose our Salvation itself, or lose the comfort of being secured of it by our being deprived of the External Communion of the visible Church Submissions, and that they are really promoted by them. So that, in order to our present design, it comes to the same purpose in reference to our present actings, whether we lose our Salvation itself, or lose the comfort of being secured of it by our being deprived of the External Communion of the visible Church.  
§ X THIS therefore being supposed, that our assurance of our Salvation is the great reason of all our Religious performances; it will be easy to infer further, 4. that where we may be better assured of our Salvation, there we have the greatest reason to oblige us to a compliance. For if our Assurance be the ground of our Religious performances, then where our assurance is greater, our performances ought to be so too; and where the assurance, even to us, is greatest, there can be no inexpediency in any thing else so great as that of venturing our greatest concerns on more hazardous Conditions, and therefore there can be nothing which, by the common Rules of Prudence, can be judged more avoidable. If therefore it may appear that, by our External Communion with a visible Church, we may be better assured of our own Salvation than by any performances whatsoever that we are capable of doing out of that Communion, at least may be better assured of the Success and efficacy of a good life within the Communion of the Church in Order to our Salvation than we can of the same good life in a separated condition; it will follow that the proof of this better Assurance will be alone sufficient to oblige all considerative Persons (as they tender the better Assurance of their Salvation, that is indeed, all the comfort they are capable of receiving from the hopes of it in this Life) not only to embrace this External Communion, where it may be had, but also to submit to all tolerable, that is, all unsinful Conditions of obtaining it, notwithstanding that all possibility of Salvation were not denied without it.  
§ XI NOW to make some application of what has been said to our Adversaries, by this First Observation it appears how unconclusive to our purpose it is what they discourse concerning the Salvability of particular Persons either out of Church Society, or independently on it. For though their pains had been more successful for proving the sufficiency of Faith and Repentance for Salvation independently on the Sacraments, or any other Exercise of Ecclesiastical Society, than, from our following Principles, it will appear that they are; yet all this would not come home to disprove our Obligation resulting hence to submit to all unsinful Conditions for obtaining Ecclesiastical Communion; unless they could prove, either that such a Condition is more secure than that of being in the External Communion of the Visible Church, that is, that we can be better secured of the success of Faith and Repentance out of the Church, than in it; or that, supposing the contrary (that we can be better satisfied of the security of our condition, even upon performance of Conditions, in this External Communion of the Visible Church than out of it) this would not oblige us, in the way I have explained it, to submit to all such Conditions of obtaining it; neither of which has been as much as attempted by them. Nay I very much doubt whether they themselves, when the Case is thus truly stated, will differ from us in asserting the much better security of a Communicant, where Communion may be had on terms not sinful, than of a Person out of Communion. Nor indeed do I see how they themselves can avoid it.  
§ XII FOR though the Sacraments were no channels of Divine Grace, and though there were no Divine Influences Instrumentally conveyed in the Exercises of Ecclesiastical Communion any more than in our ordinary Political and Oeconomical Duties, and though they had no other goodness in them than what they are capable of receiving from an Arbitrary Positive Command; yet even this were sufficient to make a state of Actual Communion preferrible to that of a separate Condition, even in reference to our Assurance, inasmuch as there is far more reason for him to be assured of the Divine Favour, who besides his Moral Eternally obliging Duties is also punctually observant of the Positive Commands of God than for him who neglects lesser on pretence of observing greater Duties; and he has certainly a better Title to the Divine Favour who yields to any thing not sinful rather than he would break even a Positive Command, (which breach must needs be sinful when it may be avoided on such Terms) than he who suffers himself, to avoid such yielding, to be transported into such a violation of his Duty. Our Saviour's words are very express, That whosoever shall break the least of his Commandments, 
St. Matth. v. 19.  and teach men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven, that is, as it is usually understood, none at all; And St. James, That he that should keep the whole Law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all. 
St. Sam. 11.10.  And certainly he that is so, cannot be so well assured of his Salvation. And if it be not so much as the violation of a Positive Command to abstain from actual Communion, I do not see how they can avoid denying the Divine Authority to be concerned for the Sacraments (for if they acknowledged it to be so they could not deny the sinfulness of resisting it) and consequently denying the perpetual Obligation of the Sacraments. And then it will be impossible for them to explain any Sinfulness in Schism, as it is a Division of a Body Politic; which as they are Consequences I doubt unavoidable from this Supposal, so I verily believe that they will be so detested by our ingenuous Adversaries as that they will oblige them to some serious second thoughts how they may avoid them.  
§ XII BUT though we could be better assured that true Repentance should find acceptance with God independently on Sacraments, or any other Act of Church-Communion; yet it is not conceivable how there can be true Repentance in them who willingly abstain from Communion when it may be had by compliances not Sinful. For I believe our dissenting Brethren themselves do not understand by Repentance a bare sorrow for our past Sins, but a serious and universal design of Reformation for the future, and accordingly that he who lives in any known avoidable Sin cannot be said to be truly Penitent. Nor do I believe that they will deny any violation of our Political Duties to be as truly and properly Sins as the violation of those which are Personal, so that he who lives never so Temperately as to himself, yet if he disturb the Society where he lives, he cannot be supposed in this sense universally Reform, and therefore not truly Penitent; nor do I think that they will deny that there is a Duty incumbent on private Persons to preserve the Peace of Ecclesiastical, as well as Civil, Societies (I am sure the Scripture recommends this principally, even above the other) and that nothing but direct Sin can excuse us for the omission of any Duty. Now upon these Concessions it is impossible that he who is hindered from the Peace of the Church, or from her Communion by any Impositions not Sinful can be supposed thoroughly reform, or consequently truly Penitent. So that still this obligation to maintain the Church's Peace, and to submit to its unsinful Impositions, on account of the greater security of our Salvation in its Communion than out of it, remains unshaken by any thing which our Adversaries have yet Objected to the contrary.   

CHAP. II. That we cannot be so well assured of our Salvation, in the use of Extraordinary, as of Ordinary Means.  
THE CONTENTS.  
§ I The 2. Head, That for proving this want of so solid Assurance of the welfare of particular Persons out of Ecclesiastical Communion as may be had in it, it will be sufficient to show that, however God may provide for the Salvation of particular Persons, in an Extraordinary way, without this external Communion, yet, that this is a Case indeed rare and Extraordinary, and not easily to be expected, and therefore not to be trusted with any confidence; and that, at least, the Ordinary Means of Salvation are confined to the External Communion of the Visible Church. The difference betwixt the Ordinary and Extraordinary Means of Salvation. §. I. JI.III.IV. The former Head proved in both particulars: 1. That we cannot be so well assured of our Salvation in the use of Extraordinary, as of Ordinary, Means. The Extraordinary Means whereby we may be assured of our Salvation are Conjectures concerning the Divine Uncovenanted Goodness. Concerning these it is proved 1. That the Assurance grounded on these Conjectures is not such as can afford any solid comfort to the Person concerned. The extreme difficulty of making application of what might be concluded from this Divine Uncovenanted Goodness to particular Cases. §. V VI.VII.VIII.IX.X. The particulars necessary for Assurance in this Case are such as God is not obliged to by his Uncovenanted Goodness. §. XI. XII.XIII.XIU.XU.XVI.XVII. 2. The comfort that might otherwise have been expected from these Conjectures is not comparable to that which may be had from those general Ordinary Means which God hath provided for by express Revelation. This proved by three Degrees. §. XVIII. XIX.XX.XXI.XXII. 3. These expectations from Extraordinaries not seasonable in our Adversaries Case who might obtain the Ordinary Means by Concessions not Sinful. §. XXIII. 4. The relief by Extraordinary pretences to Gods Uncovenanted Goodness must needs be rendered more difficult since the establishment of Ordinaries. §. XXIV. XXU.XXVI.XXVII.  
I PROCEED therefore to the 2. thing proposed, That none be can so well Assured of his Salvation out of this visible Church, or consequently out of that part of it of which Providence has made him a Member, as in it; And that this Visible Church must be the Episcopal, that particularly to whose Jurisdiction he belongs. This may be resolved into two easy parts: 1. That though our Salvation might be equally sure in itself, yet, at least, that none can be so well assured of it in the use of Extraordinary, as of Ordinary, Means; 2. That the Ordinary Means, at least, of Salvation are indeed confined to the External Communion of the Visible Church; And that the Episcopal Church, under whose Jurisdiction any one lives, is that Visible Church, out of which the Ordinry Means of Salvation are not to be had by any whilst he lives under that Jurisdiction.  
§ TWO 1. THOUGH our Salvation might be equally sure in itself, yet none can be so well assured of it in the use of Extraordinary, as of Ordinary, Means. For clearing this it must first be understood what we mean by Ordinary, and what by Extraordinary, Means of our Salvation. The Means therefore whereby we may be assured of our Salvation are those whereby the Difficulties occurring in the procurement of our Salvation are most Regularly provided for. And they are reducible to these Heads: 1. To assure us that our past misdemeanours Antecedent to our admission into the Favour of God, both of Original and Actual Sins, shall not be imputed to us for the future, to our Prejudice. For till we be assured of this we shall have very Just reason to Question the real security of our condition. And because our Natural Strength is not sufficient to perform our Duty for the future, though all our past offences had been really forgiven us, and yet without probable hopes of our future performance we can have no assurance of our future Security; therefore it is further requisite 2. That we be, upon our own Endeavours, assured of those Supernatural Divine Assistances without which our unassisted natural Endeavours are not likely alone to prove sufficient. For Rewards promised to impossible performances cannot afford us any comfort, and without these Assistances our Duty would prove impossible to us. And yet, notwithstanding these Assistances, we are still obnoxious to so many inadvertencies and impure mixtures by reason of the faint concurrence of our Wills, as might render our best performances unacceptable if God should deal in rigour with them, so that even these Assistances themselves could not sufficiently secure us of the Event, unless 3. We may also be Assured further that neither the frequent Imperfections and faileurs to which the most regular Lives here are obnoxious shall be rigorously insisted on to the Prejudice of the principal Duties to which they do adhere; nor that even those lapses into Sins, to which Sincerely-meaning Persons are sometimes inclinable, shall hinder their reception again upon a serious Repentance and Reformation. And yet further after all Heaven is a Supernatural reward and therefore not due nor proportionable, to our performance of Duty though it had been more accurate than we can pretend it is; and therefore it is requisite 4. That we be assured actually of these Supernatural rewards on performance of these Duties, which, though performed by the assistance of Divine Grace, and expiated from their appendent weaknesses and Imperfections, do very much fall short of an adequate proportion to so glorious a reward. These are the true inducements to all those Duties which are required of us in the Gospel, and upon these depends all that rational comfort of our Consciences which we are capable of receiving in this Life even from the performance of our Duty; and therefore those are the Means of our Salvation by which we may be secured of them.  
§ III AND the difference betwixt Ordinary and Extraordinary Means, upon these Principles, is, that we call those Ordinary to which God has left the Generality of that part of Mankind for whom he has intended these Favours to assure themselves of their performance; but those Extraordinary by which those may assure themselves of them whose Case has something singular, not comprehended under▪ those Generals for which Ordinary Means are calculated, and therefore not capable of being Judged by those General Measures by which other men's Cases are generally to be Judged, and yet withal has something singular not only to excuse the deviation, but also to entitle to the principal Benefits attainable in the use of Ordinary Means by the Equity of God's design in settling those that are Ordinary. For without these excusing Circumstances, which may expiate the deviation; and without these recommending, which may in Equity entitle them to the reward according to the true design of God in giving it; the Singularity of such a Persons Case is so far from intitling him to Extraordinary Means of Salvation, that as it plainly supposes him destitute of all good hopes by Gods Ordinary provisions, so it can secure him no other refuge in that destitute condition.  
§ IV SO that, to explain this difference by an Ordinary familiar Parallel, the Ordinary Means of Salvation are like our Courts of Common Law by which he only can expect any benefit who can justify his Title by Ruled Cases or standing Laws or some such other express provisions of the Legislative power, but the Extraordinary are like our Courts of Chancery to which he only has recourse who finds himself unable to hold out in a Legal way of trial, and who can expect no advantage to his Cause from the general express Provisions, but only from the Equity of the true design of the Legislators.  
§ V THESE things therefore being thus premised to clear the meaning of the terms, I now proceed more immediately to show the thing designed, That we cannot be so well assured of our Salvation in the use of Extraordinary as of Ordinary Means. And though I might, from the Explication now given, appeal to the Consciences of our dissenting Brethren themselves, whether themselves would not be more confident of a Title which might abide a Legal trial, than of such a one as must need the relief of Chancery; and of such a one as might be cleared from the plain and express words of the Legislator, than of such a one as is capable of no other Evidence than only Conjectures concerning the design of the Legislator, and Conjectural Consequences deduced from it, which may be judged of so very differently by different Persons; Yet to satisfy them of the reasonableness of it, and to make a more particular application to their Case, and that they may not think my following Discourse superstructed on any gratuitous Presumptions which have not been proved true in that sense which is requisite for my design, I shall therefore consider it a little more particularly. In order whereunto I consider that, though the Ordinary Means whereby Men were to assure themselves of the Particulars now mentioned which are necessary to assure them of their Salvation, were, before the Revelations of the Gospel, at least in regard of the greatest part of Mankind, no better than such indefinite Conjectures concerning the Divine Goodness, yet God may alter that Case, and actually has done it since the Gospel, and clear and express Revelations of his Will when they are made are as capable of being the Ordinary Means whereby Mankind may assure themselves of their Security in these Particulars as those indefinite Conjectures to which they had been necessitated formerly for want of better Evidence. But we do not call express Revelation an Extraordinary Means, though it had been concerning a particular Case which is the only possible pretence for calling it Extraordinary.  
§ VI HOWEVER as to what we are at present concerned for, it is plain, and I believe unquestionable by our Adversaries themselves, that the Means of Salvation mentioned in the Scriptures are such only as are common to the Generality of Mankind, and that there are no favours there promised to particular Persons but such as may be equally expected by all upon an equal performance of Conditions; so that though Means of Salvation provided for by express Revelation might, in propriety of Speech, be called Extraordinary, yet that is not a thing capable of being pleaded in our Case. And therefore all the Assurance of which a Person is capable whose Case is so singular as that it cannot be Judged of by the general provisions of the Gospel, and who therefore can derive no comfort from any Topick deducible from thence, can only be grounded on those general indefinite Notions of the Divine Goodness, whereby he is ready to pardon unavoidable failings, and to accept of our Wills and sincere designs for Performance even in order to the reward which he had designed for us upon performance, when it is not our own fault that we are hindered from actual performance. I shall therefore endeavour to show 1. That the Assurance which can be grounded on this Notion of the Divine uncovenanted Goodness is not such as may afford a Person concerned any solid comfort for the performance of the things now mentioned; 2. That though it might afford some comfort, yet that comfort cannot be comparable to that which may be had from those general Ordinary Means which God has provided for by express Revelation; 3. That the expectations from Extraordinaries are not seasonable in our Adversaries Case who might obtain the Ordinary Means by Concessions not sinful; and 4. That the relief by Extraordinary pretences to Gods uncovenanted Goodness must needs be rendered more difficult upon the establishment of Ordinaries.  
§ VII 1. THE Assurance which can be grounded on this Notion of the Divine uncovenanted Goodness is not such as may afford a Person concerned any solid comfort for the performance of the things now mentioned. I will not in general deny it to be possible that a Man may be actually saved by being actually assisted in the performance of his Duty, and actually indulged in the defects of that Performance, and actually settled in the possession of this reward. Nor will I deny that God may actually do this on account of his Natural and Essential Uncovenanted Goodness; nay may be presumed frequently to do it, where he is not confined in his transactions by Threat● expressly denounced, and clearly promulged, against Offenders (which, besides the obligation on his part from his own Veracity to performance, must certainly prove, in the Event, an exceeding aggravation of their guilt, and an incapacity of pardon to them, to whom they are so denounced and promulged) Not only because God is naturally Arbitrary in the distribution of his Favours, and he is not in that Case supposed to have confined himself by any voluntary Obligations; but also because the pardonableness of such Persons in their omissions of those Duties which to such Persons are Morally impossible, and their good meaning to the uttermost of their Abilities Morally considered may be rational inducements to a Nature so generous and beneficent as God is, not only to pardon, but reward, them. Nor will I deny further that even after God has been pleased to provide better for us Ordinarily, by admitting us into Covenant with him, and by giving us express Revelations, yet he may be merciful to particular Persons wanting the Ordinary Means with out any fault of their own, that is, when they are in a place where they cannot be had at all, or where their Fallible Superiors are so unreasonable as that they cannot be admitted to them without Sinful compliances. This is a thing so universally acknowledged, as that it is not denied by the Romanists themselves who are the most rigorous Assertors of strict Discipline, and blind Obedience, who hold Ordinary Superiors generally Fallible, and others Fallible at least in matters of Fact, of which kind something is generally mixed in most exercises of Ecclesiastical Discipline. And I am so sensible that this is an undue deference to Ecclesiastical Powers to make all their Censures even where mistaken and unjustly inflicted to destroy the possibility of the Salvation of such a Person who is not only Innocent of the Crime for which he is censured, but is ready to submit to all unsinful Conditions whereby he may recover the Communion he has lost, and in the mean time behaves himself Modestly, and gives Active Obedience as far as his Conscience will permit him, and Passive where it will not; as that, according to my own Observations in the Introduction, §. 10.11.12. I shall readily acknowledge those Arguments Fallacious that prove it, and shall therefore be wary that my own Arguments be not liable to any such Exception.  
§ VIII THAT therefore which I shall at present endeavour shall be only to show that how much soever Gods Natural Goodness may incline him to do for us; yet these general Presumptions concerning it are not so satisfactory to our particular Consciences, to assure us of any of the Favours now mentioned, barely on that account; And consequently cannot Encourage us either easily to presume that God may not be of the mind of our Superiors in matters Disputable, or that he will not confirm their censures, though mistaken, if we do not make use of all the Modesty and Endeavours now mentioned for recovering actual Communion. For though it be indeed most certain that God is good, and that his Goodness does exceed infinitely that of the best natured Men; yet it is withal as certain that he is not Fond, and that his Goodness must be reconciled, not only with his other Attributes, but also the Intrinsic Merit of the thing, especially as it may have influence on the Government of the Word, and particularly on that of Mankind, that is, that his Goodness cannot prompt him to do any thing but what, on some of these accounts, is really reasonable. Now in this regard many things may be so pernicious, not only in respect of their intrinsic malignity, but also of the ill influence of their Example for encouraging others by their Impunity, as that even his Goodness may not hinder him from an Obligation to punish them. It is certain that in this regard many faults neither otherwise very great in themselves, and very pardonable in their Circumstances, are yet thought very Necessarily and Justly punishable with great severity, as the sleeping of over-watched Sentinels.  
§ IX AND considering the Obscurity of many things very requisite in this way for passing an accurate and Impartial Judgement concerning any particular Action; and withal considering the weakness of our Faculties either for discerning or judging without Prejudice; and Considering that what may indeed be great in regard of Us or that Society for which we are concerned, may yet be very little in comparison of the great designs of God for the Universal good of Mankind, and on the contrary; so that it may be as Just and Obliging, for any thing we know to the contrary, to destroy whole Nations for the good of Mankind in general, as it is confessedly obliging, notwithstanding any pretence of the Obligingness of Goodness to pardon, to destroy many Criminals for the good of a particular Nation; and considering particularly what Liberty our dissenting brethren's Calvinistical Principles allow God in the actual exercise, not only of his Justice, but, his Sovereign Dominion, notwithstanding any Obligingness of his Goodness to the contrary; and Lastly considering that the Sin of Schism, of which they must prove guilty if by their own faults they are deprived of actual Communion, is of that sort which is mischievous to the Public and for whose Punishment God is therefore more concerned, and wherein his Relation of a Governor confines that Liberty he might otherwise have of pardoning it: I say, all these things being impartially considered, it cannot be thought so easy a matter to assure him of his good condition that, upon any account soever is deprived of actual Communion, as our Brethren conceive it.  
§ X SEEING therefore that in these Extraordinary Cases, God may, with perfect Justice, withdraw his uncovenanted mercies, such of them especially as he is not by his Goodness obliged to grant us; and Seeing that our Information is so extremely imperfect as that we cannot secure ourselves in these Cases, whether his Justice be not only permitted, but obliged, to the actual infliction of Punishments (in which Case it is unreasonable to expect that his Justice should be over ruled by his Goodness) and Seeing that his Justice which is infallibly guided by his Omniscience is certainly obliged in many Cases which our weaker and more Prejudiced Faculties may not Judge so dangerous; the comfort must needs be very small that can be gathered from these general Presumptions. Nor is it in the least disagreeable with the design of God as a Governor, that even they who in the event shall have the benefit of his Indulgence should at present want the comfort of it. Not only to oblige them to greater cautiousness in approving their own Sincerity by all Lawful endeavours to recover Communion; but also to discourage all others who might otherwise venture on their Case though they would not manage it with like Sincerity. For by rewarding them in the other World God sufficiently corresponds with his natural Goodness; and yet by making their condition uncomfortable in this World he does no more than what becomes him as a Governor to deter others from imitating them without the like necessity; Seeing nothing but a like necessity can make it any way Prudent to venture on a State in itself so extremely dangerous and uncomfortable.  
§ XI BUT besides this extreme difficulty in making application to particular Cases even in those very Instances wherein God may be supposed Obliged, by his natural Goodness to do something for them (without which particular application it is impossible that particular Persons should enjoy any solid comfort) I consider further that the particulars now mentioned, for which we are at present concerned, are such as purely depend on his Arbitrary pleasure, and to which he is not obliged by that Beneficence which is natural to him as he is the Creator and Governor of the World. And when this is proved it will then appear how little ground there can be for any to be confident of any comfort in this condition so as to venture on it on any avoidable, that is, on any unsinful conditions. For how can any one assure himself of God's actual will in things depending on his Arbitrary disposal without particular express Revelation? And I have already given warning that that is not to be expected in this Case of Extraordinary Means of which I am now discoursing. And yet this will appear true in all the Particulars now mentioned. For neither is he obliged by this Natural Beneficence to do any good to his Creature as Offending, but only as Obedient; Nor does any necessary reason oblige his natural Goodness to pardon that offence of which his Creature must be supposed Guilty Antecedently to his Indulgence; Nor, if he would pardon the offence, does his natural Goodness oblige him to give his further assistances for future Obedience; Nor, if he would do this, is he obliged to reward his Creature having once offended, and much less to accept of an imperfect instead of a perfect Obedience in order to a reward; Nor, if he would be further pleased to admit us to a capacity of a reward, is he obliged by this natural Goodness to reward our best performances with a Supernatural and Eternal reward.  
§ XII He is not Obliged by this natural Goodness to do any good to his Creature as Offending, but only as Obedient. For as a good Governor of the World he is only so far Obliged to do good to his Creatures as may make them voluntarily subservient to the end of his Government. Now to this purpose, the most rational way (and it is by the reasonableness of the thing that this sort of Obligation is to be measured) is only to do good to those that are Obedient. For if they who are disobedient do yet partake of the Divine Goodness as well as the Obedient, it will thence appear that Obedience is not made the only Means of obtaining the influences of that Goodness, and therefore that such Goodness cannot be a rational inducement to secure actual Obedience, if it may be hoped for without it. I desire it may be remembered that I am not now speaking of the Divine Goodness as inducing, but as Obliging, God, that is, only of that precise degree of Goodness which is necessary to be exerted by him if he would approve himself a gracious God and a good Governor. And so the Argument will proceed with greater cogency. For if, notwithstanding our Sins God be Obliged by his natural Goodness still to do us good, and especially if he be obliged to show his Goodness to us in the instances now mentioned, to forgive us our Sins and to receive us to Favour and Rewards, etc. So that he cannot approve himself a good God, and a gracious Governor, without it (and it is impossible that he should not act according to the Obligation of that natural Goodness, as impossible as it is for him to cease to be a good God, and a gracious Governor) than it will be plain that our Sins can prove no hindrances to his Goodness to us. Which if they do not, what rational Obligation can carnal Persons have to leave them, when notwithstanding their committing them they can lose nothing by them?  
§ XIII POSSIBLY it may be Objected, that God may be as much obliged by rational inducements as others are by Positive Commands, and it may be conceived to be as difficult for him not to do what he knows to be fit and rational, or to do what he knows to be otherwise, as to omit what he knows necessary to be done, or to do what he knows necessary to be omitted; inasmuch as he may be conceived obliged, not only by the necessity of the thing, but by that also of acting rationally. But besides that this Objection does as much overthrow the Divine Liberty in other things as in the distribution of his Goodness, and therefore must in other regards be acknowledged solvible by our Adversaries themselves as well is in this: I am not at present particularly concerned to undertake it. For my present design it is abundantly sufficient that by the same reason whereby we Judge any thing else free to God. (and it must be a great violence to our own Faculties and a contradiction to the Current of the Scripture totally to deny the Divine Liberty) we have also reason to believe that he freely distributes the good things for which we are at present concerned. For supposing there were nothing really free as to God himself, the reason then why we should conceive any thing as▪ free to him would be only this, that we should conceive those things as free to him for which we knew not necessarily obliging reason, and we must necessarily be ignorant of such a reason in such things which exceeded our natural capacities. And therefore considering that, Antecedently to Positive Revelation, the only reason which we can conceive as obligatory to God, to do any good to his Creature, is his Relation of a Creator or Governor to it, whatsoever is not obligatory to him on these accounts must, in this way of proceeding, be conceived as free to him. At least our Ignorance of any obligatory Cause is perfectly sufficient for my present design, to show how little ground of comfort we can have from such an expectation on these Terms.  
§ XIV NOR did any necessary reason oblige his natural Goodness to pardon these Offences of his Creatures, at least not such reason as is discoverable by us▪ from these Relations of his being our good Creator and Governor. This appears clearly from the Revelations of the Gospel by which we know that we were, upon account of our Offences, perfectly liable to the actual inflictions of his Justice. If we had not been so, what need had there been of the Satisfaction and sufferings of Christ for atoning the Divine Justice for our Sins Antecedently to our admission into the Evangelical Covenant? And if we were, it must necessarily follow that he was not obliged by his Providential Goodness to pardon us. For the Divine Attributes must not be conceived as inconsistent with each other, and they must needs be so if God may there Justly punish where he is, by his natural Providential Goodness, obliged to forgive. For in this Case the very Right of his Justice must be overpowered by his Goodness. And it is further considerable in this Case, that his Justice does as well concern him as a Governor as his Goodness; whence it will also further follow that, if the Justice of his Government will permit him actually to punish, than the Goodness of his Government cannot oblige him actually to forgive. For no actual Practice of God can possibly oppose any Obligation of his Nature. Nay further yet it is to be remembered that the Obligation of his Justice itself is indeed no other but a higher Obligation of his Goodness. For it must not be conceived that the essentially-Good nature of God can be obliged to inflict any evil whatsoever as an evil. But that he is obliged to punish the offences of particular Persons, when either a greater good is promoted by the punishment than could be by the Impunity, as none can doubt but that the good of the Public is greater than that of a particular Person, and more concerning God as he is a Governor; or even when the mischief likely to befall even the particular Person himself, if permitted to go on without Punishment is indeed greater than that of the Punishment itself (which may also be applied to our present Case, not that any evil can be greater to the Individual than Damnation, but that real Damnation, which may be avoided by the fear of it in this Life, is indeed incomparably a greater mischief than the fear itself) this is indeed only a higher Obligation of his Goodness, and therefore uncapable of being taken of by such an Obligation of the same Attribute as is certainly inferior.  
§ XV NOR, if he would be actually pleased to pardon his Creature, is he yet obliged further to give it his further assistances for future Obedience. For besides that this is a favour Additional to the former, and of which the Creature cannot, even by the Law of God's Goodness itself, be supposed capable till it be fitted for it by the former (I mean of that Goodness which obliges him to act, not Fond, but Justly and Rationally, and in compliance with his other Attributes) and therefore cannot be due where the former is not, as none can think him to have any Title to higher, who has none to lower, degrees of favour; I say besides this, there can be nothing said for disobliging God in point of his Goodness from preventing those Sins which were Antecedent to our admission to his favour at first but will proceed with as much force here, and no Objections can be urged for impeaching God's Goodness, for not giving his restraining and assisting Graces for prevention of future misdemeanours, but will as well reflect on it for not giving the same Grace at first for hindering those Offences which at first made us need his pardoning favour. So that the same Reasons, which prove the former Favour undue, must also prove these Objections false and unconcluding. So that there will be no need for us at present to be-solicitous for their particular Solution. Besides that this Presumption lies against them, that this is a Case wherein Reason is so far from concluding necessarily on either hand, and wherein it is so little able to inform us of those Secrets of Government which if we understood we may conceive very likely exceedingly to altar the merit of the Cause, and therefore actual Revelation concerning it must needs be a surer way of arguing, and in Prudence much fit to be trusted for regulating our Practice than any of those general Conjectures, which our Reason is able to propose concerning it.  
§ XVI NOR yet further (though he should be pleased to grant the Assistances of his Grace for the better security of our future Obedience) does his Goodness oblige him to reward his Creature having once offended, and much less to accept of an imperfect instead of a perfect Obedience in Order to a reward. It does not oblige him to reward his Creature having once offended. Indeed Reason of State may sometimes oblige such Princes, whose welfare depends upon the State, to connive at Rebellions where the Persons engaged in them are numerous. But where Princes themselves are less dependent, and can Right themselves notwithstanding any whatsoever opposition of their Subjects, it may indeed become their Clemency, but they cannot be obliged to reward them even upon their return to their Duty and their better observance of it after they have once been pardoned. Especially where Justice and the Public Interest require a public satisfaction, for fear of the ill consequence of an Example of Impunity, as our dissenting Brethren themselves confess the Satisfaction of Christ to have been necessary in our present Case. If it be requisite for the Good of Mankind that Divine Justice should be satisfied before the Creature could be pardoned, no Providential Goodness could oblige God to give his own Son to suffer for that purpose; much less to give him for Mankind, and not for the fallen Angels; least of all to purchase rewards for Us whilst we were in a Condition of Hostility, and to reward those Services which as they come from us are weak and imperfect and full of impure adherences, and as they come from him are no other than his own Gifts.  
§ XVII BUT if his native Goodness should even thus far prevail with him as to pass by these disadvantages on our part, and to pay this debt of a Reward, not to our performances, but to his own ●ative Generosity; yet the highest Rewards which concern him as a Creator and Governor of the World are only Natural. And the concession of these as they were abundantly sufficient, to prevail with the Creature, in a way of rational inducement, to comply with the designs of his Providence; so they were enough to entitle him a good Creator, and a bountiful Governor. But it could have been nothing more derogatory to his Providential bounty to have refused Supernatural Rewards than it is that he has not given all Men the uttermost advantages for the Goods of their minds their Bodies and their Fortunes, which there is no doubt but that his Omnipotence could have procured for them.  
§ XVIII 2. THOUGH this Assurance, which may be grounded on this Notion of the Divine uncovenanted Goodness, might indeed afford some comfort to a Person who had nothing else to rely on; yet that comfort cannot be comparable to that which may be had from those general Ordinary means which God has provided for by express Revelation. And this Observation comes perfectly home to the Case for which we are at present concerned, that is, to prove our dissenting Brethren obliged to submit to all unsinful compliances rather than want the use of the Ordinary means of Salvation. For, by the Principles proved in the former Chapter, the less security of a State for Salvation (but especially then when this less security is extremely little, as I have now immediately proved it to be) is sufficient, not only in Prudence▪ to persuade them to endeavour for a State more secure; but also in Conscience, to oblige them rather to submit to any condition of gaining it that is not Sinful, than fail of it. For proving therefore that the Assurance which may be gained by the use of these Ordinary means is indeed greater than that which may be had by Extraordinary, I consider that whatever is pleadable from this Vncovenanted Goodness is much more strongly pleadable from that Goodness which may be expected by such as are in Covenant; That none of those Exceptions which have been objected against the former way of Arguing in Case of Extraordinary means are capable of being urged in Case of Ordinaries; And that indeed the thing is of that Nature that, as it cannot be proved by any necessary consequence from the Divine Nature, so, the only competent proof to be expected for it is only actual express Revelation.  
§ XIX WHATEVER is pleadable from the uncovenanted Goodness of God is much more strongly pleadable from that Goodness which may be expected by such as are in Covenant. For God does not cease to be naturally Good by entering into Covenant with us; and whatever is necessary for approving himself thus Providentially Good before, must also be necessary after. For his being pleased to condescend so far as to enter into Covenant being only a higher instance of his Goodness cannot be conceived to disoblige him either from being or appearing as Good as he was formerly, and whatever is necessary to make him appear so, being necessary on account of its own nature, must be so unalterably and eternally. And though it be certain that God is not by his natural Providential Goodness obliged to be alike Good to all; yet that itself is not pleadable in our present Case, as if he might on this Arbitrary account in the actual Dispensation of his Goodness be expected better to those who are not in Covenant with him, than to those who are. For they who are so far favoured already as to be admitted into Covenant with him are not only thereby entitled to the further Favours which are expressly treated for in the Covenant, but also to the indefinite expectations of his Providential Goodness. For by admitting them thus far, he plainly owns them as his peculiar Favourites; and Favourites are always looked on as the most likely Candidates for unpromised, as well as promised, and Covenanted, Favours. And as they who are thus far owned have, even in this way of Arguing from the Equity and reasonableness of the thing itself, a much fairer Title, and consequently a much better Argument for assuring themselves in their pretensions to those indefinite Favours than they who are not; so they have above them that evidence of express Revelation of which the condition of others is not capable. Which is not only an Additional but a surer Argument in things of this nature, and of which Men in their Ordinary Conversation are generally more confident. Every one is much better satisfied with the express Promise even of a good Man than with his good inclinations and well wishes; and where ever they are any thing diffident, it is to these express Promises that they have their ultimate recourse for satisfaction.  
§ XX NOR are any of those Exceptions, which have been objected against the former way of Arguing in Case of Extraordinary Means, only from Gods indefinite Goodness, capable of being urged here, in Arguing from his formal Covenant, and express Revelation. All those Arguments concerning the obscurity of many things to our Rational faculties, which in this way of proceeding, are absolutely necessary for Judging accurately, or indeed with any Probability are here prevented. For how obscure soever they are to us, yet they are sufficiently clear to God, on whose Testimony it is that we are obliged to believe what he has been pleased to reveal. And when we are thus assured of a Truth by the Testimony of him who infallibly knows it, we are not then so much concerned for other things which may have a connexion with it, either as Objections or Arguments, because we are sure such a Testimony is a much better Argument to prove it true than any deducible from such Topics, either for proving or disproving it. Especially when the thing is such as we have shown the Subject of our present Disputes to be, that it does not itself fall immediately under our cognizance, and when the Objections also do not disprove it, but only weaken the force of some Arguments produced for proving it, as those are which we have made use of against the Arguments only producible by Reason unassisted by Revelation. Especially considering also that not only Gods actual Revelation is a much better Argument to assure us what may be expected from him than only indefinite Conjectures concerning his natural Goodness; but also that the Arguments, whereby an actual Revelation may be proved, are more clear, and cogent, than such Conjectures. Nor are those Arguments, which were there made use of, to prove him not obliged by his natural Goodness to confer those favours on us which he has designed for us in the Gospel, conclusive here; because it may please him to do many Favours for us to which he is not obliged by his natural Goodness, and it is his actual pleasure that we are assured of by actual Revelation.  
§ XXI FROM whence also appears the Reasonableness of what was proposed in the last place as considerable for clearing this present Head, That the things necessary to be proved, in order to the comfort of Persons here concerned, are such, that, as they cannot be proved by any necessary consequence from the Divine Nature; so, the only competent proof to be expected for them is only actual express Revelation. This is so clear from what has been already said, that it will only need application. For having shown that our Title to these favours does not appear from any necessary Obligation incumbent on him by virtue of his natural Goodness, it plainly follows that their distribution is free and Arbitrary to him. Now in such things as these the only way of knowing his actual pleasure is by an actual Revelation. So that from hence it appears, not only, that Revelation is a much more solid Argument for comfort than these Conjectures from the Divine Natural Goodness, but also that it is the only Argument in most of those Particulars requisite for this purpose where these Conjectures are not capable of proving them actually true, but only possible to be so▪ that is, indeed where they are not capable of being any Arguments for positive comfort, but only Exceptions against those Arguments, that are deducible from the Divine Nature Antecedently to Revelation, which might drive them into direct Despair. Which none can in Prudence think it safe to trust to where better may be had by unsinful condescensions. Especially considering how far actual Revelation may after the Case, and that God may be obliged to do many evils to us, on account of his actual Revelation, to which he had not been obliged by any of his Essential Attributes.  
§ XXII AND for bringing this whole Discourse more home to our dissenting brethren's Case, I only desire further that it may be remembered that their Case, who cannot plead a Title to the Promises by the performance even of those External Conditions which are required by the Gospel, is exactly the same in this regard with theirs who might have pleaded for Gospel Favours, by the performance of Moral Duties, Antecedently to actual Revelation. They can plead as little Revelation for their comfort, as the others. For though the Gospel do not expressly deny its Favours to the performers of the Moral Conditions without the external and ritual ones; yet it is withal as certain, that it does, with as little expressness, entitle such to them. So that both of them are alike necessitated to depend not on its Letter, but its Equity. And it is withal as clear that this Equity of the Gospel cannot be pleaded independently on the Letter, from any other Topick but only the Divine Essential uncovenanted Goodness; and that what is either obliging to God in regard of his Essential Goodness, or the Equity of his design in promulging the Evangelical Covenant, is alike obliging to him in respect of Heathens, who never heard of the Gospel, as in respect of those who have heard it, but cannot assure themselves of their Interest in it by their performance of its Conditions, Ritual, as well as Moral. For the only Favour he can be thought to entertain for Christians not performing Conditions is only this, that, by making that performance more possible to them, he has thereby admitted them to better advantages for gaining a Legal Title to the Privileges of the Gospel. But upon any faileur in performance of Conditions, the Divine Goodness and Equity is so far from giving them any advantage above others, as that they are less excusable than others to whom that performance is not so possible; and none can doubt but that they, who may be admitted to Ordinary Means by compliances not sinful, and willingly want them rather than they will submit to such compliances, must be much more culpable than they who cannot be admitted to them by any compliances whatsoever. And therefore by the same reason whereby it has appeared that these Conjectures from the Divine Goodness are improper, and insignificant for comfort, in the Case of Heathens, without express Revelation; they will also be as insignificant to failing Christians. For it is altogether as Arbitrary to God whether he will excuse the non-performance of, even External, Conditions when they may be performed without Sinful compliances, as whether he will accept of the Moral Conditions alone where the Rituals are utterly impossible. And consequently those as well as these are as incapable of being assured of the Goodness of their Condition without express Revelation, which in this Case must be as private and particular as in theirs, seeing it is so little spoken to in the general Revelations of the Gospel.  
§ XXIII BUT further 3. These Expectations from Extraordinaries are not so seasonable in our Adversaries Case, who might obtain the Ordinary Means, by Concessions not Sinful. So that whatever force this Argument might have in other Cases, yet it can have none in theirs. For the very name of Extraordinaries plainly implies that they are such Means as God is pleased to make use of upon the fail●ur of Ordinaries; and that, if they may be expected by any, they may most probably be expected by them, who (as they cannot be supposed by any fault of their own to have failed of the use of Ordinaries, nor consequently to have forfeited their interest in Gods good will to them as their Creator and Governor so,) may therefore expect those indefinite effects of that good will which is natural to him as so related to them; not only such to which he is obliged by this Good will, but also such as are supposed to be at his Arbitrary disposal. For as even such things may not be despaired of by such, to whom as he is naturally thus well affected, so they are not conscious to themselves of any neglect on their part that might demerit or diminish this Affection. So that it is plain that the whole reason of this hope is their present Interest in God's good will; which if they have forfeited, God may still wish as well to his Creatures and Subjects as formerly, yet so as that his well wishes can administer no comfort to them who have lost their Title to it. And how is it possible that he should have the confidence to expect Extraordinary Favours from God, who has through any neglect of endeavour on his own part failed of those that are Ordinary? How can he with any reason expect any of those Favours to which God is not precisely Obliged by that Goodness which is natural to him as a Creator and Governor, whose actual performances have been so little endearing that he has nothing that can recommend him to this natural Love of God but precisely that he is his Creature and Subject, though an undutiful one? How can he expect that God should condescend so far as to vary from his own General Rules and Ordinary Provisions, and not only to excuse his deviations from them, but to contrive Extraordinary Means for his particular Salvation, who in the mean time is so unwilling for his sake to part with his own humour in compliances not Sinful? But this, as it comes also exactly home to our dissenting brethren's Case, so, I conceive it so clear as not to need any further prosecution.  
§ XXIV 4. THEREFORE it is further to be considered, that the relief, by Extraordinary pretences to Gods uncovenanted Goodness, must needs be rendered more difficult upon the establishment of Ordinaries. For since the establishment of Ordinaries, there is reason to presume that God has declared it, not only as agreeable to his wisdom, but his actual pleasure, neither to save many without the use of those Ordinary Means; nor indeed any but such as have these Ordinaries, at least in voto, and that so efficaciously as that no Difficulties, or Impositions not Sinful, howe'er Inconvenient, could hinder them from their actual use. So that such a Person who may have the Ordinary Means on any tolerable, that is, not Sinful compliances, cannot, if he want them, have any solid reason for Comfort on account of God's Goodness in an Extraordinary way. 
2 Kings v. 10. St. Joh. ix. 7. Act. xxvii. 31. Ver. 22.24.  This is agreeable with the constant Rule of God's proceed in matters of this nature. Thus Naaman could not be cleansed from his leprosy till he had washed in Jordan; nor the blind man in the Gospel cured of his blindness, till he had washed in the pool of Siloam; nor could St. Paul's companions have expected to have escaped Shipwreck, notwithstanding Gods Promise for it to him (which I am sure is an incomparably stronger and more convincing Argument than our general guesses at the Goodness only of his Nature) if they had not kept within the Ship. And in the Case I am at present discoursing of, the reason is very easy. For it is not conceivable that God should institute Ordinary Means of Salvation, and yet leave it to the Liberty of his Creatures to neglect them without any pretence of unavoidable Necessity, or Sinful compliances required as Conditions of them. And particularly in these External Ordinary Means of Salvation, the only reason obliging us to the Observation of them is the Spiritual and Supernatural benefit to be procured in the use of them (as the Reward is the only Obligation to the performance of Duty in any Case whatsoever) and therefore certainly it must be the Intention of God, in inviting us to the Observation of these External Ordinary Means of Grace by the Promises of these Supernatural Assistances in the use of them, that they who are deficient to themselves, in not using their utmost Diligence to procure these Means, should fail of the Reward.  
§ XXV AND though Antecedently to the Divine Positive Injunctions we might indeed expect the effects of the general Divine Goodness without such Positive Observations; yet the reason why we might do so is plainly this, because in that Case we should have no reason to fear lest we should incur the Divine displeasure by such a neglect, and so being able to maintain a Conscience on our part of having kept a fair correspondence with God according to our weak abilities, we might expect the general ●ffects of the Divine Goodness and Indulgence. But where God has expressly required an external Observance, and has sufficiently promulged his mind concerning it, and the Creature obliged knows its Duty, and yet neglects it, or does not use all Moral Diligence, or submit to all Lawful compliances rather than hazard the Probability of provoking God by its omission, there it is plain it cannot preserve this clearness of Conscience on its own part, which is the only solid ground of any probable expectations of the Divine Favour; whence is necessarily follows, that, in this latter Case its hopes must necessarily be confined to the performance of its Ordinary Duty. And considering that it is God who requires this External Duty from them, and who must therefore be presumed displeased by its Omission; and considering that no Inconvenience whatsoever can in any reason be thought comparable to that of the loss of the Divine Favour; it plainly follows that no Inconvenience whatsoever can in any reason be sufficient to excuse this Omission, and therefore, that nothing can do it under Sin.  
§ XXVI BUT in the Subject of our present Discourse it is further considerable that besides this general Diffidence which ought in reason to follow from the Omission of any of the Divine Commands; there is a particular reason to distrust the conveyances of Grace when we do not make use of the Means of that conveyance: as in God's Ordinary Providence there is reason to distrust a Harvest when we have neglected ploughing and sowing; not only in regard of the displeasure of God to be feared from the neglect, but also of the nature of the things as he has been pleased to order and establish them. It is very true that God can, even since his establishment of the Ordinary Means of Grace, give his Grace without the use of the Ordinary Means, now as well as formerly, and that he has sometimes done it. And it is withal as True, that he can give a Harvest without the labour of the Husbandman, nay and has sometimes done it too, as in the Seaventh Year, 
Leu. xxv. 5.11. 2 King nineteen. 29.  and in other Cases, among the Israelites. But our Enquiry is not what may be done, but of what we may be confident that it will be done; and therefore not what is barely Possible, but what is also Probable: for of such things only we can have any comfort or confidence. And can any Prudent Husbandman be confident of a Harvest in such a Case because God can give it him still, and sometimes has given it? If such a hope be counted extremely Irrational and Presumptuous, and God be ordinarily thought obliged by the Rules of his general Providence to defeat and disappoint it, to confine Men to the Ordinary Means of their own Diligence, and so to oblige them to a regular and constant subserviency to the designs of his Ordinary Providence; let it be considered whether it be not as reasonable to expect the same dealing here, to confine Men to the use of the Ordinary means of Salvation. Is not the Salvation of Rational Creatures, for whose use the World itself is Created▪ as considerable in the Eyes of Providence as those Laws of the inferior Creation which were only designed for their use? God himself has shown the greater esteem he has for the welfare of his Rational Creatures, when for their advantage, even in particular Cases, he has broken the general Laws of this inferior Creation.  
§ XXVII AND is it probable that he should be more scrupulous in maintaining the Rules of this less valued Government than the Rules of the Government of those whom he is pleased more highly to value? Is it likely that he should be more solicitous to oblige Men to use their utmost Diligence in providing for their Animal Life, than their incomparably more valuable Interests of their Eternal Salvation? Or is not a confinement of their Diligence to the use of the Ordinary means of their Salvation as Prudent an Expedient to keep them lively, and active, and subservient to Providence, in working out their own Salvation; as a confinement to the Ordinary means of procuring external advantages is to oblige them to a subserviency to general Providence? God's care for the Salvation of one Nation, the Jews alone, induced him not only to perform Miracles at the first Publication of his will to them, but also to a perpetual Succession of Miracles to future Ages. Such, besides those now mentioned, were those of the Shechinah over the Mercy seat, the Oracles of Vrim and Thummim, the ordinary Succession of Prophets, the water of Jealously, etc. And can we think that God would prefer the Rules of Ordinary Providence before this infinitely more valuable Dispensation of the Gospel? Can his care then be greater for a single Nation than it is now for the general Salvation of Mankind? Or for a Law designedly Temporal than for his Everlasting Gospel? Or for a Covenant confirmed by the blood of Bulls and Goats than that which has been confirmed by the invaluable blood of his dearest Son? For Promises, Primarily and Literally, only relating to their settlement in a terrestrial Inheritance than those exceeding great and precious ones of an exceeding and eternal weight of Glory? I am sure the Apostle teaches us otherwise to argue. 
Heb. x. 28.29.  If he who bro●k Moses' Law died without Mercy under two or three Witnesses; Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the Covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of Grace? If therefore God valued the Law of Moses before that of the inferior Creation, he must rather prefer that of the Gospel before it. And therefore if Men may not expect the benefits of Providence without the Observation of the Ordinary Means, and all possible Industry in obtaining them; no more can they, with any solid Prudent confidence, expect the benefits of the Gospel without their utmost Industry for procuring the Ordinary Means appointed by God for that purpose. Thus much concerning this. 1. Particular, that though our Salvation might be equally sure in itself, yet we cannot be so well assured of it in the use of Extraordinary as of Ordinary Means.   

CHAP. III. The Ordinary Means of Salvation confined to the External Communion of the Visible Church.  
THE CONTENTS.  
§ I The Ordinary Means whereby we may be assured of Salvation must be Promises conveyed to us in a Legal way by the Solemnities of a Covenant. §. I.II. 2. The Ordinary Means of Salvation, at least, whereby we may be satisfied of it, and receive any comfort from it, are confined to the External Communion of the Visible Church; And that the Episcopal Church, under whose Jurisdiction any one lives, is that Visible Church out of which these Ordinary Means of Salvation are not to be had by any whilst he lives under that Jurisdiction. This to be proved in two Parts. 1. That these Ordinary Means of Salvation are confined to the External Communion of the Visible Church. §. JII.IU. This proved by three Degrees. 1. The Ordinary Means whereby we may assure ourselves that we in particular have any interest in the Divine Promises is by assuring ourselves that we in particular are in Covenant with God. §. V VI.VII.VIII.IX.X.XI.XII.XIII.XIU.XU.XVI.XVII.XVIII.XIX.  
NOW the Ordinary Means of assuring us of the Divine pleasure herein, either concerning his Supernatural Assistances, or concerning his Indulgences to our ordinary failings, or of his rewarding our weak and imperfect performances with Supernatural Felicities, being all of them things depending on his Arbitrary pleasure can be no other than Promises and a Covenant solemnly confirmed to us. That they are things perfectly at his Arbitrary disposal plainly appears from all that has now been said, by which it has been proved that he is not necessitated to them by any Obligation of his naturally Beneficent Nature, nor by any Relation by which he is necessarily related to us as our Creator and Governor, which might further endear him to us. And as for any further Relation to which he is not so naturally determined, the very Favour of entering into such a one is as arbitrary as any thing else that depends on his free disposal, and therefore cannot prejudg against the freedom of all the Favours consequent to it. Now in Arbitrary things wherein God is, as to any Obligation of his Nature, indifferent which way he determines himself, it is impossible to know which way he will be pleased actually to determine himself without actual and express Revelation. And because the actual performance of these things must be future as well as present, not only as to the Reward, but as to the Assistances also without which we could have little security of the possibility of our Duty, or consequently of the comfortableness of our Condition; we can upon these terms enjoy no solid comfort unless we may be assured, not only that it is his will at present, but that it shall be also for the future, which actual Revelation of his will for the future performance of good things to us is that which is properly called a Promise. But it is certain that God does not multiply these Promises according to the multiplicity of the Cases of the Persons concerned in them. And therefore the Promises being only General, the only way how particular Persons can assure themselves of their Interest in them, can only be by their Interest in that Body and Community to whom they are made.  
§ TWO AND because this Community does not consist of a particular number of Persons existing in one Age, but is designed to comprehend the generality of mankind in a perpetual Succession, and yet God is not pleased Ordinarily to presentiate himself through the several Periods of those Successions in dealing with the several Persons for whom he has designed those favours; and because that it is impossible that any Covenant can be made on God's part without a Declaration of his consent to the Promises on performance of Conditions on our part, especially in matters of that nature of which we are at present discoursing, that is, in the dispensation of arbitrary Favours, to which he is not obliged by his essential Goodness: Therefore it will be necessary that this Covenant be made in general, but that the admission of particular Persons to it be transacted the same way which is always thought reasonable in Contracts of the same nature where the Party Covenanting does not Personally appear, by delegating and empowering sufficient Proxies who may Seal it in his name, and by whose Act he may therefore declare himself obliged. These things are certainly so essential to the Notion of a Covenant properly so called, as that that consent which may in some Cases be presumed without them, yet cannot for any of these defects deserve the proper name of a Covenant, or infer that Legal Obligation which is the advantage of a Covenant above other Contracts which are not transacted with the like solemnity in order to our Comfort. And therefore as this Conveyance of a right to Promises by a general Covenant is the only ordinary way whereby we may be assured of a Title to them, so the application of this Covenant by these Solemnities is the only Ordinary Means whereby we may be particularly assured of our Interest in the Covenant. But that I may more distinctly show, not only, that, in reason, this is fit to have been thus contrived, but also that it has been actually Observed in the Evangelical Covenant, and that I may bring the application more home to our particular Case; I therefore proceed to  
§ III THE 2. Particular proposed, That, at least, these Ordinary Means of our Salvation, (at least, those whereby we may be satisfied of it, and receive any comfort from it, that is, (as has appeared from the things now premised) Gods Promises as conveyed to us by a Covenant, and this Covenant as Legally applied to particular Persons by Persons sufficiently Authorized by God for that purpose, to act in his name, and to engage him with a Legal valid obligation to performance) are indeed confined to the external Communion of the Visible Church; And that the Episcopal Church, under whose Jurisdiction any one lives, is that Visible Church out of which these Ordinary Means of Salvation are not to be had by any whilst he lives under that Jurisdiction. This consists of two Parts: 1. That these Ordinary Means of Salvation are confined to the External Communion of the Visible Church; And 2. That in reference to the Duty of particular Persons that Visible Church wherein they may expect to find these Ordinary Means is the Episcopal in opposition to all other Societies not Episcopally governed.  
§ IV 1. THESE Ordinary Means of Salvation are confined to the External Communion of the Visible Church. I say the External Communion, that I may prevent those Exceptions which many are ready to make in behalf of our dissenting Brethren; that they do already Communicate with Us in 36. of the 39 Articles, which they believe as well as We; and that they hearty wish well to all good Men of what Party soever; and that, at least, they Pray for Us where they cannot Pray with Us. For these, if they could; in any propriety of Speech, be styled Acts of Communion, which no good Christian can deny even to real Schismatics themselves, with whom notwithstanding all, who hold that there is such a thing as real Schism, must not hold it lawful to communicate; yet most certainly they are not Acts of External Communion. By this therefore I only mean a participation in those External Exercises whereby the Church subsists as a distinct Society, that is, a joining in the Ordinances administered in it, but especially in the Sacraments. I say the Visible Church, purposely to obviate that pretence of the Church's consisting only of the Elect, who, as they are supposed themselves not Visible, nor united among themselves by any Visible commerce, so they think (and very consequently to this Notion) that Communion may be maintained with them in an Invisible way by likeness of design and Sympathy of Affection's. And therefore by this Visible Church I mean that Visible Society which is maintained by an acknowledgement of the same common Visible Ecclesiastical Government and by an external participation of the same common Sacraments. So that my meaning in this whole Proposition is, That a Legal Right, to these Evangelical Promises and Covenant, which are the Ordinary Means whereby we may be assured of our Salvation on performance of Conditions, is not conveyed to Us otherwise than by our participation of these external Ordinances whereby we profess ourselves Members of such a Visible Society which is maintained by those Ordinances, of which none can be partakers without consent of the Visible Ecclesiastical Governors, which must therefore oblige all to a Subjection to those Governors. This will be clear in discoursing concerning these particulars: 1. That the only Ordinary Means, whereby we may assure ourselves that we in particular have an interest in his Promises of any of the things now mentioned as necessary for our Salvation, is by our assurance of our being engaged in Covenant with him; 2. That the only Ordinary Means whereby we may assure ourselves of our Interest in this Covenant with him is by our partaking of these external Solemnities whereby this Covenant is transacted and maintained; and 3. That the partaking of these external Solemnities with any Legal validity (which can only be a ground of comfort to a Person concerned in this Case) is only to be had in the external Communion of the Visible Church.  
§ V 1. THEREFORE, the only Ordinary Means whereby we may assure ourselves that we in particular have any Interest in these Divine Promises (without which assurance it has appeared to be in vain for particular Persons to challenge any comfort) is by assuring ourselves that we in particular are in Covenant with him; so that, at least the Negative way of Arguing (for which alone I am at present concerned) will hold here, That he who cannot assure himself that he is in Covenant with God, can also never (in an ordinary way at least) assure himself that he in particular has an Interest in the Divine Promises. For proving this I desire it may be Observed 1. That it is only the Obligatory force either of the Divine Promise, or Covenant, that can be a solid ground, (I do not say, of comfort in general, but, at least) of any positive Assurance, and consequently, at least, of that degree of comfort which requires positive Assurance. This appears from what has been already discoursed under the former Head. 2. Therefore it is to be Observed further, that Promises and Covenants are Legal transactions, and that God himself herein condescends to the capacities of his Creatures, so that they may be capable of judging him obliged to them by the same Legal rational measures whereby they are capable of entering into Obligations to one another. That it was God's design that his Creatures should understand him as thus obliged is very easy to be understood from his using expressions plainly significative of a Legal conveyance with all its Circumstances according to the Customs of those Nations. Thus the name of a Covenant, of a Mediator, of a Testament, of a Surety, of Sealing, of giving an earnest and First fruits, etc. are plain terms of Law, and allusions to the Customs of Legal conveyances in those times, and therefore were so most obviously intelligible by those Persons (who were concerned in them immediately, and to whose capacities they were immediately fitted) of a Legal Obligation, and consequently were in all likelihood designed by God himself so to signify. Unless we can suppose that he designedly made use of Expressions which, by all Regular and Prudent measures of Interpretation, were likely to be misunderstood by his Creatures concerned in them, which it not reconcilable with his Goodness and Veracity. Besides this appears from his doing this in Writings of a Popular stile, and particularly fitted to the vulgar capacities, who were certainly like to understand him thus where they found their own familiar Expressions used, and their Terms alluded to; nay from the many instances in the Epistle to the Hebrews especially, where that Divine Author himself has given us Precedents of Arguing from the received Legal Notions, concerning the nature of Contracts (that Testaments are not of force till the death of the Testator, 
Heb. ix. 17. Heb. ix. 18.  that Covenants must be confirmed with blood, etc.) which had been extremely improper if he had not supposed in general, that God's Covenant with Mankind in the Gospel was of the same nature with other Legal Contracts.  
§ VI FOR it is to be remembered that in these Discourses he is not so much to be considered in the Quality of a Revealer of God's Will, as of a Disputant; and therefore as arguing from Premises, not only granted by the Persons with whom he had to deal, but also true in themselves, and secure in their Consequences. For it is not probable that he would have laid the main stress of so considerable a part of his Discourse only on Arguments ad homines. And seeing that, in this way of Arguing, the reason which he supposes sufficient to assure his Readers of the Truth of the Premises of such Discourses could not be any Authority of his own (for if the Premises must have been believed for his Authority, why might not the same Authority suffice for rendering the Conclusions also Credible which were to be deduced from them? And if so, what need had there been of any Arguments or deductions?) He must therefore plainly suppose that Gods dealing with them was really by way of a Legal Contract, and that all Maxims requisite to the nature of such Contracts, according to the concurrent sense of such Persons as in that Age were most Prudently to be presumed to be best acquainted with the nature of such Contracts, were also applicable to these Divine Contracts; and that Arguments grounded on such Maxims were solid and conclusive. For these were the only proper reasons for assuring such Persons of their Truth, Antecedently and independently on the Apostles Authority; and therefore, by the same tenor of arguing, all those other Propositions to which they were equally applicable must be presumed equally true.  
§ VII 3. THEREFORE it hence follows that the nature of the Obligation of these Divine Promises and Covenant is to be explained in a Legal way. And that not only by the Laws of Nature, and Nations in general; but also, in many instances, by those then prevailing among the Hellenistical Jews (for whose use the New Testament seems to have been primarily designed) those of the Roman Empire in general, and those of their particular Nation. But especially the securest arguing in this kind will be from the Laws of Nature and Nations, and the general rational Notions concerning the Obligation of this sort of Contracts, not only such as are really agreeable to the nature of the things themselves, but also such as were conceived to be rational and agreeable to the natures of the things by the unanimous consent of civilised Nations, and of the Masters of reasoning whose Authority was then had in general veneration. For though God be not any farther, than he pleases himself, obliged by particular positive Constitutions, because he is not subject to the Authority by which they are established; yet by virtue of the essential rectitude of his Will whereby it is necessarily conformed to the Rule of right Reason, we cannot conceive any thing necessarily obliging in point of Reason, and yet conceive him indifferent to its observation. And therefore whatever, I do not say is, but, is by us conceived to be, rationally obligatory in the nature of these Contracts; that we may presume to be obligatory even to God himself, when he is pleased to enter into such Contracts with us. For the very design of all Contracts being to give mutual security for performance on both sides, it is very rational that we be the same way assured of performance on God's part as we give security for performance on ours. But this cannot be unless the same reason of obligation be supposed equally cogent in both Cases. Now it is plain that our own obligations are measured by our own Notions; and therefore unless we may Judge of God's obligations by the same measures, we may conceive ourselves to give security where none is given us, which is not agreeable with that Simplicity and fair dealing which we must needs conceive inseparable from Divine Contracts.  
§ VIII I SAY, not only is, but is conceived, both because our Conceptions, as erroneous as they are in themselves, are yet the only possible measures of our comfort; And because I have already shown that it is not rational to believe that God will suffer the generality of those, to whom his Revelations were at first proposed, to be lead into any actual Error by following their own conceptions in such Cases; And because I might, by this Clause, give a reason of the latter part of my Assertion, that not only in general Propositions concerning the nature of the Obligation of these Contracts, but also in such as were reputed for such by the greatest Masters of reasoning in that Age, such an Assurance, as I am speaking of, may be securely grounded. Because the sense of these Wisemen was most likely, and in Prudence most fit, to have been followed by the generality of those Ages; and therefore must not have been supposed likely to have been permitted by Providence to misguide them. This I do the rather observe because they are these general Rules, and eternal Reasons, concerning the Obligation of these Contracts for which I am at present solicitous, and on which I do intent to superstruct my future Discourse.  
§ IX 4. THEREFORE these Promises of forgiveness of our past Sins, and assistance in our future performances, and acceptance of our imperfect Righteousness as if it had been perfect, and passing by our daily frailties, and accepting of our weak performances in order to a Supernatural reward, are to be considered as the things to be performed on God's part of the Evangelical Covenant. This appears from the expressions of the Covenant itself, as they are transcribed from Jer. XXXI. 31, 32, 33, 34. by the Author to the Hebrews Heb. VIII. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. where, on God's part of this Covenant, 
Jer. xxxi. 33. Heb. viij. 10. Jer. xxxi. 34. Heb. viij. 12.  it is promised, That he will put his Laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts (by which terms are employed all his gracious assistances of them for the performance of their duty) and That He will be merciful unto their unrighteousness, and that their Sins and Iniquities He would remember no more, by which may be included his whole Indulgence to their Sins, not only his perfect forgiveness of their Sins passed employed in his remembering them no more, but also his bearing with their future frailties, which may appositely enough be intimated by his being merciful to their unrighteousness, as Vrighteousness may signify, not that which is contrary to Righteousness, but that which falls short of it in point of Perfection, and as being merciful may imply a weakness and imperfection in the Persons to whom it is shown which might be a rational inducement to the generous nature of God to incline him to mercy. Though I confess when I consider the frequent use of these terms otherwise in the sacred Writers, and especially that frequent practice among them, of making the later part of a verse exegetical of the former; I cannot undertake that this Critical distinction must necessarily have been designed by the Prophet himself. Yet on the other side considering how many things this Author to the Hebrews himself infers from the Old Testament, from the native signification of the terms whereby they are expressed, as designed by the Holy Ghost, how little soever thought of by the Sacred Writers themselves; this Exposition cannot barely on that account be necessarily concluded irrational, whilst it appears congruous to the strict signification of the terms themselves. But however though this Exposition should fail, on account of the Critical importance of those terms; yet it may be included even in the later expressions themselves, if by the Sins and Iniquities which he promises to remember no more, be not only signified those misdemeanours whereby they had forfeited their Interest in the first Covenant, and made themselves unworthy of the Second, 
Jer. xxxi. 32. Heb. viij. 9.  in which regard they are said not to have continued in his Covenant, (that is in the former Covenant) and therefore not to have been regarded by God, which must therefore only imply such Sins as are Antecedent either to the Constitution of the New Covenant, or at least to their Initiation into it (as I verily believe these alone are primarily and originally intended) but also the Frailties consequent to their initiation into the Evangelical Covenant. Which are also capable of being remembered, not indeed in order to the establishment of the New Covenant, or their admission into it, which must here be supposed Antecedent to it; but in regard of the accomplishment of the Evangelical Promises to them, several of which are supposed future to them whilst they live in this World.  
§ X BUT whether the remission of Sins of Frailty consequent to the Covenant be implied in these Words or not, yet most certainly it is in the Covenant itself; unless we suppose this New Covenant less merciful than the Old under which there was admitted an ordinary way of expiating Sins of this nature; and besides it might have been proved from several other Texts of the New Testament, if it had been necessary. 
Jer. xxxi. 33. Heb. viij. 10.  That which I desire only to remark further at present from this Text, is, that it is expressly mentioned as one of the effects of this New Covenant, that God would be unto them a God, and they should be unto him a People. Whence it will be easy to infer that Gods Promises only belong to them as in Covenant with him, because it is only by that Covenant that they become his People. For I believe our dissenting Brethren themselves will not think that these Promises were ever designed by God for any but his own People, even in this restrained sense whereby they are made his People by virtue of this Covenant with him; and to others that yet are not so only on condition of their becoming so. And if they had doubted of it, it had been easy to have proved it. Thus Christ does not so much as pray for the World, but only for them whom his Father had given him out of the World, St. Joh. xvii. 9. In the same sense wherein Judas himself had been given him, Vers. 12. which could not be understood of a giving successful in the event, but only of a giving of external initiation into his Covenant, which is the very sense for which I am at present concerned. And it is only to as many as are thus given him by the Father, that he has power given him of the Father to give eternal Life, Vers. 2. and to raise them up at the last day. St. Joh. vi. 39. as both eternal Life and the Resurrection are usually understood in the best sense, only for a state of Happiness. And they are only they who thus come unto him (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a word signifying Proselitism and the external rites of initiation then requisite for that purpose as it was then practised among the Jews) that he will in no way cast out, St. Joh. vi. 37. And to this purpose those Texts might have been urged which are produced for proving Christ's dying primarily for the Church. And the Answers to them will be prevented in the Sequel of this Discourse, whence it will appear both that Faith and Repentance themselves, on which they so much insist, are not available to Salvation, at least not pleadable in a Legal way, without our being of the Church; and that the Church of which we are Obliged to be is an External Body Politic.  
§ XI BUT at present, for proving that God's Promises are indeed only His part of the Covenant, what can be more clear than that on this account the Jews are said, under the Old Testament, to have had a particular Interest in God's Promises? So St. Peter tells them that the Promise was to them and to their Children, 
Act. two. 39.  and to all that were afar of (that is with this limitation) even to as many as the Lord our God should call, 
Eph. two. 12.13.  that is to as many of the Gentiles as should be admitted into their external Society by Proselitism. For by the Phrase afar of the Gentiles are usually signified. And it is not credible that he could here have taken it for granted that the Gentiles were Salvable on the bare Moral Conditions of Faith and Repentance without external Proselitism. For he seems here to argue from the Concessions of his Auditors, concerning whom it is notorious that they never believed the Gentiles Salvable on such easy terms: And St. Peter himself was not as yet convinced of the Salvability of the Gentiles on other terms than Proselitism to the Jewish Worship, 
Act. x. 28. xi. 16.17.  till his Vision upon occasion of the Story of Cornelius; and when he was, we yet find him difficult in believing of it, as appears from his separating from them as impure upon occasion of the Brethren that came from Jerusalem 14. Years after St. Paul's conversion, which was long after, 
Gal. two. 12.13.  a sign that even than he had not the confidence to urge it as an Argument to the Jews, as it is plain what is here insisted on is urged by way of Argument. Nor is the Promise here mentioned that of the Messiah being of their Nation, or of their numerousness, (of which the Gentiles, though Proselited, were still uncapable) nor indeed any of those Temporal ones which particularly concerned them as even their Civil affairs were governed by a Theocracy, but Spiritual ones of remission of Sins, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, as appears from the verse immediately preceding. And certainly these, if any, concerned them more immediately as a Church, and may therefore by exact parity of reason be expected to be confined to the Christian Church now, who have succeeded them in that capacity.  
§ XII BESIDES it seems exceeding clear, from the whole current of the Apostles Discourse upon this Subject, that the Gospel has only thrown down that partition wall (as the Apostle calls it) whereby the Jews as a particular Nation had been discriminated from the rest of Mankind; so that the same Privileges which had been appropriated then must, by the tenor of this reasoning, 
Eph. two. 14.  be understood to be made common now. Yet so as that this enlargement of the Gospel is not so to be understood as if every Individual Person of other Nations might immediately challenge these Privileges, by virtue of the Evangelical Covenant, upon performance of the Moral Conditions, but that now all are capable of being admitted into the Covenant itself; which will consequently entitle them to those Privileges, without being obliged to leave their National Customs, or to incorporate themselves into a particular Nation, as they were then conceived obliged to incorporate themselves into the Nation of the Jews in order to the gaining a complete Title to all those Spiritual Privileges. This as it fully satisfies the design of the Apostles Discourse, so it still supposes a like confinement of the Promises to the Evangelical Covenant as had been to the Legal, the only difference being that all are capable of being admitted to the Covenant now, who had not been so formerly. Thus again the Apostle St. Paul tells us, that theirs were the Adoption (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) and the Glory, 
Rom. ix. 4.  (the Shechinah) and the Covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the Service of God, and the Promises. And besides this mention of the Adoption, which was clearly a Spiritual benefit, as also that of the Shechinah was, if by it we understand, not that Glory which appeared on mount Sinai at the giving of the Law, nor that which appeared in the cloud and pillar of fire during their journey through the Wilderness, nor that which overshadowed the Mercy seat under the first Temple, but failed under the second; but that which according to the notions of the Rabbins is supposed to rest on every Israelite on account of his being so, which seems to be the same with that which is called the Holy Spirit in the language of Christians, but according to the language of the Jews (which seems here to have been observed by the Apostle) the Ruach Haccodesch seems rather reducible to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Gratiae gratis datae than the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Gratiae gratum facientes, concerning which I am at present discoursing: I say, besides these, it also appears further that the other Benefits implied in the general name of Promises were not only their Temporal Privileges, by the general design of the Apostle in that whole Epistle, where he frequently mentions Remission of Sins and Justification, as part of those Privileges which were controverted betwixt them and the Gentiles. Now if the Promises had been indefinite to all upon the bare performance of the Moral Duties of Repentance, and even of Faith in the Jewish Religion, as far as it could appear credible to other Nations, that is indeed as far as it could be obligatory to them; I do not understand what special interest the Jews could have had in them. For whosoever reads their Story, and considers the dull and sensual humour of the generality of that Nation cannot believe them more inclinable to Faith and Repentance than the generality of other civilised Nations; so that they were not likely, by bare performance of the Conditions, to gain any advantage of the Gentiles in the Event, if the Promises had been equally designed for them and others. It must therefore have been from a designed limitation of the Promises themselves that they, and not others, otherwise than by becoming of their Community by Proselitism, should have a singular Interest in these Promises; Especially if we compare them with those Gentiles which lived among them (and it was with them that the Apostle compared them) to whom the Divine Revelations, as to the directive part of them, might have been as notorious as to themselves. And the most rational way conceivable of confining them, and which seems to have been alluded to in the Apostles Discourses on this Subject, is this, that the Promises were God's part of the Covenant, to which the Jews were admitted, as the Gentiles were excluded from it.  
§ XIII NOW though the condition of the Jews was indeed singular in this, that it was confined to one Nation so that no other Nations were admitted to it; and even no particular Persons of other Nations were capable of being admitted to that favour without an Incorporation into that particular Nation by the complete Proselitism of Justice, whereby they became obnoxious to the Judicial Law which concerned them as a Commonwealth as well as to the Moral and Ceremonial which concerned them as they were a Church; and upon that account it is that the Apostles teach us that in the New Evangelical Covenant God is no respecter of Persons, that in every Nation he that feareth him, 
Act. x. 34.35 Eph. two. 14. Ver. 15.  and worketh Righteousness is accepted by him; and that now the Partition-wall is broken down by Christ; that he has abolished in his flesh the Enmity, even the Law of Commandments contained in Ordinances, for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making Peace; 
Rom. x. 12. Gal. iii. 28. v. 6. vi. 15.  so that there is now no difference between Jew and Greek; but they are all one in Jesus Christ; and now neither Circumcision availeth any thing nor Uncircumcision; Yet all these Discourses seem only to aim at this, that all sorts of Nations may now be admitted to the Evangelical Covenant by Baptism, without remitting any of their National or Political Distinctives in compliance to any one, which was not allowed them under the Mosaic Discipline. But this Liberty cannot be urged from any design of the Sacred Writers in these Discourses so far as to excuse them from the external rites of Initiation into the New Covenant, as if their fearing God and working Righteousness, or the Faith working by Love, or any other Moral Dispositions whatsoever, should prove available to them in order to the procuring Supernatural rewards, without an Interest in the Gospel-Covenant; or that they alone should, in an Ordinary way, procure an Interest in the Gospel-Covenant without an external admission into it in a solemn way where this admission might be obtained on any tolerable unsinful terms, as our Adversaries conceive. But rather seeing the same Legal way of correspondence between God and Us is continued in a way of a Covenant; And seeing the Church with whom this Covenant is made is still a Body Politic as formerly, though not a Civil one; And seeing that God has designed to oblige all Persons to enter into this Society, & to maintain its Peace, (which could not be significant if Persons might Ordinarily hope for the same advantages out of it as in it) They will both of them seem to agree in this, that the Promises are in both alike confined to the Covenant, at least as to an Ordinary way.  
§ XIV BUT besides these Arguments from Testimonies, this confinement of the Evangelical Promises to the Evangelical Covenant will appear from the Reason of the things themselves, even according to that account of them which our dissenting Brethren themselves conceive to be rational. To which purpose it is to be remembered that the reason why God has been pleased to admit Mankind to this favour is not his own essential Goodness alone, but the consideration of the Satisfaction of Christ by which it is purchased, and by which it is made reconcilable with the Principles of Government to admit of this Impunity of our offences without any fear of inconvenience that must otherwise follow from such an example of Impunity and Favour to Persons so offending. Whence it will further follow that, seeing they are the purchase of Christ's blood, they are to be considered as belonging to his Right, and therefore as disposable only according to his pleasure. Now they themselves acknowledge a Covenant betwixt God the Father and Christ concerning this purchase, not only that the Promises were to become his Property, but also that their actual distribution and extent should be according to his appointment. However whether the distribution of them depended on his pleasure or not, yet, as to the positive way of arguing, we who have an Interest in Christ are sufficiently secure of obtaining them, 
St. Joh. xuj. 26.27.  because, by virtue of this satisfaction, his Father himself, as himself has told us, loves us, and is as careful for the performance as if himself had been the Person interessed in our behalf. And accordingly he has given our Saviour this power for this purpose that he should give eternal Life to us, 
St. Joh. vi. 40.  and he has received a Commandment from the Father to lay down his Life for us. And the very Persons are, as truly given him by the Father, as the Father himself has confined these favours only to the Persons which he should give him. 
St. Joh. vi. 37.39. xvii. 6.9.11.12.  And if our dissenting Brethren would only be pleased to consider further, that the Covenant betwixt Christ and Us is only pursuant to that betwixt him and his Father, and only designed for its application to particulars, that as by the Covenant betwixt him and his Father it is resolved that only his should have an Interest in these Promises, so by the Covenant betwixt him and Mankind particular Rules were agreed upon for knowing who should be accounted his; And that Christ transacted this whole affair as a public Person the same way as Adam had done in the former Covenant; And that accordingly, as the benefit of the former Covenant belonged to all who bore the Image of the first Adam, so the benefit of the later Covenant cannot be challenged by any but those who bear the Image of the second; nay that the name of Christ is more expressly applied to the multitude represented by him than that of Adam is to the multitude represented by Adam: That only Adam and his Wife are called Adam, but all who have an Interest in the New Covenant are called by the name of Christ; that only Eve was said to be flesh of Adam's flesh and bone of his bone, and one flesh with him, in regard of the singular manner of her production out of him, but the whole Church is said to be of the flesh and bones of Christ; Nay that this Unity betwixt Christ and his Church is expressly urged so far as that whatsoever is done to the Church is, in a Legal sense, 
1 Cor. xii. 12. Eph. v. 30. Act. ix. 4. 2 Cor. 1.5.7. 1 Pet. iv. 13. Col. 1.24. Gal. vi. 17.  reputed as if it had been done to Christ himself, and what is not conferred on his Members is said to be wanting to himself their Head (so he was persecuted by St. Paul in his Members, and the remainder of his Sufferings in the flesh was fulfilled by the sufferings of the same St. Paul, when now a Christian, and he bore in his Body the die of the Lord Jesus, and from this relation of ours to Christ as of Members to our Head the same Apostle concludes it as impossible for him to have risen if we should not rise also as it is for the Head to be enlivened whilst at the same time its Members lie rotting in the grave, where I desire it may be observed that the Apostle is to be considered as a Disputant from Reason, not as a Proposer of Revelation) whence it will plainly follow that Christians are also included in this Legal person of Christ which is sustained by him in transacting the New Covenant, and therefore that as all Christians must necessarily have a Title to these promises (which cannot otherwise be said to be performed to Christ in this Latitude) so that none but they can have a Legal Title to them, because none can have a Legal Title to them but by purchase, and none but Christ has purchased them, and none but they have a Legal Title to the name and consequently to the purchases of Christ: If, I say, these things had been impartially considered, I do not conceive what could have been further necessary for showing that this Legal Title to these promises is confined not only to the Covenant betwixt God and Christ, but also to that betwixt Christ and Mankind.  
§ XV NOR indeed can I conceive how the Notion of a Covenant is otherwise explicable in these Evangelical Transactions. For considering that that does imply not only a Legal, but a mutual, Contract; it must follow that there must be mutual promises, and mutual Obligations: and therefore that as God is pleased, in this Covenant, to oblige Us in a Legal way to the performance of our Duty; so we may expect that he would also be pleased to oblige himself by promising some advantages to us, to encourage us in it. If he had in another way exacted our Duty, on the bare account of his absolute Authority over us, without any Promises on his part; it might indeed have been called a command, but could never have been properly styled a Covenant. And if God obliged himself to any promises in this Covenant with us, it is least of all credible that he should leave out those promises which are of all others the most considerable, as these are of which we are here discoursing. Besides that indeed the very nature of a promise inferring a Legal Obligation; it is not likely that God would so far condescend as to make them, but upon the like Legal security of Duty to be performed by his Creatures, which when it is mutual on both Parties we call a Covenant. And these promises of Duty, confirmed in a solemn way by a Covenant on our part, being the only rational inducement likely to prevail with God to make these promises; it is not credible that he would design those favours for any but such as give him this solemn security which may induce him to it. For even this external Solemnity is very considerable in regard of the influence it may have on the Obligation and Security of a Covenant, especially as transacted with a Multitude; how little soever it may seem to be so, in regard of the rational Obligation of the mutual consent of the interessed Parties. Nor is it only thus rational in itself, that God should thus confine his promises to his Covenant, but it appears to have been his actual design in the contrivance of it as I shall have occasion to show more fully in my future Discourse.  
§ XVI I AM ware some of our Calvinian Brethren may be tempted to think this Discourse for proving the confinement of the promises to such as have an Interest in the New Covenant purchased by Christ, to be both needless as to themselves, and to be disagreeable to our own Principles in the Remonstrant Controversies: To be needles as to them, because they are for a greater confinement than we can approve of; so as not only to confine them in the Event, but also as to the Original design. So that as to others they conceive neither the Promises to have been designed for them on performance of Conditions, nor yet that Grace which might have enabled them for that performance. To be disagreeable to our other Principles when we prove both the Will of God▪ and the Death of Christ, to have been designed for the Salvation of all. I confess if we understood the Church in the same sense as our Brethren ordinarily do when they produce these same Texts for their own purpose in the Remonstrant Controversies, only for the secret number of God's Elect; And that by the Death of Christ▪ not being designed for them as scattered Individuals we meant; not only that his Death should not be available for them as scattered Individuals, that is, whilst they continued so scattered; but also that it should not as much as purchase that actual Grace for them, even in that Condition, which might put it in their power to be Incorporated into the Church; there had been some ground for this mistake▪ But these senses are far from being ours. Nor is it indeed our interest that we should own them. For they would fail us when we should have occasion to use them, that is, when we should undertake to show that they are not in the Church, and their danger in continuing so. Nor is it less disserviceable to our design to suppose that Persons out of the Communion of the Church are so deprived of the Promises by their being so as to want that degree of Grace which is absolutely necessary for making their return to it possible. If that were their Case, to what purpose should we endeavour either to convince them of the dangerousness of their present condition, or persuade them to come out of it? To talk to People of doing that, which we already know they cannot do, is not to persuade, but to upbraid them. And it were not Good will to them, but Inhumanity, as much as to discover to them that danger which we knew it were impossible for them to escape. It would but add to them the trouble of their present fears over and above the future mischief of it when it should befall them.  
§ XVII OUR plain meaning therefore is that we believe God's design to have been unfeignedly for the Salvation of all Mankind, as well those who are out of the Church as those who are within it, yet so as that this general design is not actually available for the Salvation of any particular (in an ordinary way so as that the Person may have the comfort of it) without the Church, nay not within it without Universal and Sincere Obedience. And the effect of this design to Persons without the Church, is, to promise Salvation, and a gracious acceptance of them on condition of their Incorporating themselves into it; and in the mean time to give that Grace, which, if not resisted by their own free Wills, may be sufficient to invite them into it. So also the present effect even on vicious Livers in the Communion of the Church is not, that they shall be actually Saved whilst they continue so; but that by virtue of their being in Covenant they can challenge acceptance upon Repentance, and plead Promises upon performance of conditions, and can have a free and open access to the ordinary channels of Grace to enable them to perform Conditions, none of which can agree to Persons without the Church who cannot as yet be supposed to have any actual Interest in the Covenant. And upon these Supposals it will be easy to conceive how, not only the actual performance of, but the very Title to, Promises may be confined to the Church, and yet God may sincerely design the universal Salvation of Mankind. For I think none can Question but a design on performable Conditions may be easily conceived to be sincere, though it should fail of the Event, through a voluntary Non-performance of Conditions on the Creatures part; and it hence appears that such a confinement of the Promises to the Church is very reconcilable with such a design as this is for the Universal Salvation of Mankind.  
§ XVIII IN the mean time, I think we may with more confidence pretend to all those Tents produced by them for confining Gods designs of Benefits to be conveyed by virtue of the New Covenant to the Elect, than they can. For our Notion of a Church is more obvious and ordinarily intelligible in that Age and even in the Scripture itself than that which they pretend to; And it is exceedingly agreeable with the design of God in erecting the Church a Body Politic, thus to oblige Men to enter into it, and to submit to its Rules of Discipline, however the Secular State should stand affected; And it is better suited to the capacities and practice of even the very Vulgar of that Age, for whose use principally the Scriptures seem to have been Written in that condescending stile in which we find them (for what use can there be in Practice of either of these Discourses if the Persons hearing them cannot make out their interest in them? And it is certainly more easy for the most Vulgar capacity whatsoever to prove their interest in a Visible Church, than in an Invisible one consisting only of Elect Persons.) And I do not know but they may indeed find that it is this Election to Grace actually, and to Glory in design, which the Scripture generally speaks of, and that this Election to Grace does not so much imply an infallible and perpetual influence of Grace on the Person so elected as his actual introduction to the Ordinary Means of Grace which others had been permitted to reject, which amounts exactly to our present design of admission into the Church, as I have now explained it (which though it be a Notion I think exceedingly defensible, yet I would not engage the stress of my present Cause in a Discourse so seemingly exotical to our design any further than needs I must) And it will not engage us to Answer that current of Scripture which seems directly opposite to the meaning imposed on these places by our Adversaries; And less is requisite to justify our Sense than theirs who therefore ought to have more and greater proof for what they add beyond our Assertions.  
§ XIX THIS therefore being supposed that the Promises are confined to the Covenant; I infer further 5. That he who would pretend any Title to the Promises, must in order thereunto prove his Interest in the Covenant. For if the Promises be God's part of the Evangelical Covenant, none can challenge them but he who has a Legal Title to them; And none can have a Legal Title to them who has not an Interest in the Covenant on which such a Legal Title at least must be founded, because the Covenant is indeed itself the Legal conveyance; And it is only such a Legal challenge, that can give us comfort, and confidence, that they belong to us. And as by our Interest in the Covenant we may argue Positively, that we have an Interest in the Promises not actual and absolute, but upon performance of Conditions (which is more than can be pleaded by Persons not yet admitted into the Covenant) so the Negative way of Arguing (for which we are at present concerned) is much more certain, That he who cannot prove his Interest in the Covenant, whatever his performance of Conditions may be, cannot challenge a Legal Title to the Promises. And as I have shown that even the things promised cannot be hoped for by one in such a Condition, upon any grounds so secure as a Prudent Person might safely venture on with any comfort or confidence; so indeed a Promise as a Promise is itself a Legal way of conveyance, and therefore, as it is the nature of all like conveyances, cannot, I do not say, easily, but not, at all, be challenged on any but a Legal Title. But I proceed.   

CHAP. IU. The same thing further Prosecuted.  
THE CONTENTS.  
2. The only Ordinary Means whereby we may assure ourselves of our interest in this Covenant is by our partaking in the External Solemnities whereby this Covenant is transacted and maintained. This cleared in, 2. Particulars: 1. That the partaking of these External Solemnities of initiation into, and maintenance of, this Evangelical Covenant is the only Ordinary Means of procuring and maintaining a Legal Interest in it. §. I.II. An Objection urged and Answered. The Assertion proved from God's actual Establishment. §. III. JU.U.VI.VII.VIII.IX.X.XI. The same proved from the reason of the thing. 1. God is concerned to take care that these External Solemnities be punctually observed as he is a Covenanter. §. XII. XIII.XIU.XU.XVI.XVII.XVIII.XIX.XX.XXI.XXII.XXIII.XXIU.XXU.XXVI.  
§ I 2. THEREFORE the only Ordinary Means whereby we may assure ourselves of our Interest in this Covenant with God is by our partaking in the external Solemnities whereby this Covenant is transacted and maintained; So that where we are either not solemnly initiated into this Covenant by the rites and observances that are necessary for such a purpose (that is, according to the Christian Religion by Baptism) or where we a●e excluded from the Solemnities of maintaining it (that is, according to the same Christian Religion by the Lord's Supper) after we have been once admitted to it, there we cannot ordinarily assure ourselves that we have any real Interest in it. This will appear from two things: that this partaking in these external Solemnities of this Covenant is indeed the Ordinary Means for procuring or maintaining our Interest in the Covenant itself 〈◊〉 and that though this participation had not indeed that influence on the thing itself, but that we might obtain or maintain our Interest in the Covenant without it, yet that it is at least the only Ordinary Means of assuring us of such an Interest, so that though it were not so certain that we might not have this Interest, yet certainly we could not be assured of it without this external participation.  
§ TWO 1. THAN, The partaking of these external Solemnities of initiation into, and maintenance of, this Evangelical Covenant is the only Ordinary Means of procuring and maintaining an Interest in it, I mean still such a Legal Interest as may immediately empower us to challenge the Promises on performance of the Duties of it. This I conceive so clear from the nature and Obligation of Covenants in general as that I do not know whether, our Brethren themselves can find in their hearts to Question it in instances wherein their Interest may not be Suspicious of tempting them to Partiality. For even in ordinary Contracts we find that Promises, however fully agreed on with all their restrictions and limitations that may prevent all future Cavils betwixt the contracting Parties, have, by the unanimous consent of all Prudent Legislators, not been thought fit to be allowed as pleadable in a Legal way till they were mutually Sealed and solemnly confirmed before Witnesses; and though some Courts of Conscience may oblige a Person to the performance of his private Promises, yet not immediately and independently on the solemnity of doing it. But the immediate method is, first to oblige themselves in a solemn way to what they have agreed to privately, and then to perform the Contents of that Obligation. And particularly (that I may give an instance parallel to our present Case wherein Inferiors are supposed to contract with their Superiors) the Prince's pardon, though ●●tested from his mouth by Persons never so Credible, is not pleadable in Law till it has passed the great Seal, and other Solemnities requisite by Law. And indeed this Solemnity of conveyance is generally insisted on with much greater rigour in grants from supreme Governors than in Covenants betwixt private equal Persons. And the reason is clear, because what is transacted betwixt private Persons is only of private concernment, and therefore can only be prejudicial in the particular Case if they should prove mistaken in it, and, of such particular prejudices to his own private Interest, every one of ordinary Prudence is, in reason, to be permitted to judge as far as concerns his own particular Practice. But the Acts of Superiors are likely to pass into Precedents, and are therefore likely to prove of greater concernment in the consequence than the value of the interest of the particular Person who is immediately concerned. And therefore as Governors are, by their Office, obliged to be more concerned for the Public than for any particular Case, so it cannot be fit for them to pass any favours to particular Persons by such Forms as may prove hurtful by way of Precedent, that is, which are likely to prove hurtful in more Cases than they are likely to prove convenient, or even innocent, in. And such certainly must be the omission even of these external Solemnities. For if they had not been thought necessary in regard of their influence on the Public, that is, if even this Solemnity of conveyance had not been generally necessary for securing the Equity of particular conveyances, so that if such grants were ordinarily passed without such Solemnities, they would in all likelihood prove unequal more frequently than Equal; it is not probable that the Solemnities would ever have been settled at first by such a Power as must be presumed unwilling to impose any further on the Liberty even of its particular Subjects than it finds it necessary for the Public to do so. And if they have been thus thought necessary for the Public it cannot be thought reasonable that they should be omitted in favour to particular Persons without a very particular and express Indulgence, which is not here as much as pretended. So that here the culpable omission of such Punctualities, is, without any relief of Chancery, thought justly meritorious of a forfeiture of the whole grant, especially when the grant is of Favours that are not otherwise due in the rigour of stric● Justice, as these have appeared to be.  
§ III I KNOW indeed that one great reason of insisting rigorously on this solemn way of proceeding is the prevention of Cavils and misrepresentations to which private Actions are very obnoxious, and which therefore make them uncapable of that Evidence which is necessary for the full information of Authority in order to the passing a just Sentence concerning them; in which the reason why private Promises cannot be admitted as Legal proof, is not that Legislators have not thought them justly Obligatory, but because Judges generally want those Evidences which might convince them that they were ever made. Besides the necessity of formal Bonds in order to a Legal proof seems especially to have been designed for the security of wellmeaning Simple Persons, from the Cheats of those who are more subtle, to which they would frequently be betrayed by Precipitation; just as the Roman Axes carried before their Consuls were bound up with the fasces, purposely that if the Consuls were hasty in their Decrees, or too severe, they might, whilst they were enloosening, gain time for the entertainment of milder counsels (as it is plain that they have been thus solicitous for the security of weaker Persons, by disannulling such Contracts, even in other Cases, as would otherwise have been thought sufficiently obligatory as to the nature of the things themselves, and such as might in the particular Cases have been transacted with sufficient Prudence and Deliberation, such as the Promises of Minors, and the private espousals of Persons to be married) but that in instances of the nature of these, concerning which I am at present Discoursing, neither of these Reasons will seem to hold. For neither does there seem to be that danger of Precipitation where the Case is clear, and clear to all, even the meanest, capacities that are concerned in it, as it is here, both that our Baptismal Promises are otherwise our Duty whether we promised them or not, and that the Promises on God's part are highly conducive to all our Interests, both Temporal and Eternal; Or, if the Benefit had been less considerable, yet there is no dangers of Precipitation where there is no danger of Prejudice to be suffered by it, though we had been guilty of it, as it is also most certain, even to the meanest capacity, that is capable of being rationally Religious, that there is no danger of prejudicing themselves by being so. Seeing it is certain their Duty can do them no hurt in the final Event, and that they cannot possibly fail of God's Promises whilst they perform their own, and that God will never take the advantage of captious Expositions of their words to ensnare and entangle them, but accept of their Practice in the same Simplicity in which it was designed by themselves. Nor is there here that inconvenience of pleading a Legal Obligation from private Promises, seeing that however private they may be in regard of Men yet they are notorious to God, who, though he be indeed a Party in these Contracts, yet is withal to be considered as the only possible competent Judge of their performance. But otherwise the bare promises of an honest Person is as justly obligatory to him, and as securely to be 〈◊〉 by the Person concerned in it, as if it had been passed in all the usual Solemnities of Law. And therefore it being certain, that God cannot fail in the performance of what he has once promised, it may be thought unreasonable to distrust his performance only because his Promises have not as yet passed a Legal way of conveyance.  
§ IV IN Answer hereunto I confess that where the performance of the Conditions is the thing only aimed at in a Covenant, and the external Solemnities of it are only required for the reasons now mentioned; there a Person performing the Conditions of it may have a just Title, though he may want a Legal Evidence to compel his Adversary to the performance on his part. And I confess withal that in dealing with God there being no danger of wanting Evidence; the Justice of our Title is a sufficient Legal plea, not only to oblige him, but also to secure us of the performance of any thing that has been so promised by him. But if the nature of these Covenants of God with Us do require, not only the performance of the Conditions to entitle us to the Promises when we are in Covenant with him, but also the external Solemnities of the Covenant itself to th● instating us in a Legal Title to the Covenant; the Case will be clearly otherwise. For upon this latter Supposition, it will plainly follow that the bare performance of the Conditions, as far as they are capable of being performed by us, will not give us so much as a Just Title to the Promises, even in Conscience, that I may not now take any advantage from what might have been said against a Legal Obligation.  
§ V NOW for proving that this must have been the actual Case here, that these external Solemnities are by God himself designed as the Ordinary Means of procuring an Interest in the Covenant itself; I desire it may be remembered 1. that the Divine Promises, Antecedently to the Covenant, bear such a disproportion to our performances as that they cannot be thought due to the performances themselves, but still to be pure effects of his own Grace and Liberality.  
§ VI HENCE I infer 2. that it is very Free and Just for God, besides the performances themselves, to oblige us to any other Conditions, suitable to that disproportion, that he shall Judge convenient. Indeed in Contracts of Commutative Justice, where things of equal worth are Covenanted for, though it be free to every one whether he will part with his own Right on any Considerations whatsoever, and therefore also whether he will part with it on equal ones; yet it is accounted very hard dealing for him who receives a full value for it to impose any further Conditions on the Person he deals with for gaining the benefit of his Contract. For such a full value does upon the Contract confer a full and actual Right to the thing he contracts for, at least us to the Conscience, and the reason of the thing; and it is not thought fair or reasonable that any should have Conditions imposed upon him against his own will for gaining that which, in Justice, and Conscience, is already his own. Especially considering that in all Contracts of this kind the pains that are to be taken are looked on as valuable Considerations, and according to the greatness or inconsiderableness of them the value of the things is heightened or lessened; so that what is only equal in itself must with the Addition of further Conditions prove disproportionable, and the exchanging of a thing of less value for things more valuable is that which is reputed foul and overreaching in this way of Commutative Justice. But in our Case the matter is clearly otherwise. For the Divine rewards incomparably exceeding the merit of our performances of the immediate Conditions, nay, and of all Conditions performable by Us: it plainly follows that they are not given us in lieu of our performance of the immediate Conditions as a thing that may entitle us to them, even upon Contract, by any Rules of Commutative Justice; and that it is therefore very Just for God to add any further Conditions performable by us; and suitable to that excess, in order to the attainment of such rewards. So that now we are only concerned to Inquire further what is his actual pleasure in this whole affair.  
§ VII AND in order thereunto I consider 3. that God is here to be considered as bearing the Person of a Governor, and accordingly, that the Rule, by which the Equity of his Proceed is to be estimated, is that of Distributive Justice, such, I mean, as of which the nature of these Divine Contracts with Men are capable. If therefore it may appear necessary for his Government; not only that the Promises should not be given to those who are in Covenant without performance of the immediate Conditions, but also the external Solemnities should be necessary in order to the procuring an Interest in the Covenant; we shall then have reason to believe that this has been actually the design of God in the Instances whereof we are at present discoursing. Now who is there more competent for informing us in a matter of this nature than God himself? Who can better tell us either what is really more fit for the Government of Mankind in order to their Salvation, or what himself judges to be so (who, as he sees otherwise than we do, may also judge otherwise, by his clear intuition of the things themselves, than we can by our weak Conjectures and extrinsic Probabilities concerning things so little obvious to our discovery) or what he is at length pleased actually to do? And can we think that he would ever have constituted Sacraments to be administered in external Symbols as the Solemnities of giving us an Interest in the Evangelical Covenant? Would he have given them an eternal and immutable obligation, not depending on the Prudence of ordinary Sacred Governors in accommodation to times and Circumstances? Would he have done this in a time when himself decried the external observances of the Mosaic Law, as unseasonable, though it had formerly been established by himself, when it was his great design and employment to withdraw Men from too great a dotage on external Observances, and to reduce them to the Morals and Spirituals of Religion? Is all this, I say, likely to have been done without a great sense of the necessity of it for the Government of Mankind?  
§ VIII AND can any one believe that the bare representation of the Sacramental Graces can be so very useful to this purpose? Is our washing in Baptism so lively a signification of our new Birth in allusion to the old Practice of washing Children at their first Nativity: or our immersion in water of being buried with Christ, and our rising out of it of our being raised again to newness of Life, and of our being saved by water as Noah and his Family were in the Ark? Is Bread more suitable for signifying the Humane Body of Christ than many other of our usual Table Flesh-Provisions; or breaking of the Bread, for the piercing of his Body, than that of the Greeks, for piercing it with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as they call their Instrument for that purpose) or the Unity of the homogeneal parts of Bread, for signifying the Unity of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is represented by the Apostle as a Heterogeneous Body, consisting of variety of Members and Offices, than that of the Pascal Lamb which was indeed Heterogeneous? Or is Wine more representative of the Blood of Christ, especially when of a different colour and administered differently from his Body than many red liquors which might have been crushed forth immediately from the Bodies that contained them? If they had contributed no further to the raising of Devotion in us than by the liveliness of their natural representation, why might not many things have been more useful for that purpose, whose natural representation is much more lively? Why have we then discontinued the Milk, 
Epist. Barnab. Tedall. de Coron. mil. S. Hier. adv. Lucifer. de Pudicit. ●.  and Honey, and white Garments, so anciently used in Baptism, for signifying the Infancy of our new Birth? O● the Shepherd with the lost Sheep on his shoulders pictured on the Chalices in Tertullia's time? And indeed what representations can be more lively of the sensible Mysteries here commemorated than excellent Pictures and Pageantry! Why should we be confined either from thinking on these things, or from assisting our thoughts by lively representations of them, without such a tedious solemn Preparation, and at such rarely-returning opportunities of doing it at Public Assemblies? Why must we have but one opportunity of raising our Devotion by a lively representation of our dying to Sin and rising to newness of Life through our Baptism, in our whole Lives; and that opportunity at a season so inconvenient, when we are Children, and are uncapable of having any Devotion raised in us? Why should not Laics and Women be permitted to administer the Sacraments, seeing it is not any circumstance of the Administrer that can alter their natural signification? And then what need were there for Ecclesiastical Assemblies; especially for such as can Pray and Meditate, and use the assistance of these lively representations, and read better Books at home than they can expect to hear Sermons in the Church?  
§ IX ESPECIALLY in times of Persecution, when it may be dangerous to themselves, and give offence to the Secular powers, what can oblige such Persons as these to meet in Assemblies, when they may, on these Principles, expect as much Grace, and as confidently, in their Closet-Devotions as in Churches? Is it that they may confess Christ before Men? But what need is there of confessing him before them who acknowledge him already? Or how can they be said to confess him before his Enemies, by what is done in their private Assemblies, and with all Arts of concealment? Why should they not rather do it where their Adversaries may see and hear them? Is it for their mutual Edification and encouragement to persevere? But why might not this have been done as well, by private conferences at their occasional meetings in their ordinary conversation, as in solemn, and numerous, and therefore Suspicious, Assemblies▪ Why should it only be the employment of Ministers and ordained Persons more than others▪ Nay indeed what will Orders signify when, upon these terms, they who are able, may not only serve their own Souls, but supply the necessities of others, without any Ordination; and they, who are not able, are never likely to do it to any purpose though they be Ordained? Is it that by Orders some may be engaged to the employment, and being engaged obliged to continue in it for the securing the public Service, who might otherwise be unwilling to neglect their private affairs for it when they might be prejudiced by such attendance? But what need would there be of this in times of Persecution when the Zeal of particular Persons may be supposed to be more than ordinarily inflamed, and withal to be less than ordinarily diverted by the care of their Secular affairs? What need even in times of Prosperity, when either many might offer themselves out of Zeal for the Service of Souls, or might be ambitious of the employment as more honourable and gainful than their own, or might conveniently spare as many hours from their own Callings, as professed Ministers, when allowance is made for their private Studies? Especially when they might by this Means grow Popular, and either bring in some Addition of gain, or at least save some expenses they must have been otherwise charged with for the maintenance of others? I am sure we have not in our late Experiences found these Cases unpracticable or unlikely. And if, as often as they happen, every one that pleases, or that can gain a Party to follow him, may without scruple invade that sacred employment; there would not be that necessity of insisting on Ordination as the constant ordinary way. For even Ordination cannot compel Men to undertake it, and they who were willing would, on these Principles, need no Ordination to qualify them for it. And if the Sacred Calling were little esteemed, it would be as hard to get in that number which might be necessary for the Public as to continue them; but if it were valued, and thought more desirable than Ordinary Callings, it is hard to conceive but that as great numbers would freely offer themselves as are observed to crowd into those Ordinary Callings, which are well reputed of, so that Ordination would be rarely either necessary or useful. Or is Ordination thought necessary for the exclusion of unfit ambitious Pretend●●s? But they who could not gain a Party, would ●●ed no exclusion; and they who could, could not, on these terms, ●e excluded, how unworthy soever. For indeed, on these Principles, all Government must be resolved into the pleasure of the promiscuous Multitude.  
§ X SEEING therefore that the signification of the external Symbols does as little answer their design as their nature, and that there must be acknowledged in them a more plentiful conveyance of Grace than can proceed from their bare objective representation, and the influence that may have upon us for raising Devotion in us; it will plainly follow that Christ has been pleased actually to convey his Graces by the Sacramental Symbols as Ordinary Means of his own institution by which he has obliged himself to convey them, and not only to raise them up by their Objective representation. That he has therefore thought it convenient to convey his Graces themselves by these external Symbols even unto such as have already all the Moral Dispositions they are capable of having Antecedently to the reception of them (and no more can rationally be expected from them) And that he has consequently obliged even Persons so disposed to a participation of the Symbols, as they are desirous to partake of the Graces conveyed by them; And that he has not only done this in particular Cases but to the generality of Mankind that shall ever receive his Doctrine; And not left it to their Prudence, but imposed it with an eternal and immutable obligation: These must certainly be great Arguments that he thought it necessary for the generality of Mankind, and consequently for the ends of Government. And it is by this general advantage for the generality of Mankind that the Ordinary Means are to be estimated, seeing it is thought fit in all humane Prudence and Legislations that rarer Cases should be ruled by those which are ordinary, and therefore should be left to extraordinary Provisions.  
§ XI NOW though these actual establishments be plain Arguments that Christ himself has thought it necessary for the ends of Government to confine the conveyance of his Graces ordinarily to our participation of the external Symbols; and therefore that it is indeed so, seeing it is impossible he should be mistaken concerning it (unless we will suppose him, as some of our dissenting Brethren seem inclinable to do, to act merely Arbitrarily, and without any other reason than his own pleasure, which is not agreeable to the clear Notions either of the Divine Wisdom o● Goodness: Not of his Wisdom, to act without any reason at all; not of his Goodness, to lay such unnecessary useless restrains on his Subject's Liberty) and though I may confidently lay the stress of my present design on this proof (which must needs be of great weight with them who grant the Supposition I here proceed on concerning the eternal obligation of the Sacraments, and withal have honourable thoughts of the Wisdom and Goodness of their Lord and Master in imposing them with such a degree of Obligation; And even to them who do not grant it will easily appear from what we shall hereafter discourse concerning the use of the Sacraments themselves particularly for this purpose) Though to us who are so weak-sighted, and so little acquainted with the Intrigues of his Government, the particular reasonableness and usefulness of this way of contrivance for the great ends of his Government might not appear: Yet because I am willing to endeavour to give all the satisfaction I am able even to candid Curiosity, I shall endeavour to show the necessary and useful influence of this establishment for the ends of Government. In order whereunto I consider  
§ XII 1. THAT the great reason of Gods entering into Covenant with Us was not so much to assure us of his Promises to be performed on his part (for that might have been sufficiently performed by external Revelation) as to assure the performance of Duty on our part. For this fickleness and inconstancy in Us which would make us generally fall short of the actual Benefit of Promises, how much soever we might have been assured of performance, as long as they were only Conditional (as it is requisite they should be for the ends of Government, which requires that Subjects be treated in a moral and rational way, only of Rewards and Punishments) was a thing indeed very suitable to the Goodness of God's Government, whom it concerns as a good Governor to take care that too great multitudes of his Subjects should not miscarry under his inspection. For this indeed belongs to the reputation of any Government▪ even among Men, that it attains its end with the generality of its Subjects to put them in a prosperous Conditition, though when all is done, Men being supposed as weak as they are; and the inducements to Obedience only Moral; it cannot be avoided but that some will fail of the Rewards and fall under the Punishments. This clearly Answers the Objections. For though it be indeed true that there is indeed no need of these Solemnities of the Covenant on God's part to assure us of of his fair and candid dealing with us, nor indeed on our part to let God know the Sincerity of our own dealing with him; yet there may be inas-much as our Sincerity for performing the Moral part of our Duty may be signified to others▪ And this signification of it to others, in a solemn way, may lay a restraint on us for its more punctual performance; And this restraint may secure our actual performance even to God himself, when we believe our whole comfort of the Covenant not capable of being solidly grounded otherwise than on the external Solemnities of our admission and continuance in it.  
§ XIII 2. THEREFORE God in entering into Covenant with us did accommodate himself (as we have seen) to our Customs and humours, that so he might make use of the same Motives to induce us to Obedience to himself, who is invisible, as are ●ound efficacious on us for securing performance in our ordinary deal with Mankind.  
§ XIV AND 3. these external Solemnities of the Covenant are very suitable to God's design in making it, and very effectually conducive to it; nay their imposition as the only ordinary Means of admission into it is so also; and therefore is very likely to have been designed by God as he is solicitous for our good. The Ends are both to confederate us into a Body Politic, and to lay an obligation on us more likely to prevail on us for the performance of our Duty than any private Promises, however plainly made and seriously intended. And the promotion of both of these is both very proper and likely to have been designed by God as a gracious Covenanter and Governor; and both of them (considering the influence that the Customs and humours of Mankind have ordinarily on their actual performance) are more likely to be attained by insisting on these Solemnities as the only Ordinary Means of admission to the Privileges of the Covenant than they would be otherwise.  
§ XV THEY are very proper to have been designed by him. 1. the confederating us into a Body Politic is so. This is proper to have been designed by him 1. as a Covenanter. For Covenants are properly to be transacted between two Parties only; and are properly multiplied, though possibly in the same form, when many are concerned. Now though it be indeed possible that Mankind considered only as a Multitude consisting of disunited Individuals might make a Party in this Covenant; and though this might indeed be likely to have been actually true if every Individual had been only obliged to Duties to be performed only by himself in his single capacity (such as the Moral Duties generally are) yet even so there would be requisite particular Solemnities for admitting particular Persons into it, just as in the instance now mentioned of a Covenant with many, the Bonds are severally repeated according as new Persons are admitted into it. There may indeed be indefinite, and yet obliging, Promises to any who should perform the annexed Conditions, and such as may be pleadable upon such performance. But the name of a Covenant, especially as understood as in the rigour of the Legal Notion of it in that Age (as I have shown it must be understood) is not so properly intelligible without the external Solemnities by which it is transacted. 
Digest. L. XLV: Tit. I. de verbor· oblige.  For such the presence of both Parties was thought necessary, so that if any Person absent were desirous to Covenant, he must do it by his Servant, according to which God also being absent from our Senses, which is the thing for which we are concerned in order to dealing with him, must be understood to Covenant with us by the mediation of his visible Ministers. And besides the Case itself is plainly against the Apostle who accounts the Children of believing Parents holy (at least in a Federal sense) by the Faith of their Parents, 
1 Cor. seven. 14.  which could not be if the Covenants of Parents did not at least so far concern their Children as to give them a remote Title of admission to it by the external Solemnities of it. For if the performance of the Moral Conditions of Faith and Repentance were the only ordinary Means of intitling Persons to the Benefit of the Covenant, and they were so also as they might make the Person such immediately as God expects he should immediately be in order to an immediate Title to it; it would follow that the Children can no more have any actual Benefit of the Covenant on their Parents account than they can be made actually Faithful and Penitent by their Parent's Faith and Repentance; but then especially Children who could not expect to be accounted holy on their Parents account could not themselves be reputed holy, in regard of this holiness which depends on the performance of Moral Conditions. But I may elsewhere have a further occasion of clearing this Argument from the Practice and sense of those Ages.  
§ XVI BUT further, though the Duties alone were principally designed by God to entitle us to the Benefit of this Covenant, yet even this would not excuse us from the Solemnities of it. For I consider that God does not only oblige us to such Religious Duties as concern us singly considered, but also to public and solemn ones, 
Heb. x. 25.  of not forsaking the Assembling of ourselves together whatever worldly inconveniences may follow it, and of all the Duties there to be performed, such as are offering up solemn Prayers to him, hearing his word, and assisting at the celebration of his Sacraments. Now for these no particular Persons can undertake as considered singly, because as considered singly they have not that influence over each other as to be able to undertake for any but themselves. Nor are the multitude even of particulars, even as singly obliged, sufficient to engage for it, seeing there is requisite some further obligation when the interests of all the particulars shall be prejudiced by it (as they are like to be in times of Persecution) and when it may therefore be presumed that many will of themselves be backward in it. Seeing therefore that these are Duties required from us by God, it will concern him as a Covenanter to see that we be obliged to the performance of these as well as others. And because the performance of these public Duties cannot be effectually secured without a power of Commanding in some and a Duty of Obedience in others, therefore it is requisite that some be invested with that power, and all others be obliged to this Subjection, without which it is impossible for us to engage for these parts of our Duty. And yet it cannot be supposed reasonable to expect that God, even as a Covenanter, should think himself obliged to perform his Promises which are only Conditional for the security of our Duty, till we have given him the like security of a Covenant for the performance of all that he requires on our part. Thus the very nature of God's Covenant with us requires on our part a Body Politic for securing the performance of it; And that the Constitution of a Body Politic will be best secured by confining the claim of private Persons to its Privileges to its external Solemnities I shall have occasion to prove when I consider God's obligation hereunto as a Governor.  
§ XVII BUT further also, even in regard of our private Duties, God is also as a Covenanter concerned that we give the like security for the performance of them (as far at least as we are capable of such performance) as he does for the performance of his Promises. And therefore any Promise, even of performing our Duty, that is not so likely to hold us, may very justly be excepted against by him as a Covenanter as a proportionable acquittance of him from giving us, at least that higher degree of, security of performance on his part, if not indeed from giving us any interest in the Covenant at all. Even in humane Covenants we are apt to look on a backwardness in giving security as an Argument of unwillingness to enter into obligations. And that unwillingness, though joined with no suspicion of designing treacherously (which I therefore wave here because God with whom we deal in this affair knows whether we do so) yet by the Rules, even of humane Equity, may provoke God to deny us the benefit of the Covenant itself, even though we were willing, if yet we were not willing, in such a degree, as to overcome all obstacles short of unlawfulness: (both as it is very reasonable to deny favours to Persons not duly valuing them, as such Persons cannot be supposed to do these Divine favours who are unwilling to purchase them by any lawful condescensions, how hard soever; And as such a present low degree of willingness may be presumed unlikely to hold out in the performance in the time of trial, and therefore may rationally be supposed not sufficient to give that security of performance on our part of the Covenant which any wise and Prudent Person would think fit to be trusted if he himself were to enter into a Covenant.) Especially considering that this backwardness, in our Case, of not being willing to yield to any unsinful condescensions for God's sake must plainly arise from such a perversity of disposition as would hinder us from the actual advantage of the Covenant, though we had been Legally instated in it, and therefore may with greater reason and Justice hinder us from our admission to it, seeing a much less misdemeanour may suffice to hinder the Promise of a favour at first, than can afterwards hinder the performance.  
§ XVIII NOW though this may only seem to show how justly God may refuse the benefit of the Covenant to such as neglect the external Solemnities whereby it is maintained upon account of that neglect, on supposition that he has been pleased to require their observance; yet there are two things further very considerable that will bring these proofs more home to my present design, to show what reason there is to fear that he will actually do, what, it has appeared on these accounts he very justly may do. One is, that, from this Doctrine, a reason is given even antecedently to the Divine Command, why he should insist on the observance of these external Solemnities as a Covenanter, and as he designs not so much his own satisfaction as our good, viz. that by this means he might exercise us to that vigour of Resolution which is necessary for rendering us capable of the favours designed for us, which seems to be the same common reason of all the positive Injunctions he has been pleased ever to lay upon us. Certainly not so much out of ostentation of his own dominion over us, as to produce these beneficial dispositions in us which are not in Prudence immediately to be expected from our conviction of their necessity by the naked reasons of the things without habituating our practic faculties to them by a constant course of exercise. For this we find in experience to be the only prudent means of acquiring new or destroying old inclinations. And yet unless the observance even of these external Solemnities be so far exacted from us as that our failing in them, on any other reason short of Sin, may proportionably defeat our expectations of the favours designed by them they can have no influence on us for this purpose, even by way of exercise; for these are the only seasons of trial, and without trial they can never exercise us.  
§ XIX ANOTHER. Observation is that, whether this were indeed the true state of this affair or not, that the Observation of these external Solemnities is necessary to be thus punctually exacted, yet at least as to our means of knowing whether it be so we have no reason to judge otherwise, and consequently have all the obligation that can be to practise accordingly. For it is certain that we cannot as much as pretend to any reason to prove them unnecessary on the account now mentioned of Exercise, though possibly we may as to the nature of the particular Acts. And it is also further certain that they may be really necessary though we could not prove them so. But in such a Case as this is where neither side is capable of evident proof the only way of securing a prudent Practice, is plainly, not to fluctuate in matters whose practice may, for further designs with which we are not acquainted, prove so very considerable, whatever we may think of their immediate design as far as we are capable of judging concerning it. Now upon this supposal that one side is necessary to be practised, it cannot be difficult to judge whether side. For upon our observation of the external Solemnities of the Covenant we can plead a Legal Title to the Covenant and Promises on performance of its moral conditions. But whatever claim may be grounded on the performance of these Conditions otherwise, yet certainly it is not Legal and express, nor such as we are capable of judging of with any certainty, (as has been already shown) and therefore cannot, by any Rules of Prudence, amount to such a proof as might any way stand in competition with that which is producible for the necessity of observing these external Solemnities, nay indeed can amount to no Proof at all, but only to Conjectures, which no wise man can think fit to be followed where he may have direct Arguments for his direction, though they were only probable. But then considering this necessity in Prudence for these external Practices, not as permitted to the general Laws of Providence, which may undoubtedly permit many mistakes that may, in the event, redound to the prejudice of such a multitude of Individuals, as, in regard of the narrowness of our knowledge, may seem very considerable to us; but as particularly designed and contrived by God by this way of management of things which can afford us no evidence for disobliging us from these Practices: And considering withal that we can more certainly assure ourselves of the Divine pleasure in particulars of this nature by his general provisions than by particular Cases, for which we cannot suppose God obliged to provide otherwise than as they are reducible to generals: We have reason to presume that these Rules of Prudence to which he has generally left us for our direction were designed by him as means of manifesting his pleasure to us, independently on any actual express Revelation, as we usually expound the minds of those with whom we deal by rational consequences as well as by express words. Which yet is more reasonably to be presumed in our Case because we cannot suppose any consequence, how remote soever, if rational, unknown to God, and therefore undesigned by him, as we may very well suppose some such to have been unknown to the most rational sagacious Creature. And when we consider further how unlikely it is that God would have obliged us, especially in the Gospel, to any thing which he did not judge necessary for us (and his judging any thing necessary is with us a sufficient Argument to assure us that it is so) we shall have reason to believe that the thing is indeed necessary to which he is pleased in this rational way to oblige us, if not for its immediate influence, yet at least remotely for the ends of his Government, of which we can better assure ourselves from his pleasure who alone is privy to the true nature of our Souls, and the intrigues of his own Government, than from any evidence derivable from the nature of the things themselves. And it is Analogous to the Principles of all Government that the penalties may very justly be inflicted on particular Persons for neglects prejudicial to the public interest as well as for such as are immediately hurtful to themselves. Nay it is further Analogous to the same design that the Governors of Societies take care that such Penalties be generally inflicted, which must discourage particular Persons in hoping for indulgence.  
§ XX BUT, not to insist any further at present on the particulars of this Argument which will be more conveniently reducible to other Heads, that which I conceive more especially considerable in order to my present design, is that God is pleased in this Covenant to admit a certain number of Mankind to the favour of being his People, and of belonging to his peculiar Property. Now let it be remembered 1. how improperly a disunited multitude of Individuals could have been styled then by the name of a People. For whether we compare them with the People who had been rejected and in whose stead they were chosen, it is plain that the Jews even in their dispersions were yet confederated as they were a Church in order to their Religious Solemnities; Or whether we consider the notion of a People as it was likely to have been understood ordinarily in that Age, there will not, I believe, appear the least ground to suspect that it was ever likely to have been understood for a disunited Multitude. I think there cannot be an instance given of a People under the care of one common God (which is plainly the Notion here alluded to) but who were visibly confederated by some external Religious Solemnities. I am sure they generally were so.  
§ XXI AND 2. that this People thus confederated are to profess themselves to be God's People and to be owned by him for such in a visible way. This plainly appears from the visibility and Solemnity of the Duties required from them in their Synaxes. And from hence it will plainly follow that their confederation, by which they are made a visible People, must be also visible.  
§ XXII AND it is further to be remembered 3. that the Multitudes of Believers are not a visible People Antecedently to their admission into this Society. For Persons of all Nations and Interests are invited into this Society who cannot be supposed Antecedently to have any relation to each other; and therefore all the relation they have afterwards must be entirely derived from their being Members of it, and consequently must be derived from the Fundamental Laws and Constitutions of the Society into which they are admitted. So that hence it will follow that that Union in which they are confederated on account of their being Members of this Society cannot be conceived to depend on their pleasure any further than as these Fundamental Laws and Constitutions do so too.  
§ XXIII AND how little these Fundamental Laws and Constitutions depend on their consent, will appear if it be considered 4. that Antecedently to their entrance into this Society, it is not in the power of all the Individuals, whereof it must afterwards consist, either singly or collectively to procure the End for which it is designed, that is, the performance of the Promises and Privileges designed in it, which are wholly Supernatural, not consequently to secure the Rewards of Obedience which are no other than the performance of these Promises and Privileges to such as perform their conditions, nor to inflict the Punishments of Disobedience on such as neglect them. And how impossible it is solidly to confederate a Society without a power of securing its Essential Ends, or of conferring its Rewards and inflicting its Punishments, our candid Brethren themselves will easily conceive.  
§ XXIV HENCE it will follow 5. that every one who would obtain the Benefits of this Society must not expect them otherwise than by submitting to the Conditions prescribed by him by whom it was originally constituted, as well for the terms of Initiation into it, and maintenance of it, as for those which he is afterwards obliged to when he is actually in it. Not but that still it is in his pleasure whether he will be a Member of this Society, but that he can have no reason to expect the Privileges of it if he should refuse it.  
§ XXV AND 6. that the observation of these external Solemnities has been always more rigorously insisted on by those who are to be presumed the most competent Judges of intrigues of Government, in affairs of this nature, where the public is concerned, or where the Covenant is not only for particular things or Actions expressly mentioned, but where the right of the Person is also disposed which must also consequently infer a right to all his performances whatsoever. Where the public is concerned in the Precedent there it is thought rational and necessary that private Persons should want those favours to which their Personal integrity might otherwise recommend them if their Case cannot be distinguished from others by such Notes as may, in the event, prove more frequently advantageous to the Public than prejudicial. And in all Societies it is to be presumed that the general Solemnities of admission were such as were both thought, by the Persons who had instituted them, most advantageous to the Public, and most agreeable to that Evidence of which particular Cases are generally capable. And there is hardly any thing imaginable wherein the Public can be more concerned, and wherein it may be more influenced by a Precedent than in the Solemnity of admitting private●Members into it, which must consequently entitle them to all its Privileges. And in the disposal of Persons, there is not only the moment of the thing which does require Solemnity, as we plainly find that by how much the things are more momentous by so much their conveyances are required to be more solemn, but the concern of the Public. For private Covenants for things or particular Actions may indeed be transacted without Ceremony, because the Public is not so concerned in them as it must unavoidably be in the disposal of Persons, for which it must therefore be concerned to see its general Rules more punctually observed.  
§ XXVI AND the reason why it must be so will easily appear from the Premisals now supposed, if it be considered Lastly, that the design of admitting us into the number of God's People is not so much to assure God of our undertaking the performance of the Duties required of us, (as the Objection supposes) as to put ourselves on those Services to our Brethren, and to submit to those restraints of our Liberty to which he has been pleased to oblige us consequently to our being Members of such a Society. Now how is it possible for us to be serviceable to a visible People without becoming visibly of their number? For as for others they are not so much concerned for them, and therefore are not so naturally capable of being edified by their behaviour. And how is it possible for others to know who are of their Society without a visible admission to the Solemnities of initiation into it, and a communication in their common Offices? Indeed if the whole work of a Christian were only visibly to profess the belief of the Christian Doctrines, and visibly to Repent; I confess this were performable by particular Persons in their private capacity. But considering that it is also to concur to the constitution of a visible People; it cannot be possible for any to do so, at least to appear to do so (as appearance is essentially necessary for the constitution of a visible People as visible) without communicating in all those Public Solemnities which concern them as a People, and he who designedly refuses to do so, how hearty soever he may Believe and Repent, yet cannot be supposed willing to concur to the constitution of a visible People. He cannot do that service to his Brethren which he might by joining in their number, nor promote the public Service which must be most advantageously promoted by a visible Unanimity and Uniformity, nor give that visible signification of his devoting his Person to the Divine Service which is requisite to his visible Membership, when he appears to make such Exceptions and Reservations in some parts of his Duty, and is unwilling to submit to such restraints of his Liberty as are necessary to be submitted to in Order to these momentous Services to which he is Obliged, as well in reason, as by positive Prescriptions. Thus far I have considered the reasonableness of Gods insisting on these External Solemnities as he is a Covenanter.   

CHAP. V The same thing further Prosecuted.  
THE CONTENTS.  
2. God is also concerned to see the same External Solemnities observed as he is a Governor. 1. He is as a Governor concerned to confederate us into a Body Politic. 1. That he may thus secure secure the performance of his own Will. The great usefulness of the Distinction betwixt God as a Governor and as a Covenanter. §. I. JI.III. The forementioned Point proved. §. iv V.VI.VII.VIII.IX.X. 2. That it may thus appear, even to Men, that his Will is performed by us because it is his Will. How necessary this is for Government. How necessary a Visible Society is for making this appear to others. §. XI. XII.XIII.XIU.XV. 2. He is as a Governor, concerned to oblige Us to the performance of our Duty by such Means as may prove most likely to prevail with Us for its actual performance. §. XVI. XVII.XVIII.  
§ I I NOW proceed to show 2. that God is also concerned to see them observed as he is a Governor. And this again in regard of both the now mentioned particulars: That he is as a Governor concerned both to confederate us into a Body Politic, and to secure the most effectual Means of prevailing with us to perform our Duty. 1. As a Governor he is concerned to confederate us into a Body Politic. For as a Governor he is concerned to take care both that his will be performed, and that it may appear that what is commanded by him is therefore performed by us because it is his Will, not because it is our own humour. And for both of these a Body Politic is very necessary.  
§ TWO 1. FOR having his own Will performed, he is equally concerned as he is a Governor, and as a Covenanter. I am therefore the more cautious in distinguishing these two Relations because his concern to see his own will performed as a Governor is indeed very different from that wherein he is considered as a Covenanter, and that even in regard of that performance of his will which is procured by Ecclesiastical Governors themselves. For as a Covenanter he is only concerned to furnish Ecclesiastical Governors with so much power as may qualify them for entering into Covenant with him for its performance by their own Subjects as Persons Authorized to transact with him in the name of their respective Societies, and then to oblige them▪ by virtue of their Covenant, to employ their Authority for that design for which it was intended by him when he gave it them. So that in this regard they are to be considered as concerned on the part of Mankind, on which account I have already shown the necessity of investing them with such an Authority. But considering God as a Governor, they will be related to him under that Notion as Subordinate Governors to their principal Head, and Original of Authority. And so they will be concerned, not on Man's part of the Covenant but on Gods, so that He will be more immediately concerned in the Duty and respect that is paid to them; and consequently the principal Duty Covenanted for, on our part, being a submission to the Divine Authority, and a performance of all his Commands, Temporary and Prudential, as well as of such as are Eternally Obligatory; We cannot perform our Covenant with God without being Dutiful to them because they are invested with his Authority. As he is accounted a Rebel against his Prince, who resists any of his inferior Officers who are Legally empowered and commissioned by him, not only in things for which they have his particular express Warrant, but also in such as are to be presumed to have been left to their Prudence to Determine by Virtue of their General Commission.  
§ III AND it is no inconsiderable use of this Distinction to observe, that Ecclesiastical Governors, being invested with a Power of Government in both these respects, cannot be accountable to their Subjects, as our Independent Brethren would have them. Indeed this might have been the Case, if they had been considered only as our Representatives, and God had withal permitted us to our natural Liberty, both to appoint them, and to allow them what degree of trust we had pleased. For than we might as well have allowed them a limited power as some Democratical Governments in the like manner derived from the consents of their particular Members have confessedly done. And then, by the Fundamental Rules of Democracy, all Persons being Subject to the Multitude in all such instances wherein they had not been particularly empowered, and all power being derived from the Multitude; it will follow that, if they should presume to transgress the limits allowed them, they were still Usurpers, and therefore still Subject, and accountable for such misdemeanours to those who had empowered them. But if we consider the Multitude as prevented, even in this their natural Right of choosing and empowering their Representatives (as it is most certain that God may prevent them by virtue of his Authority over them Antecedent to any compacts whatsoever; and it is credible that he would, if he should think a Government independent on the Subjects most likely to promote the designs of such a Government as this is.) And much more, if we consider them as concerned on God's part of the Covenant; So it will plainly appear that they must derive their Authority wholly from God, and therefore can have no other bounds than he is pleased to prescribe them, and even in Case of their transgressing these they can be accountable for such Transgressions only to God, not to the Multitude, from whom as no Authority was in this Case derived, so none could be reserved from them, which might make the Multitude their competent Superiors. So that the nature of this manner of conveyance of Government must make the Governors to whom it is conveyed Absolute and unaccountable, at least to any humane Judgement. At least if the Multitude would challenge any Jurisdiction this way, they ought to derive their claim from the same Original, by as clear and express donation from God himself as their Governors do, which is not, that I know of as much as pretended to. And it is a very strong Presumption against them that Ecclesiastical Government was never derived from them, that indeed they never were in a condition of doing it. The Primitive Converts, were never united into a Body Antecedently to their admission into Christianity, but were admitted by single persons, and successively; And such could not, even by the Rules of Democracy, be supposed to have a power of disposing of the Original inherent Rights of the Multitude. Besides it is plain that the first propagators of Christianity, Christ himself and the Apostles, had a Right of forming a Society independent on the consent of its particular Nembers, and their admission of all the first Believers into their Society by Baptism does plainly show that they acted, and owned themselves to act, by a power that could not have been derived from them. But for proving this I may elsewhere have a more convenient occasion.  
§ IV TO return therefore to my Subject from which I have hitherto digressed. That God as a Governor is concerned to erect the Church into a Body politic, and to appoint Subordinate Governors under himself, in Order to the seeing his Will performed; This will be easy to understand if it be considered. 1. That no Society whatsoever is governable only by general and immutable Laws without particular prudential accommodations to present circumstances, both of which must be derived from the same Authority; and therefore that there must be also in the Church, if it be governed by God, as well particular Divine Commands for things which are for the good of it in particular Circumstances as for those which are to immutably and eternally.  
§ V THAT 2. God does not appear to declare his Will in these particular Circumstances by particular Extraordinary Revelations. And therefore, as in other Cases wherein a Prince cannot be consulted with in things belonging to his Authority, that is to be presumed to be the Prince's pleasure which is proposed as such by his Ordinary Officers, and Disobedience to such Injunctions of Ordinary Officers is punished as if it had been committed against the Prince himself; so God must also be supposed to have provided for such Cases by that general Power which he must therefore give to Ecclesiastical Officers, whom we are therefore accordingly to revere as we would approve ourselves obedient to God himself.  
§ VI THAT 3. Besides that general Laws cannot reach all particular Circumstances, because indeed what is Good in Circumstances is Evil if considered in general, and therefore no way fit to be generally imposed; I say besides this, even in particulars that are reducible to them, they are not sufficient for governing any Society without Officers entrusted with a Power of Authentically expounding them, so that Subjects may be obliged to stand to their Decisions, and of compelling Subjects to submission in their practice. For if Subjects be willing to perform their Duty, and able to discern it in all particular Cases, there would be no need of Authority. But if Authority be supposed necessary, and that some Subjects will, in all likelihood, prove disingenuous as well as mistaken; the Society can never be maintained without a coercive power over such, vested in its Governors, nor without a power of deciding of such Laws Authentically in order to Practice. For this power of Authentical Exposition is as necessary for preserving the Society in a Succession as the Legislative power itself was for its first establishment; and therefore perfectly necessary for those Governors which are to keep up the Succession. Especially considering that, as I said, no Authentic Interpretations are now to be expected from God himself. And therefore it is as unreasonable to appeal from the Governors of the Church to the Scriptures in things concerning their Government (as matters of Practice certainly must, if any) and to expect that either the Government or the Society could be preserved if such an Appeal were admitted, as to expect that our Secular peace and Unity could be preserved if we were allowed to appeal to the Letter of the Law against all the power of Magistrates, either for their Execution, or Interpretation.  
§ VII AND 4. That as it is thus inconsistent with Government, or the Safety of any Society, to admit of an Appeal from all its Magistracy to its Laws; so it is also to admit the like Appeals from all the Visible Present Governors to one that is Invisible, and from whom no present decision is to be expected. For this is plainly to hinder all exercise of Church-Authority in this Life, and consequently to frustrate its whole design, seeing it is here only that it can be seasonable. For if the Appeal be good, the exercise of Government ought to be suspended till the Cause be decided by the Power to which the Appeal is made, which, if it cannot be expected in this Life, will consequently hinder, in this Life, all exercise of Government by the Persons invested with it, and so leave such a Society destitute of the means necessary for its own preservation in such Cases, that is indeed, in all which the frowardness and mistakes of the Appellants, as well as the Justice of their Cause, might make such. Whence it plainly follows that the supreme Visible Governors of the Church must be absolute, and unappealable, even in regard of Appeals to be made to God himself. Nor would our dissenting Brethren think this expression arrogant if they would be pleased to consider it in a parallel Case, wherein themselves (as many of them at least as are sensible of the moment of the things discoursed of, and no others are competent Judges of them) will, I believe think it Just and Reasonable, that is, in Secular Government. For will any of them think it fit that such Appeals should be admitted, I do not say in the State, but, even in their own Families? Can they ever expect to maintain their Authority, or the Peace even of these little Societies, upon these Terms, if their Authority must be controlled, and its execution suspended, as often as their too partially-concerned Subjects should make such Appeals, nay where themselves, the Governors, could not satisfy as much as their own Consciences as to the matter wherein the Appeal were made, as our Church professes herself unable to satisfy hers in the matter of our brethren's Appeal? At least can any fallible Authority subject to humane mistakes and Prejudices of the Persons vested with it, ever reach the end for which it is originally designed (the decision of Controversies among their Subjects) on these Terms?  
§ VIII AND yet the very same reasons which they urge for such an Appeal in Ecclesiasticals will proceed as strongly in Seculars. For are the Governors of the Church tyrannical? I believe themselves will not deny but that many of the Seculars are so too. Are they fallible? Certainly the Secular Governors must be much more so, whose Errors are of less importance, and consequently less obliging Providence to prevent them, and who cannot pretend to such assistances of the Spirit as are given to the Ecclesiasticals at their Ordination, for preventing mistakes and extravagances. Are they subordinate to God and Jesus Christ? And are not the Secular Governors so too? Have we the Scriptures given us a Rule for us to discover their failings, and as a Law, by which themselves must be judged, at least, by their Supreme Master? And cannot the same Scriptures, besides the Laws of Nature and Nations and the Fundamental Constitutions of their respective Societies, and the Rules of Prudence, serve us for the same purpose to discover the lapses of Secular Princes? And are not they as obnoxious to God's Tribunal, as the ecclesiastics, for the violation of these Laws, at the day of Judgement?  
§ IX WILL they therefore say that their nearer relation to God does make them more severely accountable to him? I confess it does so. But must it therefore withal make them more accountable to their own Subjects? Must they therefore be more subject to curbs and interruptions in the present exercise of their Government? I am sure this is contrary to the course of proceed in humane affairs. We do not find there, that Appeals are more easily admitted, but more difficultly, by how much nearer the Persons, from whom the Appeal is made, are related to the Supreme Prince. Nor are the miscarriages of that Government, which is limited or kerbed, either thought so agreeable, or accountable, as of that which has been absolute and arbitrary. And I am sure this is contrary to the sense of all those wise and Politic Nations, who have therefore either united their Sacred power with that of the Secular in one Person, though their Offices and Exercises were clearly distinct; or used ceremonies of Consecration in their admission to the Secular power; or reputed them as mixed Persons, and given them the stile of Sacrosancti, not only to secure their Persons from violence, but to conciliate a greater veneration for their Majesty, not to add any restrictions to their Authority as to Men, but rather to possess them with a greater reverence of their Prudence, when by this Means they should see them entitled to such Extraordinary Divine assistances, and a more profound submission to their Authority when resistance to them should look so like fight against God himself; and the very honour which God was pleased to confer on them in admitting them to so near a relation to himself might justly awe Men into an opinion that God would not admit of any resistance in any Case, of Appeal itself, but that where Active Obedience could not be paid them, yet Passive should, and that even Appeals themselves would not be admitted, no not even in the Court of Conscience, but in matters of great importance, and very evident, by the same proportion of Government as we see in all other Cases that Appeals are much more difficult by how much the Judicatory from whence the Appeal is made approaches nearer to the Supreme of all. And if the Secular Prince have been always thought a gainer by this accession either of the like Power, or the like Ceremonies of Investiture into his own Power with those whereby the ecclesiastics are ordinarily settled in theirs, then certainly the Original Ecclesiastical Power must be conceived more obligatory, and less obnoxious to Appeal than the Secular which has been thus fortified by it.  
§ X AND 5. By the general Principles of Government, it is not only true that Officers of higher Dignity are to be obeyed as Representatives of the Prince, (such as are Viceroys and Deputies) but it is also true of the meanest Officers that are (such as Constables, etc.) That resistance of them in any Case is counted a resistance of the Prince, and even where they transgress the Laws yet they are not to be opposed. But according to the method of Regular Appeals, not by an immediate recourse to the Prince himself, but their more immediate Superiors; And what is decreed in such Cases by those inferior Subordinate Officers to whom the Appeal is made is the same way to be obeyed as if it had been decreed by the Prince himself, and under the same hazard of incurring the guilt of Rebellion against him, especially where there can be no access to the Person of the Prince himself, as there is none in our present Case. So that by this method there can be no lawful remedy against the Exorbitances even of inferior Governors, but by recourse to their Superiors; and the Sentence given by Superiors upon such Appeal cannot be resisted without resisting Christ himself. Thus Christ as a Governor is concerned to take care for the erection of a Body Politic consisting of Visible Governors as well as governed, and Subordinate as well as Supreme Governors, and to provide means of obliging all to obey them all respectively, under pain of being accounted refractory against himself, as a means of securing the performance of his own will by us, which must be performed by us, if we be real Subjects.  
§ XI BUT 2. He is also further concerned to see, not only that his Will be performed by us, but also that it be performed by us because it is his Will, and not because it is our own humour; and that it may appear to be so performed by us, the erection of a Body Politic is also necessary. He is concerned as a Governor to take care that it may appear, even to Men, that his Will is performed by us because it is his Will, and not only because it is our humour to do the things willed by him. For it is absolutely necessary for Government, that it may attain the ends of Government, to keep up its own reputation in the minds of Subjects. For a despised Government can neither awe by its threats, nor allure by its rewards, nor consequently have any hold on the minds of Subjects to oblige them to perform their Duties, or to preserve the public Peace, which are the most essential ends of Government. Of this all wise Men have been so very sensible as that it has always been thought fit to punish the least affronts against Majesty, how inconsiderable soever otherwise in themselves, with the severest Penalties. Though all civilised Nations and Places would afford innumerable instances hereof, yet at present I name only one because I believe it will be of most Authority with our dissenting Brethren, 
2 Sam. x. 4.5. 1 Chron. nineteen. 4.5.  and that is of David. The affront of Hanun the Ammonite was not that of a Subject, but of a neighbouring absolute Prince; not against his Person, but only his Ambassadors; nor even against them was it such as might do them any permanent inconvenience. It was only a matter of present shame, the shaving of one half of their beards, and cutting off their garments to the middle. Yet we see this occasioned a very severely managed War, wherein, besides the mischief done in hot blood, the whole People, that were taken as Prisoners of War, were treated with excessive rigour. They were put under saws and harrows of Iron, 
2 Sam. xii. 31. 1 Chron. xx. 3.  and axes of Iron, and made to pass under the brick Kilne. And to treat a Prince thus to whose Father David himself had confessed himself so much obliged (I suppose in his exile under Saul, for Nahash the Father of Hanun seems to have been the same who was vanquished by Saul. 1 Sam. XI. 
Ant. l. vi. c. 5.  Whereas yet Josephus without any ground from the Sacred Text will have him killed in the fight, though afterwards in the Story itself he makes him newly deceased when this Embassy was sent, 
Id. Ant. l. seven. c. 5.  unless possibly the distance between these two actions may incline us to suspect that there were two different Kings of the Ammonites of the same name) To do thus with the Ammonites to whom the Nation of the Jews was so nearly related, to the generality of those who had yielded to his mercy, and in all their Cities, may (to Persons not considering how fatal in their consequences things may be which are inconsiderable in themselves, and how necessary it is for Government that such consequences be in time prevented) seem an excessively harsh expiation of so small a guilt. Yet by David (whom his History shows not to have been cruelly disposed, nor revengeful) this was thought necessary for preservation of his Government.  
§ XII NOW as Government can signify nothing, without this reputation, for the good of Subjects; so neither can this reputation be preserved among them unless it may appear that they who obey the Authority, do it, not only to please themselves, but him who has commanded the things to be performed by them, and thereby signify their acknowledgement of his Authority and their own Subjection to him. For what good can this reputation do, unless it may appear to them who are to be edified by it? And how can it appear to them that Subjects doing the commands of Authority have really that honour and respect for the Authority that commanded them, unless this may also appear to them by their Practice conformable to such a respect, which is indeed the only Prudent Argument for discovering what another does seriously believe? And how can this appear by their Practice unless they see them do something at the command of the Authority, which they may have reason to believe they would not have done, if the Authority had not commanded it? But in all things wherein themselves are gratified, it may very justly be suspected whether they would not have done them, though no Authority had required them; and in all things wherein this gratification of themselves cannot be disproved, it may be very probably be presumed.  
§ XIII NOR indeed is this appearance that Men do what is commanded by Authority only for the sake of the Authority only necessary (as some may be inclinable to conceive) for ostentation of the Power with which the Persons Authorized are invested, nor only for edifying others with the goodness of the example, but also for securing the performance of the Duties themselves. Indeed if our Judgements were always so uncorrupt as that we might always be sensible of our own interests, or all our Duties were accommodated, not only to our greater and more solid Interests, but to our humours also, and we were likely always to continue in the same humour, or at least secure from a frequent change; there might then be some pretence that our Duty might generally be secured without contradiction of our humours. But seeing none of these can be presumed certain and constant, nay seeing all of them do most frequently fall out otherwise than it is requisite they should, for securing the performance of our Duty; that we are frequently either prejudiced against our Duty, or changed from our former humours; therefore it is necessary for securing performance that we do our Duty on constant and immutable reasons, such as may not be obnoxious to the changes and vicissitudes of our humours. And such is that, and only that, of doing our Duty with regard to the Authority of him who has required it.  
§ XIV NOW for discovering this, whether Duty be performed on account of the Authority requiring it, a visible Body Politic, (wherein Men may be invested with the Divine Authority, and may therefore be allowed for Authentical Expositors of the Divine Will, that so our Obedience to God may be known by our Obedience to Persons thus empowered by him) is much better accommodated, than if we confine the Divine Authority in matters of this nature to the Scriptures; and allow the exposition of the Scriptures to the Consciences of particular Subjects, as the measure of their Practice. For as the Scriptures are now managed, by them who reject all prudent use of Ecclesiastical Tradition for expounding them; it is easy for them who will take their own fancies for the sense of the Scripture, and then concern themselves not so much to prove what they have so presumed, as to evade what may be objected against them, to evade all possible confutation, how false soever the Errors may be which on these terms they shall undertake to maintain. For it is impossible, on these terms, so to assure any one sense of the Scripture in favour of any one side of a Controversy newly raised to be the true sense of the Holy Ghost as to exclude all other senses inconsistent with it; especially in matters of Practice of a Temporary Obligation (and such are the particulars controverted by our dissenting Brethren) wherein, whatever is pretended, it can never appear that the Sacred Writers themselves designed to be so accurate and particular, as our dissenting Brethren conceive. And it is least of all credible that they should rightly understand the sense of the Scriptures in matters of this nature, or assure any thing that may prevent licentious and dangerous expositions of others, who wave the History of the Practice of the Church at, or near, those Ages wherein these Books were Written, which must certainly be of most use for explaining the sense of the Sacred Writers in such matters.  
§ XV BESIDES, though there had been even on their Principles, better means for assuring a particular sense of the Holy Ghost, (in such particulars as these) that might not be evaded by a Person desirous to practise otherwise; yet how can we be assured that Persons act sincerely in following their convictions? How shall we know that Persons of a violent temper and Seditious may not pretend the commands of God to be contrary to those of their ordinary Ecclesiastical Governors, not that either they themselves believe them to be so, or that they are at all solicitous for doing Gods will; but merely that so they may make use of a plausible pretence for gratifying their Seditious humours without the infamy of being thought Seditious? It is certain many may do so, who may either not be guilty of any inclination to any of those scandalous vices which are of ill repute with the Vulgar; or if they be, yet they may count it politic, not only to conceal them, but also to make an open solemn profession for the contrary in order to the gaining of a reputation to their ill designs. And these are Cases which, considering the humour of the Age, and the haughty behaviour of many who are deeply engaged in the several Parties, may, without any uncharitableness, be supposed likely to prove ordinary. Now when we find Persons exceedingly pretending to be Religious impatient of all restraints that we can judge of, either to be likely to proceed from God, or to be thought by them to do so, and only pretending to Subjection to God in such instances which may be as likely to be designed for their own gratification as for the service of God; where we can either not be satisfied of their Sincerity, that they do in earnest believe their own Practices to be warranted by Divine Authority; or where, though they were sincere, yet the Evidence on which they proceed is of so ambiguous Interpretation as to be very capable of a compliance with their own desires whatever they be, and so never likely to impose any thing on them contrary to their own Inclinations (which is the only Case wherein we can conclude that what is performed by them is performed with regard to the Divine Authority) how can we conclude that they have any real reverence for the Injunctions themselves, or for the Authority by which they are imposed? But further  
§ XVI 2. HE is also, as a Governor, concerned to oblige us to the performance of our Duty by such Means as may prove most effectual with us for that purpose; and certainly the external Solemnity of undertaking them is such a means, and most likely to prove successful. That he is as a Governor concerned to oblige us to the performance of our Duty by such means as may prove most likely to prevail with us for its actual performance, will appear if it be considered that he is as a Governor concerned for such things as may make for the advantage of the Society in general; And that withal it is much for the reputation of the goodness and Prudence of his Government, to reconcile this public benefit with the least prejudice to particular members of the Society; And it is much more for its repute if it may prove advantageous to the interests of most of the particular Members. And for both these purposes, the performance of Duty by the particular Persons obliged, is very useful.  
§ XVII IT is useful for the Public. For this is indeed to the commendation of the Prudence of any Government in general, and particularly of the Divine Government, to make the Duties of particular Subjects subservient to the good of the whole Community. Nor is this only true of the Duty of Subordinate Ecclesiastical Governors (whose peculiar Province it is to take care of the Public) though it be indeed most obviously and eminently true concerning them: and God is as peculiarly concerned as a Governor to take care that such means may be used with them as may prevail with them for the actual performance of their Duty (because the neglect of their Duty has a more immediate ill influence on the Public than that of private Persons) as they are for the actual performance of those who are under them; and there are not more efficacious means for prevailing even on them for the performance of their Duty than these Solemnities which are made use of for the Obligation of private Christians; and they who undervalue their Baptismal Obligations, at their undertaking of Christianity, cannot in any likelihood be much awed by those which are used ordinarily at the susception of Government. For no particular employments whatsoever for God's Service can, with any reason, prevail with him who is not already effectually persuaded to be diligent in serving God in general, seeing all particular obligations are only this general one reduced to practice in particulars, and therefore can have no further force than what is derived from it. But the actual performance of Duty by particular private Persons is a thing fit to be regarded by God as a Governor as well as that of Governors: both as it is the primary end of all Government whatsoever that Duty should be performed, and only a secondary one to make them satisfy the Public for their neglect of it by their punishment; And as none desires a secondary end but upon frustration of his hopes of that which is primary, so it is much for the reputation of a Prudent Person to lay his designs so as that he may not frequently fail of his primary end, or frequently be driven to make amends for its loss by that which is only secondary; And as the Public good is not possible to be promoted but by the good of the generality of particulars, seeing the Public is indeed nothing else but a complex of particulars; And as indeed the principal Duties required from particular Persons, by the Precepts of Christianity, are likely to prove eminently serviceable for the good of others. For indeed the great design of Christianity seems to be to animate us all with public and Heroic Spirits; nor are those indeed its principally-designed Duties which are commonly mistaken for such by Melancholy devout Persons, the restraining of ourselves from all kind of Sin, or the recollection and fervour of Spirit which is gotten by assiduity in Prayer and Meditation and the like exercises of Devotion, no nor indeed any Personal accomplishment whatsoever any farther than that may make us useful for the Service of God and the good of others. And accordingly our Saviour represents our Trial at the day of Judgement. Not to be how little mischief we have done, but how much good; Not how Zealous and Devout we were, nay or how Sincere too, but how charitable; Not how good we have been our Selves, but how good we have been to others; Not whether we have prayed or fasted or addicted ourselves to Penitential exercises and mortifications, but whether we have given meat to the hungry or drinks to the thirsty; whether we have clothed the naked, or received Strangers into our houses; whether we have visited the Sick and the Prisoners. 
St. Matth. xxv. 35.  And the acceptable Fast, described in Isaiah, is not for a man to afflict his Soul for a day, to bow down his head as a bulrush, to spread sackcloth and ashes under him; but to lose the bands of wickedness to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke; 
Is. lviii. 6.7.  to deal our bread to the hungry, to bring the poor into our houses, to cover the naked, and not to hid ourselves from our own Flesh. And how innocent soever we may be, yet if we do no good; we may justly fear that sentence which shall be pronounced not only against the wicked and the evil, 
St. Matth. xxv. 26.30.  but the idle and unprofitable Servant; not only against him who had embezzled his Talon, but against him also who had not improved it. And therefore Daniel advises Nabuchadnezzar to break off his Sins by Righteousness, 
Dan. iv. 27.  and his Iniquities (not barely by forbearing them for the future, but) by showing mercy to the poor; and our Saviour tells us that, if we give alms all things shall be pure unto us, and that our Friends of the unrighteous Mammon are they who shall receive us into everlasting habitations. 
St. Luk. xuj. 9. Mic. vi. 8. St. Jam. i. 27.  This it is that God requires from us, to do Justice, and to love mercy (to Men) as well as to walk humbly with Him. And this St. James makes the sum of pure and undefiled Religion, to visit the Fatherless and Widows in their affliction as well as to keep himself unspotted from the World.  
§ XVIII VERY many more proofs hereof might have been produced from the Old Testament, but the New does principally abound with them. Here it is that we are required, not that every one should mind his own good, 
Philip. two. 4. Rom. xii. 15.  but the good of one another; that we must bear each others infirmities, and sympathise in each others successes, that we rejoice with them that rejoice and mourn with them that mourn. And the Analogy betwixt the mystical Body of Christ and a natural humane Body, is paralleled in this as in many other instances, that as every Member in the natural Body is sensible of every thing that befalls the whole, and it is an Argument that it does not partake of the common vital influence if it be not so; so, in the Body Mystical, if one Member suffer that all the Members must suffer with it, 
1 Cor. xii. 26.  and if one be honoured all the others must rejoice with it. And it is a great part of the design of the first Epistle of St. John, to ground all our comfort or discomfort on this one Trial of our Love to the Brethren: 
1 St. Joh. iv. 20.  So he that loves not his Brother whom he hath seen cannot love God whom he has not seen; and he who does not relieve his Brother when he is able to do so, cannot have the Love of God dwelling in him. 
1 St. Joh. iii. 17.  And on the contrary it is an Argument with him, that we are in a good condition (not that we behave ourselves innocently, or are frequent at Sermons, or feel transports in our Devotions, but) that we love the Brethren, 
1 St. Joh. iii. 14. Ver. 19  and are ready to lay down our Lives for them. Hereby it is that we know that we are passed from Death to Life, that we are in the Truth, and may assure our hearts before God. Very much more might have been produced to this purpose; but I should not have been willing at present to have said so much if I had not conceived it conveient to take this present occasion of recommending this Trial of our Consciences, rather by our usefulness in our generation than by any other ordinary signs, not only as most generous and most agreeable with the true design of Christianity, but as more really solid and comfortable to the Persons concerned in it. But I must not digress further from my present design to show how it comes to be so. All that I am now concerned for in it is, only to observe how great an influence the actual performance of the Duties of Christianity have on the good of that Society wherein they are performed, when by this means the Members must be so mutually endeared, and so strongly inclined to the mutual performance of all good Offices; and therefore how very worthy it is of the care of all good Governors, but especially of God as the Governor of that Society for which it is more immediately and principally designed; and withal how very heinous in God's sight the Sin of Schism must prove, consequently to these Supposals, and how very destructive to the comfort of the Persons engaged in it, when it is so extremely prejudicial to the Public.   

CHAP. VI The same thing further Prosecuted.  
THE CONTENTS.  
§ I Both the Ends now mentioned concerning God as a Governor are more likely to be atteined by admitting us to the Benefits of the Covenant by the External Solemnities of it than otherwise. §. I. 1. That of confederating Us into a Body Politic. A short account of the usefulness of the whole Hypothesis promoted in this Discourse for this purpose. §. II. JII.IU.U.VI.VII.VIII.IX.X.XI.XII.XIII.XIU.XU.XVI.XVII.XVIII.XIX.XX.XXI.XXII.XXIII.XXIU.XXV. 2. That of securing our performance of Duty. §. XXVI. XXVII.XXVIII.XXIX.XXX.XXXI.XXXII.XXXIII.  
2. THEREFORE I proceed to prove that both these Ends, of confederating us into a Body Politic, and of obliging us to the performance of the Duties required on our part, are more likely to be atteined by admitting us to the Benefits of the Covenant only by the External Solemnities of it as the Ordinary Means rather than by admitting us to them immediately by our own Resolutions or Promises. Both these I shall consider distinctly.  
§ TWO 1. THAN, This admitting of us to the Benefits of the Evangelical Covenant only by the external Solemnities of it as the Ordinary Means is very useful for confederating us into a Body Politic, and for obliging us to submit to such Governors as those of the Church, who may be supposed obnoxious to frequent Persecutions of the Secular Power, and then to be left destitute of any thing but their own Sacredness which may awe their refractory Subjects to Obedience. For according to the Principles which I have partly proved already, and shall partly have occasion to prove further in prosecution of my designed Method, I suppose 1. That no Prudent Person can ever be willing to venture his Soul on a less secure way that can obtain a more secure one by any condescensions of less concernment than the thing he ventures. As though it be very possible to escape Shipwreck by a plank, yet no wise man will ever venture it that may have a Ship by concessions of less concernment to him than the hazard of his Life by such a venture. The very fear and probability of his miscarriage in such a Case would be thought sufficient to Oblige him to yield to Conditions otherwise very intolerable, if yet they might be less hurtful to him than his present Fears in such a Condition;  
§ III AND 2. That the Fear of his Souls miscarriage would be really judged more hurtful, by a Prudent Person, than any condescension whatsoever, how grievous soever, if it were not directly sinful. Because, at least to him, his own Soul is his dearest interest, and nothing can prejudice that but Sin.  
§ IV AND 3. He that wants the Ordinary Means of Salvation, and is only to trust to Extraordinaries, will have reason to judge himself to be in as great and probable hazard of his Soul as he, who in a storm were cast out of a Ship, and had nothing given him to favour him in his escape, but a plank, were of his Body. And such a Person were therefore obliged to yield to all conditions not sinful, because nothing but Sin could make his condition more desperate or less comfortable to him than that wherein he is thus supposed to be already engaged; as in the Parallel condition nothing but Death, or that which were worse, could make that Persons condition, more disconsolate than it is, who in a Shipwreck could have nothing but a plank to trust to.  
§ V THAT 4. In regard of the Soul, the only Ordinary Means of its Salvation is its interest in the Divine Promises; at least this is the only Ordinary Means of our Assurance of it.  
§ VI THAT 5. The only way of procuring an interest in them is by procuring an interest in the Covenant by which alone it comes to pass that God is Obliged to the performance of them.  
§ VII THAT 6. The only Ordinary Means of procuring an interest in this Covenant is by admission to the External Solemnities by which it is ratified and confirmed.  
§ VIII THAT 7. These External Solemnities are the two Sacraments. And therefore that it will hence follow that all unsinful Conditions, however inconvenient, are rather to be submitted to than that we should suffer ourselves to be deprived of the use of them; And that therefore they, and only they, who only have the power of administering them, and of admitting us to them, must, by this very contrivance of things, be necessarily understood to have a power to impose on us what Constitutions they please that are not sinful. And though it be very possible for other Governors, who may not be ware of Consequences, to give away a greater power to their Inferior Officers by the words of their Commission, or by some other subtle Consequence from the nature of the Power entrusted to them, than they intended; yet this cannot be understood of God who is Omniscient. And therefore whatsoever Consequence does follow from the nature of the Government entrusted by him may therefore be concluded to have been by him designed for the Governors so entrusted.  
§ IX 8. THEREFORE the administration of these Sacraments, and consequently the admission of particular Persons to them, is not common to all Christians, but only confined to some Persons Authorized for that purpose by God; so that if the administration of the External Symbols were attempted by any other, such an attempt were not only irregular, but invalid; and therefore could not confer any Title to the Spiritual Benefits to be conveyed by it, but rather a Curse for the Presumption itself in the Person principally guilty, and on others also that should prove accessary to it by communicating with him in such his Usurpations.  
§ X THAT, upon the Supposition of such a confinement, all other attempts for gaining the Benefits of the Sacraments from Persons not Authorized to administer them, would be invalid, ipso jure, that is, would confer no Legal Title to those Benefits, will plainly appear whether we consider God as a Governor or as a Covenanter. If as a Governor, than it is necessary that all his inferior Governors be impowered by his Commission to act by his Authority, which Commission if they want they cannot be said to act by his Authority, and no Illegal Authority can confer a valid Legal Title. If as a Covenanter, he cannot be thus obliged without his own will, and therefore none can celebrate a Covenant in God's name so as to oblige him to performance of it unless God signify it to be his pleasure to empower him to do so, as in Law none can be obliged by another's act who has not been empowered to act in his name by his Letters of Proxy. And he that presumes of himself to make a Covenant, wherein God is by him engaged as a Party, without being so empowered by God; as what he does cannot in any Legal exposition be reputed as God's Act, so neither can it infer any Legal Obligation on him to performance.  
§ XI NOR are these Sacraments invalid only as to the Title, but also even as to the Possession of the Benefits to be conveyed by them. For it is to be considered that the Case is very different betwixt the Power given by God to Ministers for the conveyance of Spiritual Blessings by the Sacraments, and that which is given by Worldly Princes to inferior Officers for the conveyance of Secular Favours. For because the possessions of Lands are in effect subject to the power of the Sword, the inferior Officers who have the power of the Sword, and withal have the Lands within the Jurisdiction wherein that power is allowed them, as they may decree wrong in giving Lands to Persons who have no Legal Right to them, so they may also for a time put them in possession of them. But the advantages of the Sacraments are Spiritual; and consequently their Possession, as well as Right, must depend wholly on the Divine pleasure, and it cannot be presumed likely to please God to give any validity to the Acts of Usurpers. Nay that a Curse instead of a Blessing is to be feared from Ordinances so administered, will appear by the same Principles of Government. For there are no Crimes more punishable, by these Principles, than those which encroach on the Supreme Government, and none reputed more Treasonable than pretending a Commission where none is given, and counterfeiting the Broad Seal; especially when they proceed so far as to raise actual Sedition on these pretences. Now of all these Crimes these Vnauthorized Sacraments must be charged by these Principles.  
§ XII THE Administrers of them pretend a Commission from God when they have none; because they plainly take upon them to intermeddle in that Government which nothing can empower them to intermeddle in without an express Commission; at least they cannot expect to be trusted, and submitted to by Loyal Subjects, without such a pretence. They presume to counterfeit the broad Seal (for such our dissenting Brethren themselves conceive the Sacraments to be in respect of the New Covenant, and accordingly charge the Romanists with counterfeiting the Broad seal of Heaven for adding to the Number of the Sacraments) in taking upon them to oblige God as a Party of a Covenant, and pretending to set his Seal to it, without Power received from him to do so. They raise Sedition, by setting up Societies within the Jurisdiction of those Churches whereof themselves were Originally Members, and yet independent on the Government of those Churches. Which if it be not Sedition by the Principles of Government in general (not as confined particularly to that which is Civil or Ecclesiastical) for my part I must confess I do not understand what Sedition is. And certainly the Principles of Government in general, as prescinding from both these kinds, must be admitted in these Disputes, unless we will pretend Ecclesiastical Government not to agree with that which is Secular in as much as one univocal Notion, which is indeed to divest it of any thing of Government but a bare Name. And then by the same Principles of Government, not only they are Traitors who raise the Rebellion, but also they who maintain and abet it when it is raised, which will involve the Communicants in these Sacraments in this Capital Gild as well as the Administrers of them.  
§ XIII AND that indeed the valid Administration of the Sacraments is thus confined to the Regularly-Ordeined Clergy, will appear whether we consider the Sacraments as Confederations into a Body Politic, or only as sacred Rites and Ceremonies instituted by God in Order to some great effects to be promoted by them without any design upon a Body Politic. If we consider them as confederations into a Body Politic, that is, as Baptism does admit a Member into the Church, and as the Blessed Eucharist does, not only signify, but, perpetuate and effect, that Union with Christ the Head of this Mystical Body, and with their Brethren as Fellow-Members, which may make them capable of receiving those vital influences which are here expected, the same way as a Member of the Natural Body, by being vitally united to the Living Head and Members, is made capable of receiving that Communication of Blood and Spirits by which the Life of the whole Body is maintained: Then they will plainly appear to be the Right of Governors. For in all Governments the Right of admitting Members into their Societies at first, or continuing them in it in order to the instating them in the Legal Privileges of such Societies, is never conceived to belong to particular Members, but only to Governors. So that if a particular Vnauthorized Member should presume to admit a Member into the Body Politic whereof he is himself a Member, such an Act were not only Irregular, but Invalid in itself, so that a Member so admitted cannot be reputed a Legal Member of such a Society, nor consequently be Legally entitled to the Privileges of it without a new admission. For considering that this admission and continuance of Members in a Society does withal entitle them to all the Privileges of it, if the power of this admission and deprivation be not confined to the Governors, they must consequently be deprived of the Rewards and Punishments (for indeed the Privileges Men gain by being of any Society are the only Rewards that are proper and natural to invite Men to it, or continue them in it, and the deprivation of those Privileges, especially if they be so necessary for their Preservation as that the loss of them must inevitably expose Persons so deprived to the greatest inconveniences, are the only natural Punishments to discourage Men from doing any thing contrary to the Will of the Governors of such a Society.) And how possible it is for any Government to be maintained in a Society where the Rewards and Punishments are not at the disposal of the Governors, I believe our Brethren themselves will never be able to explain. And therefore, pursuant to these Principles, for my part I must confess I do not understand how the validity of Laics and much more women's Baptism (who by the Apostles Rule are much less capable of Ecclesiastical Authority) can be defended, unless it may possibly be by that general Delegation which may be conceived to have been granted to them by the Governors by those Customs and Constitutions which permit them to administer it. But it would then be a further Doubt, How far such Persons as these are capable of such a Delegation? To which I do not intent at present to digress.  
§ XIV OR if we consider them in the later sense, only as Sacred Rites instituted by God for his public and solemn Worship, to which he has been pleased to annex such Blessings as might encourage Persons to their observation; yet even so they will belong to the Clergy, if not immediately as Governors, yet, at least, as Persons consecrated, and set apart, for the Solemnities of the Divine Worship in Public. For under this notion it will be their proper Province to officiate in the Solemnities of Divine Worship; and it is plain that the Sacraments do not concern the private Devotions of Closets, but that which is performed publicly in Churches. That Baptism does so, appears from all its ends, both as it is an initiation of a Member into the Church, as a Multitude, at least, if not as a Body Politic; And as we are hereby united to all Christians, by partaking of one Baptism as well as by our believing one God and one Faith; And as we here partake of one Spirit with them, which plainly concern us, not in our private, but public capacities. And that the Blessed Eucharist does so too, is notorious, and appears from all the Discourses of our Authors against the private Masses of the Romanists.  
§ XV AND even this later Notion is abundantly sufficient for my purpose, both to secure these employments from the Invasions of the Laity, and consequently to invest the ordinary Successors into these employments with a power of Government. It will be sufficient to secure these employments from the Invasions of the Laity. For thus God has always been extremely severe against all encroachments in the Public Solemnities of his Service, usually more severe than against those Sins which our Brethren are generally inclinable to look on as very much more flagitious. The Examples of 
(a) 2 Sam. vi. 6, 7. 1 Chr. xiii. 9.10.  Vzzah and 
(b) 2 Chron. xxvi. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.  Vzziah are very considerable to this purpose. But especially that of Saul, 
(c) 1 Sam. xiii.  who, though he had first waited for Samuel 
(d) Ver. 8.11.  seven days together, and though the People were 
(e) Ver. 6.11.  scattered from him, and those few that followed him were under an excessive 
(f) Ver. 7.  consternation, and that the 
(g) Ver. 12.  Philistines were ready to engage him on these disadvantages, which must be more formidable to him not having first invoked the Divine assistance; Yet, because, upon all these Considerations, he 
(h) Ver. 12.  forced himself (as himself professes) and offered a burnt offering, he had this severe sentence from Samuel at his next meeting, that his Kingdom should not be 
(i) Ver. 13, 14.  established in his Posterity. Which by the way may let our dissenting Brethren understand how unwarrantable their pretence is for venturing on the celebration of Sacraments without a Call, though they must otherwise be hindered from all Sacraments in a Regular way by the Ordinary Regular Church Governors. For as Saul here might have had more hopes of a merciful return of his Prayers without the Solemnity of Sacrifice in these Circumstances wherein it was impossible to have it performed with its due Solemnity than by presuming to transgress his Order in performing them irregularly; so by the same proportion God would more easily excuse our Brethren for the want of Sacraments, if they could not have them on Terms consistent with their Consciences, than accept of their Devotions accompanied with these Solemnities, when they cannot have them without Usurpation.  
§ XVI FOR as in the former Case Saul and our Brethren too had not been chargeable with the Sin of omitting these Solemnities when they could not have them without Sin (I mean in our brethren's Case without the Sin of compliance with Conditions which they think unconscionable, if they were to receive them from their Ordinary Governors; or of Usurpation, if they should attempt to administer them themselves) And besides they might have had great hopes of having such their Prayers heard, not only on account of the general Uncovenanted Goodness of God, but even of the Equity of the Covenant itself, it not being likely that God, who is the Party here concerned, would ever deprive us of Promises so necessary for us merely on non-performance of Conditions, though Morally only, not Naturally, impossible, I mean such as were impossible to a good Conscience if it would continue good as well as such as were impossible in the nature of the thing: So in the later Case (where both Saul and they usurp a power of celebrating these Solemnities rather than they would be content to want them) they incur the guilt of a Sin in procuring it, and that (as has appeared from the instances now mentioned) of very great heinousness in the esteem of God, seeing he has punished it with so great Severity, which does not only pollute their Prayers, and make them unacceptable, even by the Rules of Equity as well as strict Legal Justice, but also render them very justly obnoxious to a severe punishment.  
§ XVII IT is in vain to pretend that these are Legal examples, and therefore not to be extended to the condition of the Gospel. For this unlawfulness for any but Levitical Priests to intermeddle with Sacrifices cannot, I think, be proved from any express prohibition against the other Tribes grounded on any reason singular and proper to that dispensation. If it were I should then confess that such Positive Commands would not oblige us now who are under another Legislator than Moses. But it is not for our brethren's interest to deny the present Obligation of several Commands of the Mosaic Dispensation so seemingly Positive as that their Moral reason had been very hardly, if at all, discoverable by us Antecedently to the Positive Injunction of them. Not to mention the prohibition of incestuous Marriages which all believe us at present concerned in, there are two very considerable instances for which our Brethren usually plead with no little Zeal, that is, the morality of the Sabbath and of Tithes, wherein they can prove very little, if the perpetual seasonableness of the reason on which the Command was grounded at first be not admitted as a sufficient reason to prove its perpetual and present Obligation.  
§ XVIII NOW this is the plain Case here. The reason of that prohibition against other Tribes, besides the Levitical, intermeddling with Sacrifice seems wholly derived from the Notion of Consecration, which is a part of that Natural Religion which, being obligatory by its intrinsic reasonableness, concerns all Mankind independently on Revelation. So because God had set the Levites apart for himself above all the other Tribes of the Israelites, and had appointed Ceremonies of Consecration of which they alone were capable, therefore they alone were empowered to intermeddle with the Solemnities of Divine Worship, because their Consecration itself was understood as a solemn admission of them to the Right of officiating in the Solemnities of Religion, and therefore they who were not thus admitted were reputed as Intruders. And the same reason may be proportionably applied to those higher Offices which were appropriated to the several Orders of the Priesthood by virtue of their different degrees of Consecration above the other Ordinary Levites. For from the Examples of Korah and Vzzah it plainly appears to have been as piacular and Sacrilegious for ordinary Levites to invade the Offices of a higher Consecration as for ordinary Laics to have invaded the Levites Office without any Consecration at all. And accordingly we find that when Korah murmured against the appropriating of the Priesthood to Aaron's Family his Argument was that all the Congregation was Holy, 
Num. xuj. 3.  plainly supposing that it must be their holiness above others (I mean this relative holiness which was transacted by these external Solemnities of Consecration) that could give them this advantage above others in order to their having the Priesthood appropriated to them. And Moses by way of reply plainly grants this, but withal tells them that God would show who were his, and who were Holy; 
v. 5.  that is in that Degree of Holiness which was then disputed of. Which was neither any internal Holiness of their Persons, nor all degrees of relative Holiness on account of Solemn Consecration. For of some such degrees it was notoriously true that the whole Congregation had been indeed consecrated to God by their Circumcision and other external Solemnities) but in regard of that particular degree wherein the Priests had plainly the advantage of them in regard of those particular Solemnities of consecrating them to their Office, which the Ordinary Levites, and much less the Ordinary People, could not pretend to. However we plainly see that Moses did not put the issue of this Dispute to that express prohibition, That the Stranger (that is, as it is explained here, Numb. xuj. 40. 
Numb. iii. 10.  He who was not of the seed of Aaron) who should come nigh, (that is, to officiate in the Priest's Office) should be put to death; but on this, Who of them should be found to be more Holy in regard of this relative Holiness, and the evidence God was to give of his own choice of the Sons of Aaron above others.  
§ XIX AND does not this reason hold exactly here? It is very true that all true Christians, Laics as well as others, are a Royal Priesthood, and a peculiar People. And it was as true what was pretended by Corah Dathan and Abiram in favour of this promiscuous Liberty of Sacrifice by the other Levites, at least, as well as those of the Family of Aaron, that all the Congregation was Holy. Nay God himself had frequently owned it in calling them a Holy Nation, and a peculiar People; for these present Privileges of the Christians are the same and the same way expressed as the Jews had been used to express themselves in this same matter, and very probably used by the New-Testament Writers in allusion to them. And yet as that did not excuse that attempt then, did not conclude against a peculiar Holiness in the Tribe of Levi and the Family of Aaron above others, did not give even the Levitical Family of Corah a Liberty of meddling with the Office of the Priests, nay made them obnoxious to an unexampled vengeance for such their presumption; so neither can the like pretence excuse the like encroachments on the Ministry of the Gospel from a proportionable heinousness.  
§ XX FOR what was there that could make this Crime so piacular then, that will not proceed with proportionable evidence now? Were those Priests separated from that Holy People to a nearer relation to God, and consequently to a higher degree of this Relative Holiness? And are not ours so too? Were there discriminating Solemnities appointed then by God himself for consecrating such as were admitted to that Honour? And have not we the like Solemnities? Were there Authorized Persons continued in a Succession who only could pretend to an Ordinary Call from God, both to officiate themselves in these sacred Solemnities, and to admit others to a participation of the like Divine Authority? And have not we so too? And where all the tokens of a peculiar Consecration of Officers, and a consequent exclusion of others from that Function who had not been so Authorized, are so extremely parallel; what is it that can make an Invasion of it less piacular and Sacrilegious now than then? Can these particular Solemnities appointed for the Admission of Persons to Sacred Offices then, be then understood as a designed exclusion of all such Persons from them who had not been so admitted? And what disparity appears to make it otherwise now? Or was Sacrilege more punishable than than now?  
§ XXI IF the Law whereby this Invasion was forbidden had been Positive and Temporary, I confess there might have been some pretence for this. But I am sure the general sense of Religious Mankind has thought it condemnable by the general Principles of Natural Religion; and that what is so, is so eternally unlawful as that it can never be otherwise under any whatsoever Positive Revealed Religion. And I know none of our Brethren themselves that deny it. They who have defended the Practice of Sacrilege have not done it on this pretence, that the Gospel admitted any Invasion of the Divine Property more than the Law; but that they conceived God's dispensation under the Gospel to leave all things to their Original Liberty, and to reserve no peculiar Property to himself. But this pretence has been already prevented in our Case.  
§ XXII OR do they think that God may not have as just a Property in Persons as in Things? Or can they think an Invasion of Things chargeable with Sacrilege if the Invasion of Sacred Offices may be excusable from it? This is not only contrary to the same Rules of Natural Religion as agreed in by the consent of all Civilised Religious Nations, but against the Fundamental Principles of Government which allow the Supreme Prince as peculiar a Property in the distribution of Offices as of his Lands or Tributes. Or can they believe the Invasion of Sacred Offices less criminal than that of Sacred Possessions? But however we make the comparison, it will appear to be clearly otherwise. If we make that the greater Sacrilege which is a violation of the more intrinsic unalienable Divine Property, the distribution of Offices is, by the Fundamental Principles of Government, more unalienable from God as a Governor than that of any Possessions whatsoever. For Majesty may be preserved without private Possessions, but not without the free distribution of Offices. But if we Judge of the greatness of the Sacrilege by the value of the things invaded by it, Offices will appear much more valuable than any Possessions. For both by Offices a Dominion is gotten over men's Persons which none will deny to be more valuable than their Possessions: and from this Dominion over their persons there arises secondarily a Dominion over their Possessions also; which is also proportionably true in this Spiritual, as it is in Natural, Dominion. For by this Sacred power the distribution of all Spiritual Benefits is also consequently gained, which are truly more valuable to Men than all their worldly Possessions; and by this Sacredness of Office Men become entitled even to that Worldly maintenance in which God is allowed to have a real property, so that it will prove in practice impossible to rob God of one without the other.  
§ XXIII OR is it Lastly, that God under the Gospel is not conceived to be so rigorous in exacting external Punctualities as under the Law? This, I confess, is a true reason why so few external Observances have been imposed on us under the Gospel; but there is no reason at all, that appears to me, to urge it further, as our dissenting Brethren do, to prove that God will be less Severe, now than formerly, in exacting the performance of those few Externals which he has been pleased to require. Both the excellency of the Dispensation, and the great concernment of the Church's Peace in Order to the great designs of the Gospel-Dispensation, and the natural influence of Government for the preservation of that Peace, and of Disobedience, even in things seemingly small, to the contempt of Government, and the Apostles Argument, Heb. II. 3. Would rather incline us otherwise to argue, that all violations of the Gospel-Authority must expect a severer vengeance than those of the Law.  
§ XXIV AND if this way of Arguing from the Authority, even of the Old Testament, may not be allowed (not to prove any thing to be now a Sin by its Positive Prescriptions, but only to prove how highly Criminal a Sin is in the account of God, and how severe a Punishment Persons now guilty of it may expect, when it is otherwise proved to be a Sin by immutable and unalterable reasons, that it can neither cease to be a Sin, nor cease to be Criminal in such a Degree, and therefore if it were Criminal in such a Degree under the Law it must be so under the Gospel too, or if it admit of any variation of Degrees by the variation of Circumstances (as certainly these Sins against the Law of Nature may, if not in the Kind, yet at least in Individual Instances) that all the alteration of Circumstances under the Gospel tend rather to its aggravation than its excuse) if I say this way of Arguing, even from the Old Testament, be not now admitted as conclusive under the New, it will utterly destroy all use of the Old Testament as a Rule of manners to Christians. For it will, by the same way of Arguing, be easy to evade all proofs from it by pleading our present unconcernedness in it; and if its Authority be taken for nothing, not as much as for the Degree of Criminalness of a Sin in the actual esteem of God, but that other rational proofs must be demanded even for that from the nature of the Sin itself, it is plain that thus the Authority of the Old Testament in affairs of this nature is plainly slighted, and all is ultimately resolved into Reason independent on it, which is a Crime of which, I believe, our dissenting Brethren would be very unwilling to prove guilty.  
§ XXV 9 THEREFORE the Administration of Sacraments thus depending on the Authority of those that Administer them, there are none that can lay a just claim to that Authority (now that God does not appear immediately himself to Authorise them, but leaves them to the use of Ordinary Means) but they who can show a Succession continued in all the intermediate Ages from the Apostles themselves who were thus immediately Authorized, as no Commission can be derived from a Prince, who cannot immediately be consulted, but by the mediation of his Ordinary Subordinate Governors. The proof of this I shall not now insist on because I believe I shall have occasion to do it in my following Discourse. And as it has thus appeared that this confinement of the Benefits of the New Covenant to the External Solemnities of it is very useful for confederating us into a Body Politic; So  
§ XXVI 2. THIS Solemnity of Promises is more likely to secure our performance of Duty than any private Resolutions or Promises whatsoever. I know indeed that in reason a Promise made with equal freedom, is as obligatory, if made in private, as if made before never so great an Assembly of Witnesses; nay that in reason an Assembly can so little contribute to advance our Obligation, as that it would rather weaken it (for how can He, in reason, be thought capable of being awed by Men who is not afraid to break those promises which are made to God, and wherein God is also invoked as a Witness?) Nay rather might make us distrust our having that due respect for God when we should find ourselves so much more efficaciously influenced by Men: And I know withal that only the performance of Duties on truly-rational Motives does make them strictly virtuous and rewardable. But having already premised that God does, in Covenanting with us, and more in Governing us, treat us suitably to our humours, and does accordingly bear with the Imperfections, if the Duties themselves be performed (both because the External performance of Duties, how little virtuous soever they be to the Persons performing them, yet, is of great use to the Public, for edifying others, and for maintaining the reputation of the Government, which are the prime designs of Governors; And as, in process of time, a Custom of materially-virtuous Acts, will naturally produce, even in the Person who exerts them, a materially-virtuous Habit, which, when it is gotten, is easily made formally-virtuous, only by changing the design on which it was performed, which will then be also easy; And because all the design of Religion is, with Beginners, to Suppose, and therefore to Indulge, these Imperfections which are naturally consequent to the Condition of Man in this Life, where, not being pure Spirits, nor free from the Prejudices of our Complexions, we are not so capable of pure and naked reasonings) And that therefore it does not here concern him to make use of such Inducements as are most solidly conclusive of his purpose, so much as of such as are most likely to prevail with us▪ how weak soever they be in themselves: These things, I say, being considered; my concernment at present is only to show that the Solemnities of a Covenant, how little soever they may add to the reason of the Obligation, yet, do very considerably affect the Generality of Mankind, as well those who have weaker, as those who have stronger, Impressions of Religion; And therefore must very considerably promote the actual performance of Duty.  
§ XXVII AND to this purpose I might Appeal to the common Experience of the World, whether even wicked Persons themselves, who have not arrived to such a degree of wickedness as not only to have lost all real sense of Religious Obligations, but also all sense of the reputation of seeming, at least, to be Religious (and they who are thus wicked can never be trusted on any Compacts whatsoever) do not think themselves much more Obliged by Covenants solemnly engaged on than if the same Covenants had been mutually ratifyed without these Solemnities? And the reason is almost as obvious as the Experience.  
§ XXVIII FOR 1. It is certain that the efficacy of all Covenants whatsoever for securing performance depends on these natural Impressions of Conscience which are to be supposed in Men capable of being obliged by Covenants Antecedently to them; and therefore where these Impressions are more general, and more deeply rooted, there they must naturally produce a greater horror against any thing contrary to them, and consequently give a greater security for the performance of such Obligations. If therefore it may appear that Men have naturally a greater horror against the breach of a Covenant solemnly confirmed than if it had not been so confirmed, it will plainly follow that its Solemnity must very considerably add to the Security of its performance. Now for showing this to be so.  
§ XXIX I CONSIDER 2. That the Sense and Experience of Mankind is the only competent proper Topick for showing what Motives they are most affected with. I do not mean only that Experience which every one has of his own Inclinations and Affections, but that also which we find every one to have of all Mankind with whom he has to deal, and which he therefore supposes in his conversing with them. My meaning is, that Mankind in general are most probably affected with such Motives which every Individual in dealing with others, if indeed he think them fit to be dealt with, takes it for granted that those others, with whom he deals, will also be affected with them. For generally their Judgements of others is grounded on their Experience in themselves; and therefore what they presume others to be fearful of, of that it seems they are fearful themselves, and by the same Rule, that of which every Man supposes another to be fearful, of that they feel themselves to be fearful. And what can be a more certain Argument how every Man is himself affected than his own Experience?  
§ XXX 3. THEREFORE that which Mankind generally supposes others with whom they deal most affected with, it is most probable that they are generally affected with it Indeed.  
§ XXXI AND 4. The only Argument, in conversation, for showing how every Man believes others affected, is his trust in them when they are engaged by such Motives. As therefore it is an Argument that every one believes others to have a horror of breaking their Promises and Contracts, because when he has them so Obliged to himself in matters concerning his own Interest, he is confident of performance, so those Obligations which make him more confident, it is a sign that he believes them under a greater horror of violating them.  
§ XXXII AND 5. The way of trying Experimentally of which Obligations Men are most confident is to Observe in which they do more ultimately acquiesce. For it is plain that all Persons are not trusted upon the same Obligations, but according to the Opinion Men have of the Integrity and Resolution of the Person with whom they deal, so they desire greater, or are contented with lesser, Assurances. And it is as plain an Argument that New Obligations are desired when the former are, at least comparatively, disinherited, and that even where they are not altogether diffident of the former, yet that they are more confident of the later. So that that Obligation to which Men have ultimate recourse after Trial of all others, is that of which they are most confident, and every one is by so much the more trusted by how much it approaches nearer to it. Now by this way of Trial it is plain that many Men are trusted on their public solemn Promises who would not be trusted on their private ones; and that not only in regard of the remedy the Persons to whom they are made may have to force them to performance by proving them (as Solemn Promises are more capable of proof than private) for even such Persons are more trusted on their Solemn Promises as are subject to no exterior compulsion, as Princes (to whom the greatest trusts are committed, and from whom it is therefore very just and reasonable to expect the sacredest Assurances) and there must be something supposed in them more likely to prevail with the Person, who made them, to performance than if they had been made without such Solemnity. And it appears also further that these Sacramental Solemnities are of the nature of those Obligations to which Men have their ultimate recourse in their Gradations of Trust. First they who are believed truly-Conscientious, and to have a perfect command of their own desires are trusted on their bare word. Then they, whose repute is more liable to Exception, are yet trusted if the same Promises be made before Witnesses, which kind of Promises not only they will revere who are truly-Conscientious, but as many also as are desirous to preserve the reputation of being accounted so. But even they who neither value the Conscience nor the reputation of being Just, have yet a natural horror of the mischief that may befall them by being otherwise, especially from an Invisible Being whose Knowledge cannot be avoided, nor his Power resisted, and then more especially when this punishment of their Persidiousness is not only likely to befall them on account of God's general Providence whereby he governs the World, and punishes men's offences whether they will or no, but also on account of a voluntary consignation of themselves to it, as it is in Oaths which are always understood to have Imprecations either expressed, or implied, in them. For the Punishment thus feared is both conceived more dreadful, when it is inflicted not only for the Injustice of non-performance, but also for the Impiety of making God a voucher of their falsehoods (for Men have naturally a greater horror of Impiety than Injustice) and more inevitable, when they have thus devested themselves of an Apology by contributing to their own Punishment by their own Act. But then an Oath is thought most formidable when it is deliberate and solemn, in matters of the greatest consequence, and where the Punishment to be feared, in Case of Perjury, is therefore to be expected most severe, and where all this is performed before many Witnesses, so that the Perjurer must lose the Reputation, as well as the Truth, of being Conscientious.  
§ XXXIII THIS is the greatest Assurance Men can have, and He who cannot be trusted on these Terms is looked on as uncapable of any Trust at all, and unfit for any humane Conversation. It were easy to apply all this to our Sacramental Obligations, and to show that all those Circumstances which can make a humane Obligation formidable do here concur: That they are in matters of the greatest importance, That the Mischief to be feared on these Breaches is most insupportable, That they are most deliberate (for Men are particularly warned to examine and try themselves before they come to them) That God is not here, as in other Oaths, concerned only as a Witness but as a Party too, and that they ought to be performed with the greatest Solemnity. This last thing especially is that for which I am now most nearly concerned, to show the sense of Mankind, how much the Solemnity of these Obligations does contribute to their Efficacy; which appears plainly in this, that no Obligation whatsoever does give that Satisfaction to the Parties concerned for its performance, as when it is undertaken Solemnly. Which is a plain sign that they look on the Solemnity itself as likely to make it efficacious to Humane Nature; and therefore, by the Observations now laid down, it really is so; and therefore is very suitable to God's purpose, thus to oblige Men to undertake their Religious Obligations in the same way which is found most effectual to secure performance, even in their Worldly concerns.   

CHAP. VII. The same thing further Prosecuted.  
THE CONTENTS.  
2. That, at least, our partaking in the External Solemnities of this Evangelical Covenant is the only Ordinary Means whereby we may be satisfied of our Title to the Covenant itself. §. I.II. This proved by three Degrees: 1. That, for our satisfaction, it is requisite that we have positive Arguments for us, as well as that there appear no positive Arguments against us. §. III. JU.U.VI.VII. 2. That no Arguments can comfort, but such as may Externally appear, and so be capable of being Judged of by the Persons concerned. §. VIII. 3. Our partaking of the External Solemnities of the Covenant, is, at least, the only Argument appearing to Us whereby We can be assured of any Legal Title to the Benefits of it. §. IX. X.XI.XII. A further Presumption for proving the same thing. §. XIII.  
§ I BUT 2. Supposing, that this partaking in the External Solemnities of the Evangelical Covenant had not been so necessary to confer a valid Legal Title to the Benefits of the Covenant; yet certainly it is necessary in Order to our Satisfaction, that we in particular have any Title to them. And this alone will be sufficient for my present design. For unless we may be satisfied of our Interest in the Covenant, we can have no comfort of it; and it has already appeared that this Consideration alone of being better assured of Pardon and Assistance and Acceptance on the performance of Duty in the Communion of the Church, and being better secured from the danger of miscarriage than we could have been out of it (especially when it also appears that the Ordinary Arguments of Probability are for the advantage of those who are in Communion, and all the Ordinary Arguments of Improbability either of Salvation, or Security from danger are applicable to them who are out of it) is sufficient in Prudence to Oblige all as they tender their own Comfort and Security to submit to all unsinful Conditions of the Church's Communion rather than want it.  
§ TWO NOW in Order to the proof of this I desire that these three things may be considered: 1. That in Order to our Comfort and satisfaction out of the Church's Communion it is not sufficient that there are no Positive Arguments against us to prove us certainly liable to Damnation, but there are also requisite Positive Arguments to prove the Security of our present Condition; 2. That no Arguments concerning even the Security of our present Condition can comfort us but such as may Externally appear, and so be capable of being judged of by the Persons concerned; And 3. That though the thing might be true, That we might indeed have even a Legal Title to the Benefits of the Evangelical Covenant without partaking in the External Solemnities of it; yet the External Solemnities are the only Arguments whereby we can judge of our Title, and therefore that where we want them there we must at least want such Arguments as we can judge of. Of these very briefly now, because I have elsewhere discoursed something concerning them.  
§ III 1. THAN, It is not sufficient for our comfort and satisfaction out of the Communion of the Church that there are no Positive Arguments to prove us certainly liable to damnatation, but there are also requisite Positive Arguments to prove the Security of our present Condition. This is plain from the common Experience of Mankind. For no man in a storm thinks it a ground of Positive comfort that there are no certain Arguments of actual Shipwreck, as long as there are also no Probabilities of escaping it. The want of such Positive contrary Arguments may indeed in reason prevent his perfect despair (if indeed his contrary discouragements do not make him uncapable of so very little supporting reasonings) but cannot so much as in reason be thought a sufficient ground for any Positive comfort. At least not Prudent Person, (let his temper be never so inclinable to hope, and therefore let him be never so ready to lay hold on any Arguments for this purpose) can think this hope so valuable as to be willing to continue in it if he might be relieved from it on any tolerable CondiConditions; And I have already proved that all Conditions not Sinful are to be thought Tolerable in such Circumstances.  
§ IV BUT indeed we find by Experience that the predominating Argument is that which determines men's Affections. They will therefore not fear at all if all weighty and Probable Arguments persuade their confidence, and very few and weak and inconsiderable ones discourage them. And we find withal by the same Experience that this want of contrary Arguments is of all weak Arguments that which has the least influence on humane Nature. No Man thinks it a Prudent Argument of Fear in passing the Streets because he is not sure that the next Tile he passes under shall not fall on his head.  
§ V AND if this Argument be not sufficient to make Men fearful when all appearing Probable Arguments make for their comfort, much less can it be thought sufficient to give them any Hope where all appearing Probable Arguments Oblige them to be Fearful. For of the two Humane Nature is naturally more inclinable to Fear than Hope (as appears from those Superstitions which have generally prevailed in most ignorant Nations, how resolute soever otherwise, which is not so accountable on any other Principle as this) and it is plain that the efficacy of any Arguments is to be accounted for from the prevailing inclination of him who is to be persuaded by them.  
§ VI BUT besides, in our present Case, it is very considerable that the want of all Means necessary for an Escape is by all Prudent Persons counted a sufficient Argument to prove the imminent danger of the Person wanting them; so that this alone is sufficient to have all the influence of a Positive Argument on a Person who is concerned. For in several Cases the effect does follow as certainly and inevitably from the want of the interposition of a Cause that may hinder the present natural Course of things, as if it were proved immediately from the influence of the Causes themselves; in which Case, the present Causes not hindered do certainly determine the effect, and all the use of the Negative proof is only to show, that they shall not actually be hindered. It is thought a certain Argument that a Man falling down ● precipice shall assuredly come to the bottom, if we be assured that nothing else shall interpose to hinder him, or if we be assured also that even those Causes, which we can apprehend as only capable of interposing, shall not actually interpose. Even in this Case we think ourselves Morally Certain of the Event.  
§ VII NOW this is the Case exactly here. Our Brethren themselves acknowledge a sufficient Cause, not only for falling short of the rewards of the Gospel, but also for incurring the Punishment of it, if unrelieved by the favours of it, that is, Original Sin; And therefore they, above all others, are very Pathetical in aggravating the inevitableness of Man's l●ss without Christ. Thus far therefore it is as certain with them that all must actually perish for whose rescue God does not especially interpose for Christ's sake, as it is certain that a stone must fall downwards, if it be not hindered and supported by the interposition of some other Cause. And seeing also that there is not any other Interposition to be expected in this Case, even by our brethren's own Principles, but that of the mercy of God through Christ, that which will take away all hopes of this Interposition, must in all reason and Prudence make us proportionably fearful of the Event, that is, must, at least, perfectly ruin all hopes of escaping, and consequently all comfort and satisfaction in our present condition. If therefore it may appear that there are no Arguments to put us in hopes that God will interpose; there can, upon these Principles, be no hope nor comfort at all, at least, not sufficient for our dissenting brethren's purpose, to make it safe for any wise man to acquiesce in this condition when he may change it by unsinful condescensions. For indeed for that I have proved it requisite that this continuance out of the Church's Communion had been righter and safer than having it on these Terms, and therefore that the Probabilities making for it had been more, and more pregnant than those which made against it.  
§ VIII 2. THEREFORE no Arguments can comfort but such as may Externally appear, and so be capable of being judged of by the Persons concerned. This is so plain of itself, and so coincident with what I have already discoursed as that it cannot need many words to clear it further. For no Person can be comforted by the real goodness or safety of his condition unless he Judge it so, and none can Judge whether it be so but by reasons appearing to himself.  
§ IX 3. THEREFORE, Our partaking of the External Solemnities of the Covenant is, at least, the only Argument appearing to us whereby we can be assured of any Legal Title to the Benefits of it. For, as it has already appeared, it is only by our interest in the Covenant that we can be assured of a Legal Title to the Promises on God's part; And a Covenant as Obligatory in a Legal way does necessarily imply such a Legal Notoreity as that both Parties may be mutually assured of the others Obligation. For as in Covenants neither of the Parties singly would engage but on consideration of the Conditions to be performed by the other; so it is not to be presumed in Equity that either of them would engage without assurance of performance on the other Party, or give any further Assurance of their own performance than they receive from the Party with whom they contract. Now the reason why both Parties are willing to submit to Legal Obligations is only for this mutual Security of performance of what both Parties were Antecedently willing to contract for, and the farther use of making this Contract Legal is, that, by some common means of Communication, each of them may be as well secured of the performance of the Party with whom he deals as that Party is secured of his own performance. And if a Contract were made more secure on the one side than on the other (how Legal soever it might be in regard of Men who can only proceed on generally-fallible Presumptions, yet,) it is not Equal, nor consequently obligatory, in the sense in which we now understand Legal Obligations when we speak of such as are betwixt God and Man; because it is not agreeable with the presumable design of the Contracter, which is all that any can in Equity be obliged to; unless we make the Law a snare to oblige Men beyond their own intentions, which is not agreeable to the nature of voluntary Contracts, such as Covenants are understood to be.  
§ X AND by these same Principles it appears that God as Covenanting with us must give us the same Security of performance on his part as he receives from us of ours by virtue of the Legal Solemnities whereby the Covenant is managed; And till he does so, and that we have reason to be satisfied that he has done so, the Covenant cannot be said to have been completed, because this is indeed the tacit Condition on which it was made, and on which it was intended to be ratified, and therefore till this be done it cannot be supposed to have received a final and complete ratification on both sides, nor consequently to be Obligatory Legally.  
§ XI AND as this Legal Notoreity of each others Obligation mutually is thus necessary to the Equity and Validity of the Obligation, so indeed the Ordinary Solemnities of entering into these compacts are the only Instruments of this Legal Notoreity; so that indeed that cannot be presumed to be Legally Notorious which is not transacted with these Solemnities, and therefore, not being Legally Notorious, cannot, on the Principles now mentioned, infer a Legal Obligation. Especially considering that God is pleased herein to condescend to deal with Men according to their own customs and capacities. And therefore having erected a Visible Body Politic, and placed Visible Vice-gerents to act in his name, and appointed Visible Seals, and withal having removed himself from our Ordinary access and consultation; It is very reasonable to believe that it was his design that we should judge of his proceed the same way as we do of those of other Princes, that having appointed Visible Means of promulging their pleasures they would not have that taken for their will which is not so promulged according to the Method and Rules which themselves had appointed for it. Now this is the Ordinary method observed by such Princes in their promulgations that all their Acts must be promulged by their inferior Officers to whom we may be capable of having an immediate access, and that they be Sealed with their Seal, and that nothing which is not thus attested should be presumed to be the Act of the Supreme Magistrate, seeing that the very constitution of such a Method of proceeding was purposely designed to let Subjects know the true Acts of such Princes from Counterfeit. And therefore God having made the same External provisions of Visible Officers to represent him, and Visible Seals to confirm what is Covenanted for in his Name, it is the same way to be presumed that he would not have any Covenant trusted to as his which is not thus managed and sealed by his Visible Representatives.  
§ XII THIS, for my part, is a very considerable Motive to incline Me to believe that those general Preach of Pardon and Salvation upon the Conditions of Faith and Repentance which the Ministers are Obliged to declare in God's name to all Men, even Antecedently to their actual initiation into the Church, were never intended for immediate Covenants with them upon performance of those Conditions, but only as preliminary invitations to dispose themselves for an actual Reception into his Covenant by qualifying themselves by these Conditions of Reception. I say, it seems to me a very just reason to believe that those general Invitations are no Covenants, because they are never Sealed in general, but only then when Persons so qualifyed are actually Admitted, which had indeed been needless if it had been general on God's part, Obliging him to every particular, only on the performance of those Moral Conditions, without any further Act of God for the consummating his Obligation in a Form of Law. But whether there may be Obligations, or not, Antecedently to Sealing, I am not at present concerned. This, at least, seems clear that Seals are designed as Instruments of Notoreity, and therefore that no Obligation can be Authentical, that is, such as may assure us of its validity, without them. This I have already proved sufficient for my purpose, and shall not need any more to repeat the Arguments whereby I have proved it to be so.  
§ XIII BESIDES there lies this further Presumption in our Case, that though it had been granted to have been possible for God to have made his Promises immediately to the Moral Duties of Faith and Repentance; Yet our dissenting Brethren can never prove it necessary that he must have done so. And if this be not Necessary, the contrary may be also possible. Which will suffice for showing the much greater Security these Moral Duties have of a Title to the Promises if accompanied with these Solemnities than if they be separated from them. All who say that Faith and Repentance alone have a Title to these Divine Promises cannot doubt but that they still retain the same Title when they are practised in the Church's Communion as when they are practised out of it. But the very Possibility of the sailor of their Title as considered separately is enough to show how much more secure it is to practise them in the Church's Communion. But considering withal the reasons now given why these Moral Duties alone should not have that Title on the constitution of these Solemnities which they might have expected otherwise; this must considerably add to that Security. And this greater Security has been proved sufficient for our purpose, to show how our Brethren are Obliged rather to Submit to all Vnsinful Impositions than lose, even these Solemnities, on which this greater Security has thus appeared to depend.   

CHAP. VIII. The same thing further Prosecuted▪  
THE CONTENTS.  
3. The participation in these External Solemnities, with any Legal Validity, is only to be had in the External Communion of the Visible Church. §. I. The Church as taken for the Body of the Elect uncapable of being Communicated with Externally. §. JI.III. That all things here contrived are exactly fitted for a Visible Church, and no other. §. JU.U.  
§ I 3. THEREFORE the participation in these External Solemnities, with any Legal Validity, is only to be had in the External Communion of the Visible Church. And it is only this Legal Validity that can signify any thing to the comfort of the Persons concerned. For if they be performed without Legal Validity they can Oblige God to nothing, neither to pardon past Sins, nor to give Grace for better performance, nor to acceptance upon imperfect performance, nor a Title to a Supernatural reward. And he who cannot Judge himself to have a Title to these, nay not, a Legal Title to them, cannot have reason to think his Spiritual Condition very comfortable. Now that these External Solemnities are not to be had in the Church in that notion of it as it is made Invisible, which our dissenting Brethren make use of to overthrow all Ecclesiastical Government and Subjection, and indeed the entire Notion of its being a Body Politic, is very plain. For they are not pretended to have any External Solemnities of confederation among themselves, as well as with God, but those wherein all Visible Professors. Hypocrites as well as others, communicate with them, and therefore by which they are not distinguishable from others. Nay, that these External Solemnities do not concern them as Elect, is not only clear thence, that others who are not Elect communicate in them as well as these who are; but also that many who are Elect want them, as they who are not yet called, and they who are Excommunicated clavae ●rrante, nay and all they who live where Communion cannot be had, so that with them no Communion is maintained even in the participation of the External Symbols themselves.  
§ TWO AND indeed how is it possible to maintain any Visible Communion with them who are not themselves visible? God's secret Decrees are known to none. They may indeed be known by the effects and influences of Gods secret Communication with the Spirits of those who are concerned, if our dissenting Brethren may be believed; so that the Argument may hold good, according to them, that they who feel those influences may conclude themselves to be Elected. Yet will it not hold even in all Elect Persons themselves. Not only they who are not as yet called may nevertheless be Elected; but also all they who are called, but are not yet arrived to that singular degree of proficiency in Religion as to feel these Evidences, may notwithstanding not be able as yet to know as much as their own Election, even according to our dissenting brethren's own Principles▪  
§ III BUT however it is certain that no Man can be assured of another's Election. And seeing the Persons themselves are thus incapable of being distinguished from others; Seeing at lest there are no visible distinctives of any Society of them; how is it possible to maintain any visible Communion with them by visible Solemnities? The Elect may indeed be capable of maintaining a Communion with God, because they know him, and are known by him, without any visible Societies; but, for want of these necessary conditions of Communication, they can never constitute any Society nor maintain any Communication with each other. And therefore if this be the Church to which our dissenting Brethren would pay the respect due to the Church, all our Sacraments must be perfectly insignificant, which seem plainly designed not only, nor principally, to maintain a visible Communication with God, but with each other.  
§ IV SEEING therefore that this Legal validity depends on the due administration of these External Solemnities by which they may be believed Obligatory of God by the same Rules of Legal Equity whereby they would be Obligatory of Men; And seeing that this is the only way among Men to infer an Obligation on Persons not immediately appearing in their own Persons▪ (as God does not in Covenanting with Us) that it may appear that the Persons acting in their behalf be indeed impowered by them to act in their Names, and to pass such Acts into Legal Forms by solemn sealing them; this must also be conceived requisite to God's Obligation as it may be valid in Law, and as it may be capable of appearing to Us. And therefore▪ his Covenant is Transacted with Us by Ministers dealing with us immediately, and who must make out their Authority to Act and Administer the Seals in his Name; the same way as Legal Procurators do, by their Deputation from them who were Originally concerned.  
§ V NOW all the things on which this Trial depends are visible, the Covenant itself, the Seals, the Ministers, their Call by Authorized Persons; and therefore are uncapable of being Transacted any where but in a visible Church and an External Communion. And it is further Observable that this way of proceeding will resolve the ultimate Trial of the validity of these Solemnities into the Authority of the Persons administering them, which will more directly prove that the visible Church here supposed must also be a Body Politic. And this may suffice at present for proof of this second thing necessary for the Justification of this Proposition. That the Ordinary Means of Salvation are confined to the External Communion of the visible Church.   

CHAP. IX. That the Grace, to be expected in hearing the Word Preached, is not sufficient for Salvation without the Sacraments.  
THE CONTENTS.  
11. That, in reference to the Duty of particular Persons, the visible Church, wherein they may expect to find these Ordinary Means, is the Episcopal in opposition to all other Societies not Episcopally governed; and particularly that Episcopal Communion under whose Jurisdiction the Persons are supposed to live. §. I. 1. The Episcopal Communion in opposition to all other Societies not Episcopally governed is that visible Church to whose External Communion these Ordinary Means of Grace are confined. This proved by several degrees. §. II. 1. The Ordinary Means of Grace are now confined to the Sacraments. Two things premised. The former. §. JII.IU. The later. §. V The thing to be proved. §. VI Proved two ways. 1. Exclusively, of other Means of gaining that Grace which is necessary to Salvation besides the Sacrament. §. VII. VIII. 1. Of the Word Preached. Some things Premised. §. IX. X.XI.XII. 1. Much of the Grace conveyed by the Word Preached in the Primitive times was undoubtedly proper to those times, and not fit to be expected now. §. XIII. XIU.XV. 2. There were reasons proper to those times why such Grace might be expected then, which will not hold now, for the conviction of the Persons who then received the Spirit. §. XVI. 3. There were also other proper Reasons necessary for the conviction of those with whom they had to deal. §. XVII. 4. That Grace which might otherwise have been expected in attending on the Word Preached, is yet not so probably to be expected in the Preaching of Persons Vnauthorized, especially if they Preach in opposition to them who are Legally invested with Spiritual Authority. §. XVIII. XIX. 5. It is yet farther doubtful, whether the Grace, which may now be Ordinarily expected at any Preaching whatsoever▪ be so great as to be able to supply the want of the Sacraments at least, so great as to secure the Salvation of those who enjoy this Ordinance whilst they want the Sacraments? §. XX. XXI. 6. It is also very doubtful, whether all the Grace which is supposed to accompany the Word Preached be any more than what is necessary to dispose the Auditors to receive and believe the Truth of the Doctrines Preached to them? Or whether there be any the least ground to believe that they shall there receive that further Assistance which is necessary to help them to Practise what they have thus received and believed. §. XXII. XXIII.XXIV. 7. This first Grace of Persuasion, if we suppose it alone to accompany the Word Preached, will fully answer the design of the Word Preached. §. XXV. 8. The Grace here received seems to be only some actual Influences of the Spirit, (which wicked men may receive whilst they continue so, and which therefore cannot alone be thought sufficient for Salvation) not the Person of the Divine Spirit himself. §. XXVI.  
§ I I PROCEED therefore to the second Particular requisite for bringing this Proposition home to my present design, viz. That, in reference to the Duty of particular Persons, that visible Church wherein they may expect to find these Ordinary Means is the Episcopal in opposition to all other Societies not Episcopally governed; and particularly that Episcopal Communion under whose Jurisdiction▪ the Persons are supposed to live. This will also consist of 2. Parts fit to be considered distinctly: 1. That the Episcopal Communion▪ in opposition to all other Societies not Episcopally governed, is that visible Church to whose External Communion th●se Ordinary Means of Grace are confined; And 2. That, in respect to particular Persons▪ that Episcopal Communion under which the Persons live is that particular Episcopal Communion to which these Ordinary Means of Salvation are confined in the Case of these particular Persons.  
§ TWO 1. THAN, The Episcopal Communion, in opposition to all other Societies not Episcopally governed, is that visible Church to whose External Communion these Ordinary Means of Grace are confined. This I shall endeavour to prove by these degrees: 1. That the Ordinary Means of Grace are now confined to the Sacraments; 2. That the validity of these Sacraments depend upon the Authority of the Persons by whom they are administered; 3. That no other Ministers have this lawful Authority but only they of the Episcopal Communion.  
§ III 1. The Ordinary Means of Grace are now confined to the Sacraments. Before I prove this, it will be necessary that some things be premised. 1. Therefore I am not now considering the Sacraments as they are Ceremonies of initiation into the Evangelical Covenant, or of continuing in it; but as to the particular Benefits for which they are designed. In the former regard I have considered them already. And in that Notion there can be no doubt but that all the Benefits of this Covenant will be concerned in them. For as they who have no Title to the Covenant itself can pretend no Title to any of the Benefits of the Covenant, so they who are not validly initiated into it, or continued in it by the External Solemnities appointed for that purpose, cannot have a Legal Interest in the Covenant itself. So that by this way of proceeding the Negative way of arguing is best secured," That they who do not partake of the Sacraments as External Solemnities of transacting this Covenant can have no Legal Title to forgiveness of Sins, or the Holy Spirit, or any Supernatural rewards, or any other such Benefits which God is obliged to do for us only by virtue of his Covenant. But though this alone be very sufficient for my purpose, yet that it may appear how exactly our general Hypothesis suits with the nature of the Sacraments themselves; I shall here endeavour to show that the loss to be sustained by the deprivation of the Sacraments, I mean, the loss of those Graces which the Sacraments Convey, as well as signify, to us by virtue of their Divine Institution, is indeed as great as that of the loss of a Legal Interest in the Covenant itself, at least incomparably too great to be hazarded for want of any condescension that is not Sinful. So that although we should not consider the Sacraments as Solemnities of investing us into a Legal Right to the Covenant, but only with relation to those Graces for whose conveyance they were immediately instituted and designed, yet even these are so considerable as to oblige us to depend on them who are alone invested with the power of administering them. And certainly the least prejudice that can be thought to be sustained by them who want the Sacramental Symbols rather than they will purchase them by unsinful condescensions, must be at least the loss of those Graces for whose conveyance they were purposely designed by God as the only Ordinary Means by which Men might expect them. Especially when the voluntariness of such a want is as well a crime as a neglect, and therefore must so justly cut them off from all hopes of relief by Extraordinaries.  
§ IV NOR is this suitableness of this Hypothesis with the nature of the Sacraments, and the great Probability which will thence follow, that both of them must be true when they are found thus exactly to agree, the only reason why I am willing to add this proof from the particular nature of the Sacraments themselves to that general consideration of them as Seals of the New Covenant. The truth is I am unwilling to lay the stress of my present design upon a form of speaking so new, and so liable at least to Dispute, as that of the Sacraments being Seals of the New Covenant. I am not so cautious, as if I doubted whether this were true, at least concerning Baptism, that that is indeed a Seal of the New Covenent; but because I had rather, where I can have choice, insist on Principles least liable to contradiction. Nor yet could I think it altogether fit to wave that Argument, both because it is so very apposite for our purpose, and so easily granted by our Adversaries, and so more likely to prevail with them than Arguments less questionable in themselves; and because I think so much of it really solid as is necessary for our purpose. Valid Baptism being only to be had from the regularly-Ordeined Clergy is a great Obligation to a dependence on them. And if we only wave the word Seal we may take in the other Sacrament also under the general term of the Solemnities whereby the Evangelical Covenant is transacted and maintained. Which as it is equally subservient to our purpose, so I have rather chosen to make use of it because I conceive it really more justifiable.  
§ V A SECOND thing to be premised is this, That it is one thing to say that the Sacraments are Ordinary Means of Grace, and another to say, that the Ordinary Means of Grace are confined to the Sacraments. By the former no more is implied but that worthy Communicants do, in the use of these Sacraments, partake of this Grace, which may be very true though God had appointed other Ordinary Means by which the same Graces might be obtained by them who cannot have the Sacraments. But if this were the Case, the Negative Argument (for which we are alone concerned at present) would not hold, that they who want the Sacraments must, even in this ordinary way of proceeding, be presumed to want the Sacramental Graces also. For they who want one Ordinary Means may still make use of another for obtaining the same thing, where there is acknowledged a variety; and even in this Case they might have comfort and confidence without the desperate recourse to Extraordinaries. My design therefore being to show that they must want the Sacramental Graces who want the Sacraments themselves upon the terms now mentioned, this later thing must be that which I am principally obliged to prove. I confess there are many Errors current among our Brethren concerning the virtue even of Sacraments in general, especially where they think themselves obliged rather to contradict than to lay down any thing positive. And I withal confess that they are their Errors of this kind which have rendered the true Notion of the Sin of SCHISM so very difficult to them. Nor can it be thought strange that their Practice of Schism should unawares betray them into Errors on a Subject whose right understanding would go so far to recover them out of Schism, and to let them see its mischief as well as its Sinfulness. And though I think we have as great advantage against them on this Topick as on any; and that their Notions herein are so clearly contrary to the sense of Catholic Tradition and Antiquity, and so destructive to the true nature of Sacraments, as that they come the nearest, of any Paradoxes maintained by them, to their being Fundamental Errors; yet that I may confine my present design within as narrow limits as can be allowed for dispatching it with accurateness and solidity, I shall at present consider this virtue of the Sacraments no further than as it shall fall in with my design of proving that the Ordinary Means of Grace are confined to them.  
§ VI NOW even this confinement has appeared from the Principles laid down in the former Chapters. For as it is certain that the Covenant of God with us is the only Ordinary Means whereby we may be assured of Salvation; so it is withal as certain that our participation in the External Solemnities whereby this Covenant is transacted is the only Ordinary Means whereby we may be assured of our Interest in the Covenant; and that God has neither instituted, nor is pretended by our Brethren themselves to have instituted, any other External Solemnities of transacting this Covenant besides the Sacraments. But because I am now considering the Sacraments under another Notion, not as Solemnities of transacting the Covenant, but in relation to those Graces for the communication whereof they were particularly designed and instituted by God himself, that which I am at present concerned to prove will be, that the Graces hereby conveyed are such as that, without them, Salvation cannot ordinarily be expected; and withal that they are such as that God has instituted no other ordinary way of giving them besides the Sacraments. Both these I shall endeavour to prove together as I have already expressed them in the Proposition.  
§ VII THIS I shall endeavour from two Topics: 1. By excluding the other Ordinary Means of gaining that Grace which is requisite either for Salvation itself, or, at least, for our Assurance of it besides the Sacraments; And 2. By showing directly that the Grace conferred in the Sacraments is of such a nature as to suppose the Persons to whom it has not yet been given in an unsalvable Condition. From the former it will principally appear that the Grace is not otherwise to be expected Ordinarily than by the Sacraments: From the later, That this Grace is such as that Salvation cannot Ordinarily be expected without it.  
§ VIII 1. THEREFORE I shall endeavour to disprove those other Ordinary Means which are, or may be, pretended to, by them who are out of the Communion of the Church. And they are especially two: either the hearing of the Word Preached, or private Prayer. The former will, at least, so far serve our purpose as to oblige Men to depend on some Assemblies, and consequently on the power of those who alone enjoy the power of calling such Assemblies, or at least to depend on the Preachers. But the later is such as, if it be allowed to be an Ordinary Means of obtaining that Grace which is necessary for Salvation, will excuse Men not only from all Sacraments, but from all Assemblies too, and will allow a liberty to those who join with no Party at all on pretence of the sufficiency of their Closet-Devotions. Which is a thing I am therefore the more willing to warn them of, that none may venture to defend this later way till they have first considered how they can give an account of this dangerous Consequence of it. And the same Inconvenience will much more concern them who conceive the Moral Duties of Faith and Repentance to be sufficient for obtaining this Evangelical Grace which is necessary for our Salvation. But of this Opinion I shall say no more now, both because I have considered it already, and because it must necessarily fall, if I succeed in my present undertaking.  
§ IX THE first Ordinary Means therefore pretended for obtaining the Grace of the Gospel, independently on the Sacraments is the Word. But before I oppose this, I shall first lay down some Cautions, from which it may appear how far I am indeed concerned to oppose it. 1. Therefore if by the Word be understood the subsistent Word, whether the fontal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Christ himself, or the derivative as the Spirit which is given to us upon our becoming Christians, in regard whereof Christ himself is said to be 
(a) Gal. iv. 19.  form in us, 
(b) 2 Cor. iv. 10. Col. iii. 4. St. Joh. xiv. 6. 1 Joh. i 1.2.  to live in us, to be 
(c) Gal. two. 20.  crucified and 
(d) Rom. vi. 4. Col. two. 10.  buried in us; and We are said on account of this living Spirit, which we receive from him, to 
(e) 1 Cor. xv. 49. Comp. wiith Ver. 45.  bear his Image as by our 
(f) Ib. 1 Cor. xv. 45.49.  Souls we bear the Image of Adam: I then conceive myself so far from being concerned to deny that, by this Word, we receive all the Graces of the Gospel, as that indeed it is from hence that I infer the necessity of Sacraments as the only Ordinary Means of partaking of the Word in this sense. And yet it is very much to be suspected that some of the places, produced by our Adversaries for proving the efficacy of the Word, are only to be understood of the Word in this sense. So in 1 Pet. 1.23. Where we are said to be born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the Word of God which lives and abides for ever. The abiding for ever here is not so naturally intelligible of the permanency of the Decrees of God, as 
(g) Ps. cxix. 89.  elsewhere this Phrase is used, as of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 within us. For the Argument here produced is to prove the permanency of our new life to which we are here born, that that should also endure for ever, because it is the fruit of this incorruptible seed. But for that it had not been so proper to argue the incorruptibleness of the effects of the Divine Decrees; because the same Decrees which are the reasons why some things are incorruptible, are also the reason why others are corruptible. But the subsistent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a very proper Argument for concluding the incorruptibleness of those things which partake of it. In this sense Life is an usual Epithet of this Word. And from our partaking of this quickening Spirit, the Apostle concludes the necessity of our immortality and resurrection. 1 Cor. xv. The only difficulty is that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here spoken of is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ver. 25. And yet if St. 
h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Justin Martyr understood the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Orphaicks of this subsistent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it must seem less strange in the Hebrew Idiom, according to which it is so very ordinary to put Words for Things, None can doubt but that the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as properly rendered by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek as by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And the same way also it may probably be understood in St. James 1.18. Where our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Word of Truth is opposed to the birth whereby Concupiscence is said to bring forth Sin, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whereby Sin when it is consummated brings forth Death. Ver. 15. But this is not so likely to be understood either of the Doctrines of Concupiscence, or Sin, as of the things themselves. And therefore it will be also much more suitable to understand our Regeneration by the Word rather of that Subsistent Being which is so called in the ordinary language of those times, than of the Doctrine of the Gospel.  
§ X 2. IF by the Word be meant either the Things or Doctrines discovered to us by the Revelations of the Gospel, it will not be the least inconsistent with my design to grant that all the requisites of Salvation may be ascribed to it. For in this sense it may include the Sacraments themselves. And in this general indefinite way of Speaking, that is very properly ascribed to the whole which is performed by any one particular contained under it, as the whole Man is said to speak though it be only his Tongue which properly performs that office. And yet of the Word in this sense several of those passages will be found to be understood which are produced by our Adversaries for proving this efficacy of the Word Preached. Not of the Preaching of the Doctrines and Institutions of the Gospel in opposition to the other ways of administering them (which is the only thing for which they are concerned in this Dispute) but of the whole complexion of Doctrines and Institutions Preached by the Gospel, in opposition to those preached by the Law, or by any other Dispensation which might then pretend to rival it in being a Rule for Manners, and a Guide to Happiness. This plainly seems to have been meant by St. Paul, when he asks his Galatians, whether they had received the Spirit by the Works of the Law, 
Gal. iii. 2.  or by the hearing of Faith? Where the hearing of Faith not being opposed to receiving the Sacraments, but to the Works of the Law, may plainly take in the whole Gospel-Dispensation in opposition to the Legal.  
§ XI NOR 3. Am I concerned to take notice of those Texts which ascribe the Benefits of the Gospel to other causes than the Sacraments, so long as those Causes are not pretended to apply them immediately to particular Persons. What if 
(a) St. Mat. xxvi. 28.  Remission of Sins be purchased by the blood of Christ? What if we be 
(b) 1 Pet. i 3.  begotten to a lively hope by his Resurrection? What if the 
(c) Act. two. 31.33.  giving of the Spirit be ascribed to it? What if we are said to 
(d) Rom. vi. 5.8, 10, 11.  die to Sin by his Death, to be 
(e) Gal. two. 20.  crucified together with him, to 
(f) Col. two. 12. iii. 1.  rise with him, and to be 
(g) Rom. viij. 17. 2 Thes. i 10.  glorified with him? My interest does not oblige me to pretend that Sacraments could do these things for us as principal Causes, neither by any power of their own, nor by any which they may derive from his Institution. It is abundantly sufficient for my purpose that these are the only Ordinary Means by which we come to have an Interest in Christ himself, which will consequently give us a Title to all his other Graces, what means soever he have used to purchase them for us. It is sufficient that by these we are immediately initiated and continued in Covenant with him, by virtue whereof we have a Title to his Promises on what account soever he was pleased to make them, or his Father to confirm them. It is sufficient that by these we are united to Christ, and become one Legal Person with him, by which means it comes to pass that what has been done or suffered by him is as much ours as if we had done and suffered it ourselves. It is sufficient that these are the only Ordinary Means by which he has promised to communicate, and where we can therefore only be confident to receive, them. These things, if true, will oblige all to a dependence on the Sacraments. And none of these are any way disproved in any of these passages of Scripture.  
§ XIII NOR 4. Am I concerned to take notice of all those places which ascribe an efficacy, not only to the things Preached in the Gospel, but even to the Preaching itself. The design of those places being plainly to assert such an efficacy in the Ordinance of Preaching as that they who enjoy this, may enjoy Grace sufficient for their Salvation, though they want the Sacraments, and that it may communicate Grace sufficient for the Salvation of such Persons who have no other Means to trust to, who are in our brethren's Circumstances; this will abundantly suffice for my present design, to show our brethren's Obligation to depend on the Sacraments. Now that they may understand how little encouragement they can have so to depend on the Grace communicated by the Word Preached, as to neglect any Moral diligence, or to refuse any unsinful condescension, requisite for obtaining the External Sacraments; I shall entreat them seriously to consider;  
1. HOW much of that Grace, which accompanied the Preaching of the Word in those first beginnings of the Gospel of which the Scripture History gives us an account, was extraordinary, and proper to those times and Persons? And how much was Ordinary, and fit to be expected now as well as then? It is most certain that the Grace which then accompanied this Ordinance was incomparably greater than than what is ordinary now. Our Saviour 
(a) St. Joh. seven. 46.  spoke as never man spoke, and the transport and courage of the Apostles was 
(b) Act. iv. 13.  admired even by their Enemy's themselves who had known their Education. And 
(c) Ver. 33.  with great power they gave witness to the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. And the Word of God is observed then to have 
(d) Act. nineteen. 20.  grown mightily and prevailed, and thousands 
(e) Act. two. 41. iv. 4.  are said to have been converted at one Sermon, and obdurate and obstinate Persons were on a sudden, and frequently, changed, and changed in the 
(*) Orig. c. cells. L. I. 21, 50. L. II. 78, 85, 110. L. III. 128, 150. Lactant. L. III. 26. Cyprian. Ep. ad Donat.  habitual inclinations of their Wills as well as in the conviction of their Judgements. And must we therefore expect the like things now? I am sure we do not find them so. Nay the Apostle appeals to this efficacy of his Preaching as a sign of his Apostleship, and makes his Auditors who had been so mightily influenced by him the 
(f) 1 Cor. ix. 2.  Seal of his Apostleship, when he was to assert the dignity of his Apostolical Office in opposition to the false Apostles, a plain sign that then the power of an Apostle was incomparably greater than that of ordinary Preachers.  
§ XIV AND indeed they had many visible advantages for moving their Auditors then which our present Preachers cannot pretend to: The external gifts of Miracles; their Personal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, with some of which the Preachers of that Age seem to have been generally endued, but the Apostles more than others; that zeal and courage and confidence which must needs have made their delivery very pathetical; the fitness of their expressions to their Auditors Cases, when those expressions were none of their own, but inspired on the 
(g) St. Mat. x. 19.  particular occasion; that particular gift of 
(h) 1 Cor. xii. 10.  discerning their Auditor's Spirits, whereby they were forced to confess that 
(i) 1 Cor. xiv. 25.  God was in them of a truth. Not to mention their unwearied Zeal, the great toils and dangers they endured in the employment, the shame, and contempt, as well as the other inconveniences attending it, which must needs possess their Auditors with very favourable thoughts of their Persons, of their Sincerity and freedom from sinister designs, and their hearty good will to them, whatever they might think of the Prudence of their undertaking. And if it was only this Extraordinary degree of Grace that was then sufficient for the Salvation of the Persons influenced by it, that will certainly be no Precedent for what Men may Ordinarily expect now. And where so much was undoubtedly extraordinary, it will be very difficult to distinguish what was not so. At least this will be impossible to be known from the bare Historical Records of these times, wherein so many things in this very Case were extraordinary, which will, at least, suffice to show how unconcluding such Texts as these are must prove for our Adversaries purpose, without either express Promises assuring us of their actual continuance, or immutable reasons from the nature of the things: Which will confine their Proofs within a narrow compass.  
§ XV AND this will the rather appear, if it be considered further, that according to the Notions of that Age and Nation, wherein the Gospel was first Preached, whoever had the Spirit of God was thereby thought immediately to be made a Prophet. On this account Abraham is called a 
(a) Gen: xx. 7.  Prophet; and the Jews, as they pretended all of them, and they alone, to have this Spirit, so they do on that same account pretend to be a Nation 
(b) Cozri Part I. S. 95.103, 109.  of Prophets. Nor are they only the modern Jews alone who make this challenge; their Ancestors did the same. So the Author of the Book of Wisdom, among other effects of this heavenly Wisdom which with him is the same with the Divine Spirit, reckons this that it 
(c) Wisd. seven. 27.  enters into holy Souls making them Sons of God, and Prophets. And it is very probable that the Christians, who challenged to themselves all the Privileges of Israel, as being themselves that true Spiritual Israel for whom God principally designed these favours, did accordingly challenge this Privilege among the rest, that they received not the Spirit by the works of the Law, but by the hearing of Faith, 
(d) Gal. iii. 5.  and that this Spirit, which they thus received by means of their Christian Profession, made them Prophets, according to the passage in 
(e) Joel two. 28.  Joel thus applied 
(f) Acts two. 16, 18.  by them. And though the generality of Converts, then, being Heathens, had not been favourable to Jewish Notions, but those of the then prevailing Gentile Philosophy; yet even so they had been inclinable to take this Divine Spirit for a Principle of Prophecy. Every extraordinary Person was, by them, thought inhabited and influenced by a God, to be capable of conversing with Spirits when thoroughly purged from matter, to be conscious of the Divine Secrets, to have a Theurgical power. And what greater thing can be ascribed to true Prophets than these things, especially when put together? And it is observable that all the Language and Notions of Mystical Theology are borrowed from them, which do plainly suppose that these Influences of the Spirit are Extraordinary and Prophetical in all Souls capable of receiving them. And to this the Apostle seems to allude when he challenges, in the name of all Christians, to know 
(g) 1 Cor. two. 16.  the mind of Christ, and when, from the nature of the Spirit, he concludes the Spiritual man must know the 
(h) Ib. v. 10, 11.  hidden things of God, because the Spirit of God with which he is endued, is privy to them as naturally as the Spirit of every Man is privy to his own Secrets. This discovery of the Divine Secrets is that which most properly belongs to the office of a Prophet. So God is said to teach David the 
(i) Ps. LI. 6.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 
(k) Ps. xxv. 14.  the Secret of the Lord is said to be with them that fear him. And this is a thing to which I suppose our Brethren will not so much as pretend.  
§ XVI ESPECIALLY considering 2. that there were some reasons why Persons in that Age should feel extraordinary emotions upon their hearing the Christian Doctrine preached to them, which were certainly proper to that Age, and cannot now be urged with any proportionable parity. This was then to be made a proof of the Truth of that Religion whose proposal was seconded with such preternatural transports. This was a proof of our Saviour's veracity when they found the event so answerable to his Promises and Predictions. This proved him indeed to have a power over the Souls of Men, and to have the disposal of those hidden influences of the other world when they found themselves so unaccountably animated and transported beyond what could have been expected from the rational evidence of the things themselves. And therefore the Spirit thus given is said to be the 
(a) Eph. I. 13. iv 30.  seal of God, the 
(b) Rom. VIII. 23.  first fruits of their new inheritance, the 
2 Cor. I 22, V 5.  earnest of their promised future possessions, a 
(d) Eph. I. 14. Rom. VIII. 16.  witness of God to the Spirits of them who had it that they were the Children of God. And St. John tells them of this witness 
(e) 1 St. John V. 10.  of God within them, this Unction 
(f) 1 St. John II. 20, 27.  that should teach them all things, and particularly to distinguish between pretenders to the 
(g) 1 St. John IU. 1, 2, 3.  Spirit, whether their pretences were true or false? And 
(h) 1 St. John IU. 13.  hereby they might know whether they dwelled in Christ, or Christ in them, because he had given them of his Spirit. By which it appears that their having the Spirit was more notorious to them who had him than their Interest in Christ. And accordingly the state of the new Covenant, as it was then in the Apostles times, is so described that God would 
(i) Joel II. 28, 29. Acts II. 17, 18.  pour out of his Spirit on all flesh, that all should see visions and dream dreams; that 
(k) I. LIV. 13.  all should be taught of God, and so taught as that they should need 
(l) Heb. V. 10, 11.  no other Instructors; that the word of God should dwell 
(m) Col. III. 16.  plentifully in them, in their 
(n) Deut. xxx. 14. Rom. x. 8.  mouths, and in their hearts; that even Tongues themselves should be no argument to them who 
(o) 1 Cor. XIV. 22.  believed, but only to them who did not yet believe. All which things do certainly imply that they who then had the Spirit could certainly know they had it, and make an argument of it to prove the Doctrines and Spirits of others, and much more in themselves. And accordingly wherever this Spirit was given it seems generally to have discovered itself by some sensible indications in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which others were able to discern it as well as he who had it. Therefore our Saviour promises that miraculous signs should generally follow them which should 
(p) S. Mark. XVI. 17, 18.  believe; and it was by these sensible signs that Simon 
(q) Acts VIII. 18.  Magus, though a professed enemy of the Apostles, was notwithstanding convinced that the Spirit was given by the Imposition of the Apostles hands, and this by their Imposition of hands on the generality of those who had been baptised by St. Philip, that we may not suspect that their Case was then thought extraordinary. And St. Paul speaking of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, tells us that though they were distributed differently, yet that all had some. And this seems to have been continued till the Religion was sufficiently propagated, even to St. Cyprian and Lactantius' times. So far baptised Christians felt that strange and sudden change in themselves which they could not sufficiently admire, and could never have believed if they had not felt it. And particularly ordinary baptised Christians found themselves to have a power over Devils to torment and vex them, and to force them to quit their Oracles, and to confess themselves to be seducing Spirits. Now as these sensible indications to the Persons themselves are, by the confession of all Parties, long since ceased, so also this reason is ceased of the influences themselves, that the Persons who now receive the Spirit do not expect any new conviction of the truth of the Religion by which they receive it, but confess themselves abundantly satisfied with those Credentials which were exhibited at its first publication. But it is also further considerable that besides these reasons for the conviction of the Persons receiving the Spirit in those Ages,  
§ XVII THERE were also (3.) others necessary for the conviction of those Persons who were to deal with them. Especially when they were to be instructed in something new of which they were ignorant before. Thus it was necessary that the Holy Ghost should fall upon Cornelius and his company upon St. Peter's preaching to them, and before their Baptism, because else the Apostle had not been so well satisfied that it was his Duty to baptise them, notwithstanding his vision for that purpose immediately before his coming to them. At least he had wanted that satisfaction which had been requisite for his defence to others, who would have been extremely scandalised at him if he had ventured to practise upon a Revelation made only to himself. We find him expressly making this use of it as an Argument for his own direction in this affair. Who can forbid water that these should not be baptised, 
Acts X. 47. Acts XI. 17.  who have received the holy Ghost as well as we? And again, If God gave unto them the same gift as unto us who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could hinder God? The necessity hereof then appears by the Apology he was afterwards obliged to make for himself in this particular. And indeed it was very agreeable to the methods of Prophecy in that Age, for God to instruct some even inspired Persons themselves by visible signs of his influences upon others. Thus St. John Baptist himself was directed to the knowledge of our Saviour, That whereas he knew him not himself, 
John I. 33.  he who had sent him to baptise with water, had said unto him, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descend and abiding on him, that is he who baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. But much more this was requisite then when the matter was of universal concernment, and where it was convenient for the Prophet's reputation that others should be satisfied, as well as himself, that he might not seem to impose on them on his single Authority, which was exactly St. Peter's Case here. Thus the Apostles Authority was recommended to the multitude by the visible descent of the Holy Ghost upon them at the Feast of Pentecost. 
Acts II.  But now that we have no hopes of any further Revelation either concerning things or Persons; but that God hath left us entirely to our own natural Prudence, both for knowing the manner of administering those Sacraments which have been derived to us from the beginning, and what Persons have a Title to them; all those gifts of the Spirit which, on this account, were given at the Preaching of the Word cannot now be expected by us.  
§ XVIII AND yet farther (4.) even concerning that power of the Spirit which accompanies the Preaching of the Word, it is worth considering in what Preaching of the Word it may be expected, Whether it may only be expected in the Preaching of such Persons as are sent and Authorized; Or may also be expected at the Preaching of such as Preach without Authority, nay in opposition to them who are legally invested with this Spiritual Authority. And it may be, when our dissenting Brethren have thoroughly considered the now mentioned Observations, and shall then recollect their proofs for this influence of the Spirit accompanying the word Preached, which may reach our present Case, and prove it reasonable for them to expect the like influences now, possibly they will find this to be the solidest reason for their purpose to show the parity of the Case now as in the Primitive times, That, whereas they will hardly find an express and immutable Promise which may reach our times, the only reason why we may expect the like Assistance now, is that the Apostolical Office is still continued as to its Ordinaries, though it have ceased long since as to its Extraordinaries; that they who are called by Persons Authorized by God to call them are as properly Authorized by God in their several Successions, as they who were Authorized by him immediately; that deriving their Authority from God, he must in reason be obliged to second them in all Exercises of this Authority, relating to the end for which he had designed it, on the same account as every Supreme Worldly Governor thinks himself obliged, by the Principles of his Government, to ratify and promote all the Legal procedures even of his inferior subordinate Officers; and that God is rather obliged to do this than even worldly Princes themselves, because indeed the effect of all their Ministry depends on his immediate interposition, whereas the power of the Sword committed to inferior Magistrates enables them to do many things without immediate recourse to the Supreme.  
§ XIX IF this way of proceeding be allowed, it will plainly resolve all the ground of expecting this influence of the Spirit in the use of their Ministry into the Legality of their Call. And however express Promises might have been found to assure our expectation of the like influences in hearing the word Preached even in our present Age; yet certainly their actual performance could not be expected in the hearing of any but Authorized Persons, as no Supreme Prince can, in reason, be thought obliged to ratify, or second, what any Rebel or Usurper should presume to proclaim or promise in his name. The boldness of such an attempt is so far from a just title to a confirmation from the Lawful Prince, as that it is always thought to deserve the most exemplary punishment. And if this be the Case, it will serve my end as well as if these influences of the Spirit were thought to be confined to the Sacraments themselves. For this will oblige all to as strict a dependence on the Governors of the Church as the other. For both the Episcopal Clergy will be found to have as just an Authority, and the Non-Conformists as unjust a one, to Preach the Word, as to administer the Sacraments; and it is as much in their power to whom they will Preach, as to whom they will administer the Elements, and consequently it will be also as much in their power to impose Conditions for the one as for the other. And indeed my whole design, in confining these expectations to the Sacraments, is only, by this means, to confine them to the regularly-ordeined Clergy on account of that Right which they alone have to administer these Sacraments. But though these Influences had been granted always to accompany the Word preached, and by whomsoever preached; yet it were fit to be considered farther,  
§ XX 5. WHETHER this Grace accompanying this Ordinance be so great as to be able to supply the want of the Sacraments, at least so great as to secure the Salvation of those who enjoy this Ordinance whilst they want the Sacraments? That this may appear, it will be absolutely necessary, that either no grace at all be conveyed by the Sacraments which may not also be expected in hearing the Word; or that, if any be conveyed, at least it be not such as is necessary to Salvation. For if any Grace necessary to Salvation be communicated by the Sacraments, which is not communicated by Preaching, then still the Sacraments may be also necessary for the Salvation of such a Person who still enjoys the Ordinance of Preaching; and therefore he may still be obliged to submit to all unsinful Impositions in order to the obtaining these Sacraments which, on these accounts, will appear so necessary for his Salvation. But this cannot be much as plausibly pretended from any of the Texts produced for this purpose by our Brethren. Where are there any Texts that mention the pardon of their Sins, or the sanctification or acceptance of their Persons, or their actual reconciliation, barely on account of that Grace which they had received in their attendance on the Word preached? Where are they said to be thereby united to Christ, to be made members of his Body, and to be thereby entitled to his constant vital influences? These are the effects of the Sacraments, and whatever Grace may be otherwise supposed communicated in hearing the Word preached, yet, if it fall short of these, it must also consequently fall short of administering any solid security for the Salvation of the Persons so concerned. But where is it indeed that they can find that either the Persons who had received this Grace, or the Apostles who were sufficiently satisfied that they had received it, ever thought them secure without that additional Grace which they were further to expect in the Sacraments? Nay where is it that after the receiving of this Grace they do not immediately hasten to Baptism? Nay they are urged and importuned by their Converters to do so. 
Acts II. 37.  Can they deny that the pricking of the heart in St. Peter's Auditors was an effect of that Grace which accompanied the Word preached by him? Yet after this we find the Persons themselves further solicitous what they should do. 
v. 37, 38.  We find St. Peter further advising them to repent every one of them, and to be Baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and that so they should receive the Holy Ghost. Whence it appears that as yet they had not received pardon, or the Holy Ghost. Nay further he advises and exhorts them to save themselves from that untoward Generation, 
v. 40.  a plain sign that all that had been yet done was not sufficient for their Salvation. What do they think of the Ethiopian converted by St. Philip? He seems to have been a Proselyte of the Gates, at least, because he came up to Jerusalem to worship. 
Acts VIII. 27  And he had received all the Grace of the Word read as well as preached. Nay he had professed to believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. 
v. 30, 37.  Yet all this satisfied not him without Baptism. 
v. 36, 38.  And certainly they cannot think the Grace received by St. Paul himself in his miraculous conversion, inferior to any that had been received by them who had been converted by the Word preached. And the effects were answerable upon him. As soon as he had been struck down, he immediately cries out with trembling and astonishment, 
Acts IX. 6.  Lord what wouldst thou have me to do? 
v. 11.  And he was praying when Ananias was sent to him. And it should seem to be his excessive pensiveness upon that Providence that occasioned his fasting for three days together. 
v. 9.  What moral Dispositions could our Brethren themselves have required more from him for his Salvation? Yet see how Ananias accosts him: And now why tarriest thou? 
Acts XXII. 16.  Arise, and be baptised, and wash away thy Sins, calling upon the name of the Lord. It seems then, as yet his Sins were not washed away, and this was it that obliged him to make all possible haste to be baptised. And yet the Case of Cornelius was more remarkable. He was, as to his Person, a devout Man, 
Acts X. 2.  and one who feared God, and did many alms. Nay he had also this Testimony, that his Prayers and alms had been accepted by God. 
v. 4, 31.  And upon St. Peter's preaching to him, he received so plentiful a proportion of these gifts of the Spirit which accompany the Word preached, as amazed his Spectators. 
v. 45.  Yet all this was not thought sufficient to supersede the necessity of Baptism, or to delay it; but was rather thought an Argument to entitle him to it. Even Lydia whose heart God is said to have opened, and whose example our Brethren do so much insist on for proving this efficacy of the Word preached, 
v. 47, 48. Acts XVI. 14, 15.  did not think herself thereby the more excused either from receiving, or hastening, her Baptism. 
v. 29, 30.  So in the Case of the Jailor, whose excellent demeanour to St. Paul and Silas, even before his conversion, bespeaks an extraordinary change and a mighty influence of the Spirit of God upon him, though they told him that if he believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, he should be saved, and his house; yet by their proceeding with him they plainly show that their meaning was not that he should be saved by his Faith without Baptism. For the event was, that he and his household were immediately baptised upon their profession of this belief. 
v. 33. Acts XVIII. 8. Acts XIX. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.  I mention not the Baptism of Crispus the Ruler of the Synagogue, and the other Corinthians that believed and were baptised with him, nor even of those Believers at Ephesus, who notwithstanding their having already received the Baptism of St. John the Baptist, notwithstanding their belief in Christ upon the same Baptists Preaching, notwithstanding they heard St. Paul himself Preach, and therefore must in all likelihood have felt that Grace which followed his Preaching in Persons qualified to receive it, yet remained still uncapable of receiving our Saviour's Spirit till they had first received his Baptism. By all which instances it appears that how great soever the Grace of God was which then accompanied the Word Preached, yet even than it was not thought so great as to supersede, I do not say, the Use, but even the Necessity of Sacraments. So far it is from being reasonable to expect it should do so now when all confess it is not distributed in so plenteous a measure.  
§ XXI BUT though this be abundantly sufficient for my present design that this Grace is not so great as to encourage them to think themselves in a safe condition whilst they have it, though they want the Sacraments and want them through their own faults, I mean when they are unwilling to purchase them by unsinful condescensions; Yet because this is the great support of many in our Age, even who pretend to live Religiously, and I do not doubt do really mean so too, that satisfy their Consciences with frequenting Sermons, and the ordinary Prayers which accompany them, whilst in the mean time they notoriously neglect the Sacraments, even where they may have them on neither sinful, nor so much as grievous, terms, nay not on such which themselves think either sinful or grievous, and because this is a Popular mistake which certainly hinders many Conscientious Persons from discerning that danger in a state of Schism which they would certainly have discerned, and resented, otherwise; and because it must needs give greater satisfaction to Prudent Enquirers to believe that this Grace is not so great as to excuse from Sacraments when they shall understand Positively, how great it is; it will not be amiss, on this occasion, to invite our Brethren to some closer thoughts concerning this matter than possibly they may yet have entertained. Let me therefore desire them to consider further,  
§ XXII 6. Whether all the Grace, which is supposed to accompany the Word Preached, be any more than what is necessary to dispose the Auditors to receive, and believe, the Truth of the Doctrines Preached to them? Or whether there be any the least ground to believe that they shall there receive that assistance which is necessary to help them to practise what they have thus received and believed? That thus much Grace is necessary for attaining the end of Preaching will not be doubted of by those who believe the Church's Definitions against the Pelagians concerning the necessity of Divine Grace to make us willing as well as able. 
Voss. Hist. Pelag.  Nay even Julian himself went so far as to grant, at least, God's illumination. And this is indeed an eternal immutable reason why the Grace of God should accompany his Ordinance of Preaching, concerning as well our present Ages as those of the Apostles. For if this be the Case, that we can neither apprehend the reasonableness of what is preached to us without the Divine Illumination extinguishing our carnal Prejudices, and quickening and Spiritualizing our faculties, nor be willing to perform Conditions till the Divine Grace has has made us unwilling; it will thence plainly follow that some Divine Grace must be granted us Antecedently to the performance of Conditions, namely all that Grace which is requisite to make the Conditions performable by us, that is, all that which is requisite to make us willing and able to perform them. And because the Preaching of the Word is the first address made to us in God's name, and so the first ordinary step to our conversion, therefore here it is very suitable to suppose us rather Passive than Active. And therefore if God be supposed indeed to be in earnest with us in his invitations here proposed, it will be absolutely necessary that he perform those beginnings for us without which he knows it impossible that we should perform the rest. But when he has thus put it in our power to receive conviction by the Word Preached to us, this Word will direct us whence we are to expect our further supplies, and it will then be in our Power to go thither for them. And when it is thus in our power to receive those Assistances which he communicates to us in the use of the Sacraments, it will then be most agreeable to his design in instituting those Sacraments as ordinary Means of conveying those Assistances that he should oblige us to the use of them by refusing to grant them otherwise. For all the Ordinances being instituted by the same Power, it is for the reputation of the wise contrivance of them that no one Ordinance should supersede the use of the other, and that as every Ordinance has its distinct benefit, so there should be that obligation to keep up the respect due to an Ordinance of Divine Institution, that none should be encouraged to hope for the benefit but in the use of the Ordinance. And indeed the only way, to keep up a constant dependence on an Ordinance, is to confine to it the benefit to be expected by it, and therefore it is not agreeable with the Rules of the Divine Government to institute two Ordinary Means of obtaining the same benefit, so that it might be in the power of good Persons to live in a perpetual neglect of one of them, and it might be in the choice of every particular Person to choose whether of them he would be pleased to neglect.  
§ XXIII NOR is this less agreeable with the Politics of the Divine Government than it is with the ordinary methods of the Divine Goodness in other Cases. Though he be very Liberal, yet he is not Prodigal. Though he distribute favours proportionable to the necessities of all, yet he contrives no more Ordinary ways for obtaining them than what may make them possible to the generality, Many particular Individuals do want the necessary supports of his Ordinary Providence when they want the Ordinary Means of obtaining them. But much more he observes this Method of proceeding when the benefits are very excellent. For these he ordinarily appoints fewer Means, and obliges particular Persons to greater diligence if they will have them, that they may not fail of those few ordinary Means. But God is yet further more sparing in his Provisions when the benefits expected exceed the power of Nature. 
2 Kings V. 12. S. John IX. 7, 11. Numb. V 17, 18, etc.  No water but that of Jordan was allowed the power of curing Naaman's Leprosy. No Pool but that of Siloam, could recover the blind man's sight. No Water but that of Jealousy prepared according to the Rules of his own appointment could discover the Adulteress. It is sufficient in this Case that the methods prescribed by him be generally in the Power of the Persons concerned; and they are sufficiently in their Power if, by any Moral diligence, or by any lawful condescendence, they may be obtained.  
§ XXIV I BELIEVE our Adversaries will object that these are Reasons rather than Testimonies. But it may be, when they shall examine their Testimonies more narrowly, they will find that they will not be applicable to our present circumstances any farther than parity of reason will make them hold; and that these are the properest Reasons for judging of the application. And however this method of Conversion here described do fit our brethren's Systems who speak only of the Conversion of professed initiated Christians, from a bad, or careless, to a good, and considerate, way of living suitably to their Profession, yet it will certainly better fit those Conversions mentioned in the Scriptures, from a state of Judaisme, and Gentilism, to a belief, and Profession, of the Christian Religion. Now if this be the Case, not only the Grace of Conversion is to be expected in this Ministry, and that of a Conversion not from one Life to another, but only from one Religion to another, it will thence appear how little comfort can be expected from an attendance on this Ordinance without the Sacraments. For what comfort can it be only to believe the Christian Religion true without performance of the Conditions prescribed by it? Or to know what the Conditions are without ability to perform them? Or to know where this ability may be had if we do not make use of Means to come by it? Nay, to make application even to our brethren's Systems, what comfort were it, to be convinced of the necessity of a holy Life, nay to be under the greatest and most serious sense of this necessity, if they want that further Grace which is necessary to enable them to practise Holiness? Conditional Promises cannot indeed be valued as Promises to them who find themselves unable to perform the Conditions. And therefore if this ability to perform Conditions be only to be expected from the Sacraments, this will be sufficient to weaken that extreme confidence which many place in the Word preached without the Sacraments.  
§ XXV AND that this first Grace of Persuasion is all that can, in reason and Prudence, be expected from the Word Preached, our dissenting Brethren themselves may understand if they shall be pleased further to consider (7.) that this does fully answer the design of the Word Preached. The end of all Popular Discourses is only to persuade and direct, to persuade the Auditory to aim at the End proposed by the Orator, and to direct them to the most Prudent Means for obtaining that End. And therefore if God do so far assist the Word preached in his name by his Ministers as to make it effectually persuasive to such as are not deficient to themselves, and withal the Word Preached direct them further where they may be furnished with all things necessary for reducing their Convictions to Practice, this will abundantly answer the end of the Word Preached. If he be withal pleased to assist them further in the actual Practice of what they are persuaded to be necessary to be practised by them, yet that will not concern him as a Proposer of his own Will, nor consequently as he uses Preaching as a Means suitable for that purpose; but under another Notion, and therefore will be most proper for another Ordinance. I confess he might have used Words that should at once perform what they represent, as he did in the Creation, and continues to do in the Consecration of the Eucharist, not to the changing of the nature of the Elements, but to the producing those Graces in the use of them, which so much exceed the nature of those Elements. But where we have no more express intimation of his actual pleasure than we have here, there we have no better way of judging what he is pleased to do than by judging what he is, by his design, obliged to do. And whatever may be his design in other words, (as those now mentioned) yet certainly no more than I have said is rational to be expected in Words of address to Persons, and especially when those Words are urged with the usual ordinary Arts of Persuasion, as Preaching is, as practised by Ministers.  
§ XXVI BUT because one great occasion of mistake in this whole affair, is that the Spirit is conceived to accompany the Word Preached, therefore (8.) it were well our Adversaries would be pleased to consider, Whether by the Spirit he meant only an influence of the Spirit, or the Divine Person of the Spirit himself? If the Person of the Spirit were given, and ordinarily given, to qualified Hearers of the Word Preached, by virtue of the Ordinance of Preaching, and this as often as they come duly qualified for hearing it; I should then confess that the Spirit thus given would serve all Ends of the Sacraments, and make them unnecessary to such Persons. For the Spirit thus given would be a Principle of Divine Life in them, and therefore must renew, and regenerate, and sanctify, them. It must unite them to Christ, for this Unity is the Unity of the Spirit; and as they who have not the Spirit of Christ are none of his, so they who have it must be his. This must therefore entitle them to all that he has done and suffered for them. It must purify them by his blood. It must make him live and abide in them. It must convey his influences to them. It must be a Spirit of Adoption in them crying Abba Father, and assuring them that they in particular are the Sons of God. And what other favours can be expected from the Spirit which is given in Baptism? It must make them one Body with him. And that is all that our partaking in one Bread can do; or, at least, will necessarily infer whatever other favour may be expected in the Eucharist. And if we may expect new degrees of influence from it, as often as we come prepared Hearers of the Word Preached, what further interest can we have to be promoted by receiving the Lords Supper, that can either oblige us to receive it, or be taken for a likely reason why Christ should require it from us, who requires nothing from us in the Gospel, but what either already was our interest, or at least has been made so by his Institution of it, and yet for some more momentous reason than the bare exercise of our Obedience? But it is certain many more are influenced by the Spirit than they who are possessed by him. Caiaphas' 
(a) St. John XI. 51.  was influenced by the Spirit. So was Balaam, 
(b) Numb. xxii. xxiii. 2 S. Pet. II. 15, 16.  and so were all they who are said to have resisted 
(c) Acts VII. 51.  or grieved 
(d) Eph. IU. 30.  him. Our Calvinistical Brethren themselves distinguish between common and special Grace; and, to keep to the now-mentioned Notion of the Spirits making Prophets, the Jews do also distinguish between a Prophetic instinct and the Spirit of Prophecy. These first Impulses of the Spirit are so far from making Men good as that indeed there is no Man so wicked but has them at some time or other, and it is an aggravation of his wickedness by how many more he has resisted of them. They are but dispositions and inclinations to good courses; but do not turn to good will, and good resolutions, till they be consented to. And no man is to be reputed either good or bad without some kind of consent. And yet even when they are consented to, they make a man only willing; but for ability to perform what he is then willing to perform, they leave him in a need of further Assistances. At least they do not suppose the constant abiding of the same Spirit, as a constant certain Principle from whom they may still expect the like influences. Which consideration alone is sufficient to show how little confidence is to be reposed in them without the Sacraments. Now that these influences which thus accompany the Word Preached are of this kind, may appear hence, that wicked Men are as apt to feel them as others in the hearing of zealous Preachers, and may at the same time strive against them to stifle and suppress them, and this with too fatal a success. But they who have the Spirit as an inhabiting enlivening Principle, must, whilst they have it so, be predominantly influenced by it. This must at least be granted by our Calvinistical Brethren, who think no proper Grace resistible or amissible, whereas we daily see many, who have been affected with zealous Sermons, to fall totally and finally too, as far as we can judge of them. And it is clear in the Cases of Herod hearing 
(e) S. Mark VI 20.  St. John Baptist gladly, of Felix hearing St. Paul and 
(f) Acts XXIV. 25.  trembling upon it, and of all those who received the Word with 
(g) S. Mark IV. 16, 17.  gladness, yet fell away in the time of tribulation. This I take at least for an Argument ad homines. I have intimated others which I myself think more solid, but I shall not now repeat them.   

CHAP. X. The Grace, which may be obtained by Prayer is not sufficient for Salvation without the Sacraments.  
THE CONTENTS.  
§ I The Exclusive Part proved 2. as to Prayer, That neither this alone, nor the Grace which may be expected in the use of it, are sufficient for Salvation without the Sacraments. The Objection proposed. §. I.II. The Answer, 1. That no Prayers can expect acceptance with God but such as suppose the use of Ordinary Means, and consequently of the Sacraments, if they should prove such. §. III. 2. No Prayers can expect acceptance which are offered by a Sinner, continuing in the state of Sin, even at the same time when he offers them. §. iv 3. It is more to be considered what is the Ordinary Means appointed by God, than what is Ordinarily observed by the best-meaning and wisest Men. §. V 4. It is no way safe for us to venture on our own Judgements, concerning the design of God in instituting the Sacraments, to neglect them. This proved by several degrees. It is hard to know the true design of the Sacraments. §. VI They are not sure that raising Devotion by the sensible Representations was the principal design of these Sacraments. §. VII. They cannot assure themselves that this use of the sensible Representations was either the Only, or the Principal, End of the Sacraments. §. VIII. Though they were sure of these things, yet they have no reason whereby to be assured that God will be pleased with their taking upon them to judge of his designs, and, by that Means, allowing themselves the liberty of paying their Obedience at their own Discretion. §. IX. 5. Another design of the Sacraments has been proved, the confederating Subjects into a Body Politic, and the obliging Subjects in it to a dependence on their Governors. It is no way convenient that any should be excused from these Establishments upon pretences to Perfection. They who were really Perfect would not make this use of such Pretences for their own sake. §. X. They would not do it for the sake of the Public. §. XI. XII.XIII. They would not do it on account of the Divine actual Establishment, and the Divine assistances conveyed by the Sacraments, which are necessary for Perfection of the Person. §. XIV. and of his Prayer. §. XV. 6. The Scripture no where allows of such a Degree of Perfection atteinable, in this Life, as can in reason excuse from the reason of the Obligation to Ecclesiastical Assemblies. All Members of the Church need the Gifts of each other. §. XVI. They need particularly those Gifts which belong to Government. §. XVII. All the other Members need the Head; which cannot be understood of Christ, but of Persons eminently Gifted. §. XVIII. This Head not a Head of Dignity only, but also of Influence and Authority. §. XIX. Though they needed not the Gifts of others, yet they are obliged to join themselves in Ecclesiastical Societies, in regard of the good they may do to others. They are obliged to this as Platonists and as Christians. §. XX.  
THE Second Expedient which many are too apt to trust even to the neglect of the Sacraments is Prayer. And the reason which makes them inclinable to this excessive confidence in this seems to be, that as it is the Ordinary remedy to which Men betake themselves when they find themselves destitute of other supports, so withal the Benefits to be expected by it are not confined to any one certain kind. But as it is the design of Prayer to make God our Friend, so when he is made so, and that his good will is gained, all things than seem fit to be expected from him which are within his power, which is unlimited. And if this be so, that all things may be expected by Prayer, and that Prayer is the Ordinary Means of obtaining them, it must then indeed follow that there can be no obligation in interest to use any other Means. And if the Spiritual things of Religion be so Spiritually transacted in the Soul of Man as this kind of Persons seem apt to conceive, as to depend on no externals, but that rightly disposed Souls are capable of receiving them in all times and circumstances, and Prayer be the Ordinary Means to produce those Dispositions; and that it be withal one great design of the Christian Institution to restore Religion to its most natural Spiritual way of management, so that as the nature of the Spiritual things themselves require no externals for their communication as Temporals do, nay that Temporal things do so little contribute hereunto as that they cannot communicate them by any general virtue received from the Divine Institution, but that God must be present himself immediately to do the things represented by Externals, it will seem to follow that God may as conveniently communicate them without them.  
§ TWO AND this the rather if the whole design of God in instituting these Externals were only to raise the Devotion of the Persons by the lively representation of the things signified by them (as these Persons conceive this to have been his whole design in them) for then where this Devotion is already raised by other Means, there can be no need of the Sacraments, at least, to such Persons; and if there be Ordinary Means more effectual than the Sacraments themselves, either for raising the Devotion in a more Spiritual way, without any sensible Representations at all, or where such Representations themselves might seem necessary for weaker Persons of a less Spiritual apprehension, by using such as were more lively, such Provisions as these must (on these Principles) produce the effect, and consequently supersede the use of the Sacraments themselves. And the design, even of these compliances to sense, being by degrees to fit Men for more immediate and Spiritual ways of communication, as they which are more excellent and more agreeable to the nature of the things themselves; therefore by how much the more Spiritual, the more excellent they must be also, and the rather to be preferred by Persons whose improvements are so high as to make them capable of being benefited by them. But Closet-Devotions are managed in a much more Spiritual way than these at the Sacraments. And therefore they who, by a devout Meditation on the Death and Resurrection of Christ in their Closets, can find themselves more sensibly affected with them than by that sensible representation of them, by going under water and rising out of it in Baptism, cannot think themselves, on these Principles, obliged to use that which they find less sensibly to affect them. And they who by reading the Story of our Saviour's Passion, or by using a lively well-contrived Picture of it, can find themselves raised to a greater compassion than by seeing it represented in the breaking of a piece of Bread, or the pouring out some Wine, must needs, on these accounts, be induced to prefer their private Contemplations before Communion in the Eucharistical Elements. These are the degrees by which Men come from despising the Authorized Communion of the place where they are born, and of the Church in which they, or their Predecessors, were first Baptised, at length to despise all Communion, and from disparaging Notions of these Ordinances which they have first taken up only to defend a neglect of them, at length proceed to a contempt of them, and, on a pretence of their own proficiency beyond the needs of such weak Assistances, turn Superordinances. I could hearty wish that as many of our dissenting Brethren as dislike this Consequence would review their own Principles, and, at least, so far reject them as they find them, on such a review, to justify this Consequence. If they would do thus with that Equity and Candour which would become them, they would undoubtedly grant me such Principles as would much facilitate my present design.  
§ III TO come therefore more closely to my business, I shall lay down such Observations which, if the Parties concerned will be pleased to consider, may possibly let them see the grounds of their mistakes, and shall withal weaken the proposed Objection. 1. Therefore when it is pretended that it is the Ordinary Course of Men to have recourse to God for such favours as are to be expected from him, I shall desire them to consider what Men they mean? And in what Cases they ordinarily take this course? It is only the Practice of wise men that can be urged for a Precedent. And such can never think it a becoming course, nor can ever expect to be heard in such Prayers as are not accompanied with their own endeavours, so that the only Case wherein they have recourse to such Prayers, is only either for a blessing on the Means when they can procure them, or to supply the want of them when they cannot. No wise man can with any confidence expect that God should as much as supply in his Case the want of ordinary Means till he have used his utmost diligence to procure them, till he have denied all humours of his own, and submitted to any thing that is no Sin that falls out to be a Condition of procuring them. So that if there be any Ordinary Means of procuring his desires, he must first be supposed to have used these before he can with any reason expect that his Prayers can find acceptance. And therefore this pretence of the efficacy of Prayer can never encourage any to the neglect of any Conditions short of Sin that may be requisite to procure the Sacraments themselves. If there be Ordinary Means appointed for that purpose, it matters not what the reason is why they are appointed, whether it be any natural efficacy of the Means themselves, or whether it be only the arbitrary pleasure of him who has appointed them: The obligation is still the same. While they do any way put the thing in our power, we must endeavour, if we expect that our Prayers should prove successful. But suppose God would excuse our want of endeavour, yet it is further to be considered,  
§ IV 2. THAT we cannot expect that any Prayers should be heard which are offered by a Sinner continuing in the state of Sin, even at the same time when he offers them. He that neglects Ordinary Means, and is guilty of Sin in neglecting them, cannot expect that God should supply the use of those Means which he wants only by his own Sin. Now the breach of any Command of God, how positive and arbitrary soever it may seem, is certainly a Sin, if Obedience be a Duty. So that the issue of the present Question will be, not whether a devout Prayer may hope for a gracious acceptance at God's hands? But whether such a Prayer as desires the Benefits of the Sacraments whilst the Persons who prays neglects the use of them, can be indeed be esteemed by God as devout, with what warmth soever it be offered, and how much soever the Person who offers it, pretends to feel himself ravished and transported in offering it? If it be sinful, it is most certain no warmth of the Person can make it really devout. And if it be in disobedience, it is as certain that it is sinful; and as certain also that the breach of any Command whatsoever is Disobedience.  
§ V 3. THEREFORE, it is much more considerable, in this Subject, what is the Ordinary Means appointed by God, than what is the Course Ordinarily observed even by the best-meaning and wisest Men? Their good meaning may possibly do something to excuse and expiate their Sin, but can by no means recommend their Example to us as a Precedent fit to be imitated by us. It is only the observing the Divine Institutions that can secure the favour of God, and make him exorable by us. And unless this be first secured, we can have no confidence in our Prayers. I have already shown how free God is from any obligation to accept us from his own Essential Goodness notwithstanding any moral performances or dispositions, which must needs hold more firmly in Prayer which are only addresses, not performances. And yet this natural Goodness is all that can be relied on for the acceptance of these Prayers. His Promises of hearing us, as well as of his other Graces, are confined to his Covenant, and our interest in that to our performance of the Conditions, even of all those Conditions which he is pleased to prescribe. Where these are willingly neglected, we have not so much as his Goodness to plead for us. It is so far from expiating our other guilts as that it is itself a new provocation.  
§ VI 4. IT is no way safe for us to neglect the Sacraments, by venturing on our own Judgements, concerning the design of God in instituting the Sacraments. The neglect of things which he has made so sacred must prove a Crime of a very high nature if it prove one at all, that is, if we should prove mistaken in our conjectures concerning them. And where the danger is great, the Caution ought to be so too. They are not the same Probabilities that can excuse us here which might excuse us in matters of smaller importance. We ought to be very sure of God's design here before we run the hazard of practising our own thoughts concerning it. But if our Adversaries would be pleased soberly to reflect, what reason can they have to be so confident of their own Conjectures as a Practice of this nature would require them to be? Has God told them what his whole design was? This is not, that I know of, as much as pretended by them. Or are the natures of the Sacraments themselves so very obvious as that whoever considers them must needs discover their design? Whosoever thinks so, if any do so, does not consider why they are called Mysteries, which is the Greek term answering the Latin, Sacrament. If God designed them as Mysteries, certainly it must have been his design that the sacredest part of them should not be known, at least not obviously, but only to Persons very well disposed. And if so, it is not likely that he would have expressed it in the Scriptures which all may read, at least not so obviously as that every one should understand it. And if so, how come they to be so extremely confident in a matter so extremely obscure which God hath designed to conceal from them?  
§ VII BUT how come they particularly to know that the raising of Devotion by their sensible Representations was the principal design of these Sacraments? They have rather all the reason imaginable to believe otherwise. The Representation is so weak, and the Elements here made use of so unsuitable, as that any ordinary prudent Man could have made a better choice, if that had been his only design, so far they are, in that regard, from discovering a Divine contrivance. Besides the design of the Gospel being, as themselves think, so much for Spiritualizing the Divine Worship, it is not likely that God would here have instituted new representations merely for Representations sake, when he purpose-came to abolish so many Representations of his own Institution. And certainly it is much rather likely that he would never have instituted such Representations whose use should so frequently and so easily fail, than that he would permit them to be neglected as often as they should do so. If particular Persons might be excused, as often as they find other Means of raising their Affections than the Sacramental Representations, who would almost be obliged to frequent the Sacraments? They that presumed themselves most perfect (and they are generally the less perfect who presume themselves to be so) would think themselves disobliged from coming, because they needed no Representations at all. And, according to the humour of our dissenting Brethren, who generally disdain all the Externals of Religion as not only vain, but useless to a truly Religious Soul, the number would be great who would absent themselves on this account. But even the weaker sort would not want an excuse, that they could meet with many other sensible Representations which they feel more moving to themselves than those of the Sacraments. And then what need would there be of such a formal Preparation of Priests, and Altars, and appointed Solemnities, when there would be so few, if any, obliged to be present with them? Public provisions are never made by prudent Governors but upon account of general necessities. And is it probable that God should make such unalterable Provisions so little permitted to the Prudence of particular ordinary Governors, (whose office it is, by the general Principles of Government to consider and provide for rarely occurring circumstances) for so very few as by these Principles must be obliged to make use of them?  
§ VIII BUT further yet how can they assure themselves that this is the only, or the principal end of the Sacraments? If they fail in either, they cannot be excusable. If there be other ends besides the raising their Devotion by the sensible Representation, than they may be obliged to receive them for those other ends, though they had not been obliged for this. If it fail of being the principal end, it will then be much more unreasonable to neglect them for the principal end, which they do really need, on pretence that they do not need some other end which is less principal. And it will be impossible to know whether it be the only, or the principal, end till they can first assure themselves that they know all the ends designed by God in the Institution of the Sacraments. For there may be other ends that may have been designed by God, then for aught they know there are. And then how can they presume that this end which they pitch on is either the only or the principal one? How do they know but as there may be more, so there may be also more considerable ones? And indeed how can they presume to know all the Ends of what God has himself designed as a Mystery? Is it by the Scriptures? But God who designed them as Mysteries cannot be supposed to have revealed there what he designed as Mysteries. Is it therefore by the reasons of the things? But alas! how unable are they to fathom the depths of God's designs? How little acquainted with the intrigues of Providence! How little with the affairs of the other World! How little with the nature of Spirits! Nay how little with the nature of their own Souls! These are all necessary for judging right in affairs of this nature, and no doubt if we had known them very many things would appear very rational which we now think arbitrary, only because we are ignorant of them. Yet concerning these things, though we do not know the things, we do at least know our own Ignorance. But how many things more are there which may be accounted for by God in instituting the Sacraments concerning which we do not know so much as our Ignorance? And how can any than be confident that he knows all God's designs, especially in such a matter as this, merely by the reasons of the things? Certainly all these things being considered, it would be much more rational to presume that these things are not arbitrary because God has been pleased to continue them under such a Dispensation as the Gospel, than to presume them arbitrary for no other reason than because we do not know the reasons of them; and much more rational to presume that something more was designed in them than bare Representation, because they are imposed in a Dispensation so Spiritual, and which has taught us so little to esteem sensible Representations, than to conclude their unobligingness to any, because their principal design is only sensible Representation.  
§ IX BUT though they were sure that this were the mere and principal end of the Sacraments, how come they further to be sure that God will be pleased that they should take upon them to judge of his designs, and by that means allow themselves the liberty of paying their Obedience at their own discretion? How do they know but he may value their Obedience more than he does the moment of the thing which he requires of them as the instance of it? How do they know but the Precedent of neglecting their Duty, on pretence of complying with the design of it, may be of worse consequence to the Public than their reaching the End may be a service to the Public? It is certain the wisest and most public spirited Politicians have thought so in many Cases, even concerning the observation of their most arbitrary commands. It is no doubt but victory is the principal End of all Generals of Armies, Yet Manlius put his own Son to death for deserting his Station though he proved victorious by it. 
Liv. L. VIII. 7. Plut. in Parall. Liv. VIII. 30, 31, 32, 33, 34.  And Fabius very hardly escaped the like punishment from Papyrius Cursor, though his success was so great as could have been desired or expected from the most punctual observation of Military Discipline. All the intercession of the Army, and even of the Senate too, were little enough to procure his pardon, and that from a Person who had no other Quarrel with him but was concerning the public interest and the danger of his Precedent. And even among Persons who proceed not with that extreme vigour and punctuality in observing the strict measures of Justice, though Governors have so well approved of the designs of Persons who have done thus as that they have rewarded them for it, yet if they do not punish, at least they have formally pardoned, them the transgression of their Duty. And a Pardon implies the same guilt as Punishment does. So that they seem by no means willing to endure that either many should take this liberty, or that even the same Person should do it frequently. Nay they never allow it but in such Cases wherein the advantage of it is extremely considerable. Nor even in such Cases do they think it allowable, when the Party concerned, presumes on a design which the Prince had not been pleased to discover to him. In this Case his Precedent is of very dangerous consequence as well for the Presumption, in prying into what his Prince was not willing he should have known, and the great hazard of missing the design itself, as for his Practice of Disobedience. And certainly no Earthly Prince can be supposed more concerned for the Public, or more punctual in the Execution of Justice than God is. 
Gen. XVIII. 25.  The Judge of all the Earth will undoubtedly do Righteousness. This consideration may suffice to show at least how dangerous this Practice is, as our Adversaries are concerned for it, to live in a perpetual neglect of the Sacraments, on pretence of reaching the End of Sacraments by their Closet-Devotion. This is yet incomparably less excusable than any of the instances now mentioned. But there is no need thus to implead their Ignorance; for  
§ X 5. I HAVE already endeavoured to let them understand another design of the institution of these Sacraments, that is, the confederating a Body Politic, and the obliging Subjects in it to a dependence on their Governors. And if this design hold true, all sorts of Persons will be obliged to communicate in them notwithstanding the Spiritual nature of the Christian Religion. If God as a Governor and as a Covenanter be concerned to take care that the Church be erected into a Body Politic, it will also as much concern him to take care (when he has done so) that its Rules and Constitutions be punctually observed, and its Government revered, without which it is impossible for any Body Politic to subsist. And it is least of all convenient that Men should be permitted to plead exemption from these establishments upon pretence of their being perfect. For if this pretence be once allowed, the least perfect will be found most forward in their pretences to Perfection, especially if themselves be also allowed to be Judges in their own Case. And then how can it be expected that Order should be observed? And from whom can this be expected? It is certain that Modesty and Humility are the principal ingredients of true Perfection. And they who were endued really with those virtues, though God should excuse them from these external Observances, yet they could not find in their hearts to excuse themselves. They would be too conscious of their own frailties to think themselves not to stand in need of such Provisions as had been fitted by God himself for such frailties as he supposed incident to the generality of the Professors, even of the true Religion. They who were seriously of St. Paul's temper in believing themselves to be the 
(a) Eph. III. 8.  least of all Saints, and the 
(b) 1 Tim. I. 15.  chief of all Sinners, could not pretend that they needed not those reliefs which were necessary for many whom they would▪ on these terms, believe to be greater Saints, and for many whom they would be lief to be less Criminal, than themselves. And we have reason to believe that this contrivance of things was designed by God himself, and that he has therefore made good Men by how much really the better they are, by so much the less inclinable to take this Liberty, because he knows how hurtful it would be if they took it.  
§ XI AND indeed how little hurtful soever it might prove to themselves, yet certainly it must prove very hurtful to the public, that those really-weaker Persons, who, even by the Principles of these pretenders to Perfection, might be supposed to need the Sacraments, should be made less solicitous for them by this behaviour of them from whom they might justly have expected so much better an example. Which consideration alone were sufficient to oblige them who are bound to mind not only their own good, but the good of one another. We find it frequently represented as obligatory in the Scripture. Thus he who was in himself assured that no meats could contract any real pollution by being offered in Sacrifice to an Idol, was yet obliged to abstain, not only from such meats, but from any other also, and that for 
(a) 1 Cor. VIII. 13.  ever, rather than scandalise his weaker Brother by an undue use of his Liberty. Thus St. Paul shore his head for no other reason but to let the Jews understand that he 
(b) Act. XXI. 24.  walked orderly in the Law of Moses, and circumcised 
(c) Acts XVI. 3.  Timothy to please them, even after he was himself sufficiently satisfied of the little availableness of Circumcision; nay 
(d) 1 Cor. IX. 20, 21, 22.  became as a Jew to the Jew, and as a Gentile to the Gentile, and was made all things unto all Men, that by all means he might save some.  
§ XII BUT we have yet a greater Example than that of this great Apostle, even that of our Saviour himself. I mention not his 
(e) S. Luke II. 21, 22.  Circumcision, nor his Mother's Purification, which were transacted in his younger years, and by such Persons as might probably not have been so well acquainted then with those reasons of singularity in his Case which might have justified their exemption from them. When St. John Baptist would have excused himself from Baptising him on account of the little availableness of his own Baptism to so excellent a Person, Our Saviour denies not the cogency of his reasoning for proving the no-necessity of it. Yet however he desists not from his former demand, only for this reason, that he might 
(f) St. Mat III. 15.  fulfil all Righteousness. And when the tribute of the Temple was demanded from him, he first proves the unreasonableness of the demand; yet afterwards pays it that he might not 
(g) S. Matth. XVII. 24, 25, 26, 27.  offend them who understood not the singularity of his Condition.  
§ XIII AND what can these pretenders to Perfection desire more? They dare not pretend to a Perfection greater than that of the Apostle, nay greater than that of our Saviour himself. Do they therefore think themselves less obliged to avoid this scandal? Or can they better secure themselves from giving it in this practice of their Liberty? If they had those mean thoughts of themselves as not to apprehend the likelihood that weaker Persons would be influenced by their example, they could not be so easily puffed up into so great Opinions of their own Perfection. If they think Men so utterly unacquainted with their worth, as that, upon account of that ignorance, they do not think them likely to be influenced by their example; they are then to consider, whether they will not teach Men by their Practice that which they disown in their Judgement. For on this Supposition, Men will take them also for weak Persons. And then the obvious Consequence inferrible from hence will be that even weak Persons may also neglect the Sacraments. And yet even in this Case, whether Men value their example or not, yet, at least, they will be likely to derive their contagion to others, which is sufficient to render them Responsible to God for the Liberty taken by them. But if they think Men possessed with great opinions of their worth, but unacquainted with those particular degrees of proficiency which makes their Case so singular; this is the thing which will make their example so very dangerous. For the good opinion they have entertained concerning them will add Authority to their example. And their ignorance of the singularity of their Case will tempt them to believe it is not singular at all, and consequently to presume that they may also venture on it. And this is an inconvenience which they cannot possibly avoid. For the Arguments by which they are capable of judging concerning their own Perfection are of such a nature as that they are uncapable of being known by any but the Person concerned in them, if they be indeed capable of being certainly known, even by him himself.  
§ XIV BUT though they were indeed so perfect as not to need any assistance that others might be able to afford them, and though it were possible God might excuse them from giving their assistance to others less perfect than themselves, and it were also consequently possible that they might have been excused from associating themselves in the external Communion of the visible Church on those accounts; Yet if God have been actually pleased to order the matter otherwise, both to oblige them to associate themselves, and in order thereunto to confine the ordinary communication of his Graces to the Sacraments (as by our Hypothesis we suppose him to have actually done) this is a reason which will oblige the perfectest Persons that are to frequent the Sacraments. For suppose they were already so perfect as to need no assistances from Men; yet can they have the confidence to pretend the same perfection in reference to God also? They will not, they dare not, pretend themselves so perfect as to stand in no need of the Divine favour. They cannot challenge acceptance, even upon the most perfect performance of the Moral Duties of Religion, were it not that God has been pleased to promise acceptance on the performance of those Duties. They can neither continue to will nor do, nor consequently continue in the state of Perfection without new and continued assistances of the Divine Grace. And if these constant communications of new Grace without which, the most perfect Persons that are, are not able to perform their Duty; and if this Title to acceptance, even on performance of Duty, without which the most perfect performance of Duty were not available, be both of them confined to the Sacraments, as these are things which the most perfect that are do stand in need of, so they must also need the Sacraments, if without them these things be not attainable.  
§ XV AND proceeding on the same Principles, the Sacraments will appear necessary, not only to the perfection of the Person who prays, but also to the perfection even of his Prayer itself. Indeed if Prayer were only a lip-labour, a repetition of the words wherein the Prayer is expressed; if it were only a readiness of inventing those expressions, or a volubility of the Tongue in pronouncing them; if it were only a heat of fancy, or a warmth of temper, or a natural Enthusiasm peculiar to some tempers; if it were any of these things which are usually mistaken for it by our dissenting Brethren: I should then indeed not wonder that a perfect Prayer should be separable from the Sacraments, because I know such a Prayer as this is separable from a good Life itself. But if perfect Prayer be wholly transacted in the Soul of him that prays; if it be a real and hearty sense of his want of the things he prays for, and a sincere desire of them, and an entire Resignation unto the Divine Will in things wherein he desires the Divine conduct; if it be to think seriously as he speaks, and to be affected as he thinks; if it be Prayer 
(a) Eph. VI 18.  and supplication in the Spirit, which helps 
(b) Rom. VIII. 26.  their infirmities and intercedes with sighs and groans unutterable: than it will be as impossible to suppose such a Prayer separable from the Sacraments, as it is to suppose it separable from that Grace which, according to our Principles, is confined to the Sacraments. Such a Prayer as this must necessarily suppose a good Man, and he who is perfect in it must be perfect in goodness too. For this must suppose good inclinations as well as good Actions, and therefore must suppose extraordinary degrees of Grace, and a fixed inhabitation of the Spirit as an abiding and enlivening Principle, which if they be not separable from the Sacraments, this kind of Prayer will also be inseparable from them. At least these other Popular Principles of Prayer are so like in their signs, as to us, to the Spirit itself, that it will be, at least extremely hard, if at all possible, to distinguish them. And therefore it will be a much surer way of arguing to prove a Prayer imperfect if it proceed not from the Spirit, than any other Argument can be to prove it perfect distinct from the Spirit. And we have just reason to suspect that he wants the Spirit who has neglected the ordinary means of coming by it, what preternatural transports soever he may feel otherwise. As therefore none can rationally presume that his Prayer is perfect unless he can be rationally assured that he has these Assistances of the Spirit which are requisite to make it so; so none can rationally presume that he has these Assistances, but by his frequenting the Sacraments themselves, wherein, according to these Principles, these Assistances are only to be expected. By which way of proceeding, a perfect Prayer must suppose the use of the Sacraments; so far it will prove from being an Argument to excuse any from them. Nor are these Assistances necessary only to make a Prayer perfect, but also to continue it so, and the Sacraments as necessary to continue these Assistances to a Prayer that is already perfect, as at first to give them, whilst it was imperfect. Which will oblige all, even whilst their Prayer is already perfect to continue the use of the Sacraments if they would continue that Perfection, as well as suppose that they must have made use of them at first before they could attein to that Perfection.  
§ XVI BUT it is further considerable, 6. That the Scripture no where allows such a degree of Perfection attainable, in this Life, as can in reason excuse, I do not only say, from the obligation to enter into Ecclesiastical Assemblies, but also, from the reason of that obligation. One great reason which may oblige any one, in interest, to enter into a Society, and consequently to submit to such conditions without which he cannot expect Admission from them who are supposed alone to have the power of admitting him, is the advantage he may receive from other Members of the Society who are endued with gifts which he cannot pretend to, and which yet he finds very necessary for himself. This is the most likely account why a perfect Person should not need these Assemblies, because such a dependence on others gifts must necessarily suppose the Person so depending imperfect, at least in those gifts for which he depends on others. But whether this notion of Perfection may deserve the name of Perfection properly, or not, it may at least deserve it comparatively, in regard of others inferior to it. And it is plain that the Perfection spoken of in Scripture is such as is only gradual, and still capable of further improvement; and that the highest degree of if attainable in this Life does not make any so perfect as not to need the gifts of others. This is the Apostles express Doctrine, even where he speaks of the gifts of the Spirit: That 
(a) 1 Cor. xii. 11.  he distributes his gifts to every one as it pleases him; That he gives 
(b) Rom. xii. 3, 6.  a certain measure of this miraculous Faith to every one, which I take to be the true meaning of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned afterwards; That 
(c) 1 Cor. seven. 7.  every one has his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that; That to every one of us is given Grace, but 
(d) Eph. iv. 7.  according to the measure of the gift of Christ. And accordingly the fullness, which is that which answers these terms of measure and proportion, is still ascribed either to Christ 
(e) S. J●hn I. 14, 16. Col. I. 19. II. 9.  himself, or the 
(f) Col. I. 23.  Church, never to any particular Member. And the very design of the Spirit in distributing his Graces so very differently is described to be, that he might, by this means, oblige them to a mutual dependence; That as in the natural Body the several Members have different employments, and it is by this peculiarity of employments that the Unity of the whole Body is maintained, he has taken the same course to oblige them to the same mutual dependence in the Body Mystical. Here also the several Members have not the same 
(g) Rom. xii. 4.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is the Apostles word. Here also the whole 
(h) 1 Cor. xii. 14, 20  Body is not one Member, but many; and the Apostle takes it to be as destructive 
(i) v. 19.  to the Body Mystical, as it would be to the Body Natural, if it were otherwise. And that he means by the difference of Members, not a difference of Individuals only, but a difference of Office which makes them all necessary to each other, he plainly shows by his continuation of the same Allegory; That as in the natural Body 
(k) v. 17.  the Eye needs the Ear to hear by, and the Nose to smell by, as well as both those Organs need the Eye to see by; so it is also in the Body Mystical: That as 
(l) v. 21, 22, 23.  the Eye cannot say to the Hand, I have no need of you, nor again the Head to the Feet, I have no need of you; but by so much the more those Members which seem to be weaker are yet necessary; and as upon those Members of the Body which seem to be less honourable we yet bestow the more abundant honour, and our more uncomely parts have the more abundant comeliness: So by the same proportion of reason he plainly implies that the more noble and more perfect gifts and Members must yet not be understood to be so perfect as to stand in no need of the Assistance of the least perfect ones. And he after tells us that God has therefore followed our example in the Body Mystical also, in bestowing 
(m) v. 24, 25.  more abundant honour on those Members which most wanted it, for this very reason, that there might be no SCHISM in the Body. From whence our Brethren may be pleased to observe the original of this term, which will be of great consequence for stating the true Notion of it. But of this I may possibly discourse more largely in the Second Part. At present I only observe that this independence of one Member on another, and the consequent withdrawing of the correspondence of any particular Member from the rest, how perfect soever he pretends to be, is that which the Apostle stigmatizes here expressly by the name of Schism.  
§ XVII BUT that I may bring this whole Discourse yet more close to my present design, it is yet further observable that among these gifts of the Spirit which are reckoned as necessary for the whole, the 
(a) Rom. xii. 8.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from whence the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so frequently given to the Governors of the Church, and the 
(b) Cor. xii. 28.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are expressly mentioned. And in all likelihood this was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was then reputed so necessary for Persons to be ordained, the 
(c) 1 Tim. iv. 14. 2 Tim. I. 6.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which St. Timothy received by imposition of hands. And to know who had this gift there was also in in those Ages given another gift, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the 
(d) 1 Tim I. 18. iv 14.  Prophecies mentioned concerning St. Timothy, in relation to his Ordination, the trial by the Spirit in 
(e) Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Cor.  Clemens Romanus, and the 
(f) Clem. Alexandr. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. & apud Ewes. I.III. Eccl. Hist. c. 23.  signification of the Spirit in him of Alexandria. For if it had been any natural gift which they were then so careful should be in Persons to be ordained by them, it had not been necessary that their Ordainers should have been endued with another gift to know it. And particularly this gift of the Spirit to fit Men for Government was a thing the Jews had been so well acquainted with in the Old-Testament-instances of 
(g) Numb. xxvii. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23.  Joshua, and 
(h) 1 Sam. x. 9.  Saul, and 
(i) 1 Sam. xuj. 13.  David, and many others; nay was the very Mystical Union which the external Unction did only signify and convey, from which their Governors were called the 
(k) 1 Sam. xuj. 6. XXIV. 6, 10. XXVI. 9, 11, 16, 23. 2 Sam. I. 14, 16. XIX. 21. XXIII. 1. Lam. iv. 20. 1 Sam. II. 25. 1 Chron. vi. 42. XVI. 22. Ps. CXXXII. 10, 17. LXXXIV. 9. LXXXIX. 38, 51. Hab. III. 13.  Lords Anointed Pursuant whereunto it is that (according to the rules of the Philosophy then current, which ascribed the Truth of names rather to the Spiritual things which were represented than to the sensible signs and Types which represented them) the Spirit itself is called Unction by 
(l) 1 John II. 20, 27.  St. John that, upon these considerations, it is very unlikely that this gift should have been wanting in those times, where every thing was so fitted to the Jewish Notions, and wherewithal it was so very necessary for the Christian themselves though they had less regarded the Jews in this particular than we find they did in many others. Nay how near a Title even Ecclesiastical Governors as well as others (how little Spiritual soever they were as to their Persons,) were then thought to have even to the Extraordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on account of that gift of the Spirit which they were supposed to receive upon their investiture into their Office, appears from this, that the Evangelist gives this as the reason why even Caiaphas Prophesied, because he was High Priest 
(m) S. John XI. 51.  that time when he did so. If therefore this was a gift which obliged all that wanted it to a dependence on them who had it, how much less perfect soever they were in other regards; than it will plainly follow that no pretence of Perfection whatsoever could exempt from a dependence on their Governors. Which will more immediately reach my purpose than if they had depended on the Sacraments themselves, or any other Exercises, or Solemnities, of the Ecclesiastical Assemblies.  
§ XVIII AND the same thing seems very probable from hence, that, among the Members which are instanced in as necessary, the Head is mentioned as one. Certainly there is no office in the Body Mystical so suitable with that of the Head in the Body natural as that of Governing. Nor can it here be understood of Christ, who is indeed frequently called the Head of the Church, because such a Head is here spoken of as 
(n) 1 Cor. XII. 21.  cannot say to the Feet, I have no need of you, that is, such a Head as is capable of receiving necessary offices from the other Members, as well as of performing necessary offices for them. And though it should he understood of particular Governors, yet it cannot be thought more strange that, in this Allegory, all particular Governors should be represented under the Metaphor of one Head than it is that all their Churches, are frequently in the Scripture, called one Church, and here are represented in a Metaphor exactly answering the other, that of one Body. And the utmost that can be made of this expression will only amount to the one Episcopacy in St. 
(o) de Vnit. Eccles.  Cyprian, which he makes common to all particular Bishops. And it deed when one Body had been mentioned before, it had spoiled the suitableness of the Metaphor to have mentioned any more than one Head. Though indeed a shorter way might have been taken for giving an account of this whole matter, that it is not distinction of Persons, but distinction of 
(a) Rom. XII. 4.  Office, which is here taken notice of by the Apostle for the constitution of a distinct Member. And therefore though the Persons of Governors be different, yet so long as their office is undoubtedly the same, and it is the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that qualifies them for that office, that is sufficient to show how they may be here all accounted for under the Notion of one Head. And if we may have leave to urge the Allegory further, as the Apostle shows us a Precedent in other the like Arguments from, and applications of, the same Allegory, that the dependence of other Members on the Governors of the Church must be as great as that of the Members of the natural Body on their Head; this will both show how extremely dangerous it must be for them to be cut off from the Communion of their Governors on any account, That it must be in an ordinary way as impossible for such Members to live, as it is for Members of the natural Body when they are deprived of those influences which they receive from their Head; and how necessary it must be for them rather to submit to any Conditions short of Sin than to suffer themselves to be reduced to so dangerous a Condition.  
§ XIX I KNOW there is another notion of the word Head, not for a Head of influence and Authority, but of eminency and dignity only; and I know that this is a Notion used in the Scripture also where the 
(b) Is. IX. 14, 15.  Head and Tail are taken for the most worthy and unworthy places, as here the Head and Feet may be taken for the same with the more noble and base Members in the next verse, and I know that this Notion is suitable enough to the Hebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Syriack Idiom. But withal when I consider how much 
(c) Numb. XXV. 15. Judg. X. 18. XI. 8, 9, 11. 1 Sam. XV. 17. Ps. XVIII. 43. Is. VII. 8, 9 Host I. 11.  oftener it is used, even in that stile itself, for a Head of influence and Authority than of dignity only; how much more natural it is in this particular Allegory, where all things in this Mystical Body of Christ are so exactly parallelled with the like things in the natural Body, nay where they are parallelled in this very instance of the derivation of influences from Member to Member, by which mutual communication the whole Body Mystical is supposed to be maintained, the same way as the Body natural is; When I consider that this communication of influences is that which is absolutely necessary to the Apostles design in this place, to show the mutual need that the Members have of each other, and that a bare Priority and Posteriority of dignity would be utterly impertinent to this purpose, and of the two would rather seem to prove the contrary; When I consider further that according to the customs of those times it seems very probable that according to the greatness of their Gifts they were usually entitled to their several Offices, that as their Gifts were generally given them for the service of the Public▪ not for themselves, so they who were found to have the greatest Gifts were generally preferred to the most eminent Offices; Nay when I consider that at first, before the settlement of an ordinary Government in the Christian Societies, that is, while they concorporated themselves with the Jews, and met together with them in their Synagogues, and as to any external coercion depended also on the Government of the Synagogue, and before there was an ordinary course taken for deriving Authority regularly to Posterity (which was not so necessary at first till they were put upon it either by the gradual decay of these Gifts, or at least of the Evidences of them, and the multitude of false pretenders to them, or by the disorderliness of the administration of them in their public Assemblies) the very Gifts themselves seem immediately, without any further approbation of Man, to have entitled them to the several Offices, and accordingly the Offices themselves are reckoned as 
(d) 1 Cor. XII. 28.  Gifts, as indeed the Case now described seems really to have been the Case of the Corinthians when this Epistle was written, that they were not as yet under any settled establishment for Government; and St. Paul proves his Apostleship, among other things, from his Gifts, on which supposition this latter exposition that the Head and Feet signifying higher and inferior dignity of Gifts must infer the former, that the same Persons who were so qualified for their Gifts were accordingly ranked in their Offices in the Church, and the interest they had in the Government, yet still with this advantage for the former Exposition, that that does more immediately comply with the Apostles design in showing the mutual necessity and usefulness of the Members to each other: I say, all these things being considered, whatever may be thought of this latter Exposition otherwise, yet it can hardly be thought so peculiar to the Apostles meaning as to exclude the former, on which I have grounded my Argument.  
§ XX BUT supposing this were true as we have proved it false, that some Men might be so perfect, even in this Life, as not to need the Society of others in regard of any advantage themselves were capable of receiving by such a Society; yet still they might be obliged to it, and to submit to all unsinful Conditions of being admitted into it, on account of the benefit that others might be capable of receiving from them. Even the Principles of that Philosophy which generally inclines Men to these Enthusiastic fancies, I mean the Platonical, would have taught them that they are 
(a) Tull. Somn. Scipion.  not born for themselves, and that all the good which they are able to do they are also bound to do by the great design of Societies, and of God himself, if he design the maintenance of them, whose principal advantage is this, that they who of themselves are weak may there expect the benefit of all the gifts of those which are more able. But the Christian Religion does further assure us that all our Gifts are 
(b) S. Matth. xxv. 15.  Talents, which we are bound to improve for the good of others as well as our Selves, and that accordingly we must at length be accountable, not only for the Principal itself which we have received, but also for the 
(c) v. 27.  improvements we might have made if we had used our utmost diligence in improving them; and for those Gifts, whose nature is rather to be useful for others than for the Possessor, they are such wherein Men are principally obliged to use this diligence; that all Men have some of these; but that they who are perfect must be supposed to enjoy them in a more plentiful measure: And indeed none are more capable of doing good to others than they who are perfect themselves. They must be supposed to be best experienced, their Examples would be more securely imitated (and in matters of this nature Examples are more instructive than the most accurate Notions) there would be that pretence which the vulgar are too apt to make use of, to recommend the very failings of great Persons by the Authority of the Persons who are guilty of them. These would approve the Practicableness of Virtue, even in our present Age and circumstances, and the very reverence which Men would have for such Persons must needs go far to recommend their advices and Instructions. And yet all these usefulnesses would be in a great measure lost if this Perfection were practised any where else than in the visible Communion of the Church where all Men might observe it. And particularly, how very useful would they prove to the Public who had attained to the Perfection of Prayer? How generous and noble, how free from corruption and base designs, must those excellent Souls prove who had by this exercise raised themselves above the World, and temporal considerations? With what a vigorous Zeal? with what courage and confidence, must they be animated, both to undertake and dispatch their great designs, when they undertook them purely for the sake of God, and the love of Goodness; and when they might therefore confidently expect his irresistible assistance? Who could have the confidence to oppose them when they might justly fear lest they should oppose God himself in doing so? This is an obligation to the Public from which Perfect Persons are so unlikely to be excused on account of their Perfection, as that indeed their being supposed Perfect is a stronger Argument to prove them obnoxious to it.   

CHAP. XI. Prayers for Persons out of the Church have no encouragement that they shall be accepted.  
THE CONTENTS.  
7. The Scripture gives us no encouragement to believe that any Prayers shall be heard which are made out of the Communion of the Church, or even in the behalf of those that are so, excepting those which are for their conversion. This proved from St. John who was the only Apostle who lived to see the Case of Separation. §. I. St. John xvii. 9. §. II. Where by being given to Christ is meant a being given by external Profession. §. III. By the World all they are meant who were out of the visible Society of the Professors of the Christian Doctrine. §. JU.U. They are said to be in the World purely for this reason, because they did not keep to the Society of the Church. §. VI The same thing proved from 1 St. John v. concerning the Sin unto Death. The Argument according to the Alexandrian Ms. §. VII. According to the Vulgar Reading. The Sin unto Death is leaving the Oxthodox Party. §. VIII. IX.X.XI. The same thing proved from 2. St. John 10, 11. §. XII. Pardon possible for Persons out of the Church's Communion upon their admission into it, according to the Doctrine of those times, but much more difficult for Relapsers than others. The latter part proved from 2 Pet. II. 21. §. XIII. and from Heb. X. 25, 26, 27. §. XIU.XU. and from Heb. XII. 15, 17. 1 Joh. V 16. §. XVI. and from other Arguments. §. XVII. XVIII. The actual practice of the Primitive Church not to pray for Spiritual benefits for those who were not actual Members of the Church's Communion. §. XIX.XX. An application of what has been said. §. XXI. Object. That these things are spoken of a total relapse from Christianity, not from one Party of Christians to another. §. XXII. That Life was properly ascribed to the true Christ as the Messiah according to the Notions of the Ordinary Jews. §. XXIII. and according to the sense of the generality of the first Converts to Christianity. That the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was thought to be the proper Principle of Life. §. XXIV. That the Messiah as Messiah was to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also. §. XXV. Answ. 1. It were well our Brethren would allow the same Candour in expounding other Texts produced by them, as they do in these produced against them. §. XXVI. 2. It is not likely that the Antichrists of those times did generally deny the true Christ to be so. §. XXVII. XXVIII.XXIX. 3. Whatever the occasion was, yet the reasoning used in those Disputes is to prove their being separated from Christ from their being separated from the External Communion of the Visible Church. §. XXX.  
§ I BUT to speak yet more closely to the Case of Prayer, I consider further 7. That the Scriptures give us no encouragement to believe that any Prayers shall be heard which are made out of the Communion of the Church, or even in the behalf of those who are so, excepting those which are for their conversion. And no Prayers can be thought to supply the want of the Sacarments but only such concerning which the Person who makes them may be confident that they shall find acceptance. I know this will look like a Paradox to them who have been accustomed to believe otherwise. But I shall entreat them to consider what I shall say concerning it impartially, because they are very highly concerned if they should prove mistaken concerning it. Of all the Apostles St. John is the only Person concerning whom we have reason to be confident that he lived to see the open separation of the Heretics from the Church's Communion, at least so as to convene in opposite Assemblies. Hegesippus assures us that till Trajan's time, the Church of Jerusalem, at least, 
Apud Eus. L. III. Hist. Eccl. C. 32. L. IV. 22.  continued a pure Virgin. So far he says that if there were any of them, they did yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, lurk in dark dens, a Metaphor taken from hurtful Beasts; But that after the Apostles were all gone by different sorts of deaths, and that that generation was passed of them who had had the honour to hear the Divine wisdom with their own ears; then began the conspiracy of Atheistical Error by the deceit of other Masters, who, when none of the Apostles were now left to confront them, had then the confidence to preach up their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in opposition to the Preaching of the Truth. Though the Case be here mentioned only of Jerusalem, yet the reason extends to all other places whilst any Member of the Apostles were living. And it is very probable that it was in memory of these happy times of Unity as far as he was capable of remembering them, which was not very far, that St. 
(a) Ep. ad Florin. apud Eus. L. v. c. 20.  Irenaeus tells us that Polycarp, when he saw the multitude of Heresies in the second Century used to cry out, O God to what times hast thou reserved us! From St. John therefore we have reason to expect that he should speak more distinctly to our Case than any of the rest because he lived to see more of it than they did.  
§ TWO AND in him we have our Saviour's Intercession on Earth, no doubt a pattern of what we have reason to believe is continued by him in Heaven, only for Members of the Church: I 
(b) John XVII. 9.  pray for them. I pray not for the World, but for them whom thou hast given me. And lest we should understand this Intercession to have been proper for the Age wherein it was made, he afterwards expressly adds: 
(c) v. 20.  I pray not for them only, but for all those who shall hereafter believe on me through their word. Here we find that the Prayer of Christ is expressly confined to those, and those alone, who either than were, or should afterwards be, given him; and that the World is as expressly excluded from the benefit of his Prayers. It remains therefore only to show who these are who are said to be given him? and who they are who are signified under the Notion of the World? Which are the rather to be explained because of the Popular mistakes, concerning both, of them who choose rather to bring their Notions to the Scriptures than to deduce them from them.  
§ III AS to the meaning therefore of this giving, if we may judge of it by the Parallel expressions here used concerning it, it will rather imply a giving by external Profession, than of a giving of Predestination, in the sense wherein Predestination is commonly understood, that is such as is infallible in the event. For thus it is explained by their 
(d) v. 8.  knowing assuredly that Christ came from the Father and by their believing that the Father had sent him. And accordingly they who are opposed to them who are already given him, that is, they who were to be given him for the future, are they who should afterwards 
(e) v. 20.  believe on him through the word of the Apostles, in the place already mentioned. And thus Judas said to be 
(f) v. 12.  given him, who yet seems never to have been Christ's otherwise than by an external Profession: Not by Grace, for he is said to have been a 
(g) Joh. XII. 6.  Thief, and to have had a 
(h) John VI 70.  Devil in him, before his attempt to betray his Master; Not by Election, in our Adversaries sense, because he fell away totally and 
(i) Joh. XVII·12.  finally, and therefore also, by their Principles, could never have been really in a state of Grace. So he also prays that his Father would 
(k) v. 11.  keep them in his name whom he had given him, which he afterwards explains by 
(l) v. 15.  keeping them from the evil of the World. But giving in our Adversaries sense, for giving effectually and finally, had employed keeping them, and therefore could have left no room for a new request of that nature. And the Phrases of 
(m) v. 11, 12. v. 17, 19  keeping them in his name, and of sanctifying them by the Truth, seem rather to imply the Party they were of, than any peremptory Decree concerning them what they should be. That of being in his name seems to imply their being 
(n) 2 Chron. VII. 14. Is. XLIII. 7. LXV. 1. LXIII. 19. Jer. XIV. 9. Dan. IX. 19.  called by his name as it is expressed in the Old Testament, that is their owning him for their God, their giving up their names to him, and styling themselves his Servants, in opposition to the Gods of the Heathen, and his owning them for his People in opposition to all other People's whatsoever. So that by keeping them in his name is understood a keeping them in that visible Society which he was pleased to own for his People. And the same thing is generally understood in the stile of St. John by the term of Truth, the true Orthodox Party in opposition to all erroneous ones, as appears generally in the same Apostles Epistles, which seem generally to have been written in the same later times of that Apostle as his Gospel was, and on the same occasions, and with the same design, to keep the Persons he wrote to from the Societies of those Seducers who then began to appear. So to 
(a) 2 John 4. 3 John 3, 4.  walk in the Truth is plainly to be of the true Communion out of which those deceivers had departed. And to have 
(b) 2 John 2.9, 10.  the Truth remaining in them is the same thing with remaining in the Doctrine of Christ, which is immediately opposed to the receiving him who should bring another Doctrine. Which plainly implies only an external Profession of that Doctrine, and a keeping within the Society of them who did so. I need not multiply instances out of the First Epistle where it seems also to have been the constant language of this Apostle in the matter we are speaking of. St. Peter also seems to have used it the same way, where he exhorts 
(c) 1 Pet. V 12.  and testifies that that was the true Grace wherein they stood to whom he then wrote, which he does plainly to prevent their falling away to those deceiver of which he then only Prophesied that they should come, and therefore still understands it of that visible Society wherein the true Doctrine of the Gospel, (which was then frequently called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) was taught and professed. And that St. John speaks consonantly to himself even here also in his Gospel, appears plainly in this that they who are said to have been given him by his Father are they who have 
(d) John XVII. 6.  kept his word. And what that word is appears also from v. 17. where it is said to be Truth. So that as the word of Christ rather implies the Doctrine of Christ than his Commands (at least when it is made to be the same with the Truth, we have seen it explained so by this Author himself in the forementioned passage of his Second Epistle) so the keeping of this word as true must accordingly rather signify an adherence to the Profession of this Doctrine as true, and consequently a continuing firm to that Society wherein it was taught, than a practice of its Prescriptions as useful and convenient. And accordingly when he prays that his Father would 
(e) v. 17.  sanctify them in this Truth, as he plainly implies that they might be in the Truth without any further Holiness than that of external Profession only; so the thing he further desires for them is that his Father would further improve this Profession of the Truth of his Doctrine into a Practice of what they believed which was that alone which could effectually sanctify them.  
§ IV SO also by the World, who are expressly excluded from the benefit of Christ's Prayers, all they are meant who were out of the visible Society of the Professors of the Christian Doctrine, at least this seems to be the meaning of it in the customary stile of this Apostle. The World is said not 
(f) John XVII. 25.  to know either Christ or his Father, in the same sense as the Disciples are said to have known them. And this knowledge is plainly explained in the same place what it is, that it was their knowledge that Christ was 
(g) Ib. v. 8, 25.  sent by his Father. It seems therefore that the World who in this sense did not know him, were not they only who denied him in their Works by not practising as the belief of his true Mission would have obliged them to do, but they who denied him even as to the very external Profession. And on the contrary they who in this sense are said to have known him are they who, whatever their works were, yet at least joined with others in an external Profession of a belief that Christ was the Son of God, and the true Messiah, and a Prophet sent by God. And this is the rather credible to have been St. John's meaning, because we find it to have been the pretence of the Seducers alluded to by him, that they also pretended to 
(h) 1 Joh. two. 4.  know him in owning the Antichrists which they received in his stead. Therefore it is that in opposition to this pretended knowledge of theirs; he does also so frequently make use of the same word though in a more justifiable sense. Nor does he observe this only in his Epistle, but in his 
(i) 1 Joh. three 14, 16. v. 13, 16. v. 15, 18, 19, 20. Joh. nineteen. 35. xxi. 24.  Gospel also. As whoever will accurately observe, will find that most of his peculiar terms, which he seems so much pleased with, and which he therefore does repeat so frequently, were such as were taken from the pretences of the adversaries, and by him challenged as justly due only to the Orthodox Communion; and that this is observed in his Gospel as well as in his Epistle.  
§ V This is an observation, though little taken notice of, yet of great consequence for rightly understanding all this Apostles writings, and particularly to our present design, and therefore I desire the Reader that he would be the more mindful of it. For on this supposition the controversy will appear plainly so have been between the Society of the Church, and all those opposite visible Societies of deceivers who had departed from the Church. As therefore these Deceivers did pretend only to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (if this be that from whence the Gnostics received their name, who seem to have appeared more publicly about these times), and consequently held all that were not visibly of their parties, to be 
* 
§ VI So Irenaus concerning Simon Magus. 
Iren. adv. haeres. l. 1. c. 20. ib. c. 21. c. 22.  Quapropter & solvi mundum & liberari eos, qui sunt ejus, ab imperio eorum, qui mundum fecerunt, repromisit. Concerning Menander: Dare quoque per eam quae a se doceatur magiam scientiam addidit, ut ipsos qui mundum fecerunt, vincat Angelos. So Saturninus pretended that the World was made by the seven Angels, among whom he reckoned the God of the Jews for one, and that the design of Christ's coming was for the overthrow of him and the other evil Daemons, and for the Salvation of them who believed him, that was of them who had scintillam vitae ejus, that is of Christ as he was the Principle of Life. So Basilides: 
c. 23.  Innatum autem & innominatum Patrem videntem perditionem ipsorum misisse primogenitum Num suum, & hunc esse qui dicitur Christus, in libertatem credentium ei a potestate eorum qui mundum fabricaverunt. And afterwards: Et liberatos igitur eos qui haec sciant a mundi fabricatoribus Principibus, that is by their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And again: Siquis igitur confitetur, Crucifixum, adhuc hic servus est, & sub potestate eorum qui corpora secerunt: qui autem negaverit, liberatus est quidem ab iis, Cognoscit autem dispositionem innati Patris. And again: Igitur qui haec didicerit, & Angelos omnes cognoverit, & causas eorum, invisibilem & incomprehensibilem eum Angelis & potestatibus universis fieri, quemadmodum & Calaucau (so they called the Redeemer himself) & sicut filium incognitum omnibus esse, sic & ipsos à nemine oportere cognosci, sed cù ● sciant ipsi omnes, & per omnes transeant, ipsos omnibus invisibiles & incognitos esse. Tu enim, aiunt, omnes cognosce, 
c. 24.  te autem nemo cognoscat. So Carpocrates thought that the Soul of our Saviour himself was herein like the Souls of other men, and that it was only by its Parity and contempt of these Angels, the makers of the world, that he had that virtue sent him by which he was enabled to escape them. Ea igitur quae similiter atque illa Jesu anima potest contemnere mandi fabricatores Archontas, similiter accipere virtutes ad operandum similia. And accordingly they thought it possible for them who could despise these makers of the World more than our Saviour himself did, to be more perfect and better than he was. Si quis autem plus quàm ille contempserit ea, quae sunt hìc, posse meliorem quàm illum esse. And to this purpose they made use of Magical Superstitions, pretending hereby to have potestatem ad dominandum jam Principibus & fabricatoribus mundi hujus. Non solùm autem, sed & his omnibus quae in eo sunt facta. More may be seen to this purpose in that same place concerning their Exposition of the passage in St. Matthew, 
Matt. v. 25.  Agree with thine Adversary quickly while thou art in the way with him. which they understand of one of these Angels of the World, as also the Manichees afterwards. 
Iren. L.i. c. 29.  The same thing also was pretended by Martion, that the design of Christ's coming was to dissolve the Law and the Prophets, and all the works of the God that made the World, whom he also called the Cosmocrator. Many more things might have been produced to this purpose, if it had been necessary. For it seems indeed to have been the general sense of the Heretics of those times. Thence the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the matter was to put upon their heads to make them invisible to the Daemons of the World. Thence their forms of Baptism, 
Iren. L.i. c. 18.  wherein the Baptised Person was to make this Profession, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Thence their forms of Prayers, and addresses to be made to every one of these seven Angels of the World, 
Orig. c. Cels. L. iv Porphyr. de Abst. L.ii. p. 157. Poem. c. 1.  which may be seen in Origen; not unlike that Form, translated as it should seem, out of the Egyptian Heathen Ritual of Hermes by Euphantus in Porphyry, that they might gain their good will for a passage through their respective Jurisdictions. So also the Author of Poemander, under the name of Trismegistus, gives a particular account what the soul was to leave behind it at each of the seven Planets of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And that Author in all likelihood was one of those early Egyptian Heretics. Nor was there any thing in this whole Hypothesis but what agreed exactly with the Notions, 
Vid. Macrobius. in som. Scipion. Porph. de Ant. Nymph. & alios.  and generally with the very language of the Platonists and Pythagoraeans of that Age. They also made it the great design of their Philosophy to endeavour the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Regressus Animae, as St. Augustine translates the Title of a Book of Porphyry on that Subject, as the infelicity that occasioned it was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or descent of the soul into this World. And the ascent of the soul was not only out of this inferior part of the World under the Moon, which they conceived subject to the Daemon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but also above the seven Spheres, which they called the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because it was from the motion of those seven solid Orbs, and the proportion between them to each other, that the Music of the Spheres was occasioned, 
Plat. in Timaeo.  according to their Doctrine. This inferior World was also made by the Angels, according to them, lest otherwise it should have been immortal, and it was their office to tie the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they took out of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 given them by the supreme God, to Bodies. The inferior World was thought subject to the Planetary influences, and not only to the influences of the Planets themselves, but those also of the Demons by which they were supposed to be animated. At least all Bodies were thought to be thus subject to them, and consequently the Soul itself, according to the greater or lesser grossness of its vehicle, 
Porph. de Abst. Orac. Chald.  was conceived to be more or less subject to them. This therefore was the great work of this Philosophy to free the Soul from these grosser vehicles, which were the bonds of her captivity. And still the purging of her vehicle, and the quickening the Principles of her Intellectual Life, made her by degrees more and more capable of ascending. And as the terrestrial vehicle confined her to these lower parts of the World, so her freedom from that would only give her liberty to soar above the Earth, but still her aerial vehicle, would as much confine her from ascending above the air now as her earthly vehicle did from ascending above the Earth before. So that till she were divested of all excepting only her pure atherial vehicle, she could not, according to them, ascend above the Planetary Spheres from whence she had descended. And therefore the way to free the Soul from this World, and from those Daemons to which it was subject, was first to free it from these vehicles. And because the Angels were they who had tied the soul to those vehicles, therefore there was no other way of ridding the soul of these vehicles, but either by appeasing those Daemons, or overpowering them by the assistance of some more powerful Daemons. And both these ways were taken by the several Sects of the Philosophers as well as the Gnostics. And particularly one chief means recommended for this purpose even by the Philosophers, was this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. So the Pythagoraeans.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Aur. Car●.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And that this, among other things, was thought a means of freeing from the Body, at that was for mounting up into the pure aether, and being made in their sense a God, appears from the end of those verses, where the Authors give an account of the benefit their Readers might expect by following their Prescriptions: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   
And so it should seem the Author of Poemander, 
Poem. c. 4.  expressing the benefits of the Christian Baptism according to the Notions of the Egyptian Philosophy: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For it has already been shown that that Author is for raising the soul above the World, in the sense already explained, and probably according to the sense of Basilides. But I must not now digress to show why I think so.   〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and therefore subject to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and to be ignorant of this knowledge which they pretended to as so peculiar to themselves: so the Apostle shows that this does really belong to the Catholic Society in opposition to all others, that they know 
(a) 1 St. John v. 20.  Christ and the 
(b) 1 Joh. two. 13.  Father as they are visible members of that Society which professed the belief of Christ's Doctrine, and that none other knew them but they; that as they who are in the Communion of the Church are frequently said not to be 
(c) Chap. iv. 4.  of the World, so all who are not of that Communion are still in 
(d) Ver. 5.  the World, how much soever they pretend to be above it, the same way as St. Judas twits the Gnostics who pretended that they themselves were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Catholics only, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉▪ when he tells them that they, the Gnostics themselves were only 
(e) St. Jud. 19  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and like 
(f) Rom. 1.22.  St. Paul's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And indeed for any deeper knowledge of the Christian Religion than a bare belief of the Truth of Christ's Doctrine in general, the Apostles themselves could not pretend to when Christ spoke these words, no not till the descent of the Spirit upon them at Pentecost, which was to 
(g) Joh. xuj. 13.  lead them into all truth. It was but little before that they were ask him concerning his 
(h) Act. i. 6.  restoring the Kingdom to Israel, so that it seems they had so long retained their old fancies that he should be a temporal Prince, which must needs put them into very different apprehensions concerning the whole scheme of the Christian Religion from what it really was. But besides the great design of the Apostle being to persuade his Readers to keep to one visible Society in opposition to many others, it had been extremely improper to understand the World only of ill Livers, seeing there might have been many such in the Society he persuaded them to continue in, and many otherwise in those which he persuaded them to avoid. But the sense I have given is as opposite as could have been thought of, that being out of the visible Church they were in the World, and so were excluded from this Intercession of Christ of which we are now speaking.  
And from this way of arguing it will appear that they who were out of the visible Society of the Church are not therefore said to be in the World, because of the peculiar impiety of the Heresies then taught by them, or because of the peculiar debauchery of their lives, but purely for this very reason, because they did not keep to the Society of the Church. This I the rather observe that our dissenting Brethren of the present Age, who neither teach such wicked Heresies, nor lead so wicked lives, may not think themselves unconcerned in this Argument as long as they yet keep themselves at as great a distance from the visible Society of the Church as they did then. Now this does plainly follow from the appropriation of the Gnostics, who made all who were not of their Sect to be of the World, for that very reason because they were not of it, their Sect, which must therefore also hold proportionably here if the appropriation be made the same way to the Orthodox Church, as those Seducers had made it to their own party. And besides, it appears from the constant adequate opposition between the Orthodox Society and the World, which must therefore necessarily suppose all who are not of that Society to be therefore in the World, because there is no third to which they may be supposed reducible. And accordingly the false Prophets who are said to have gone 
(i) 1 Joh. two. 19.  out of the visible Society of the Church, are said to be gone 
(k) 1 Joh. iv. 1. 2 Joh. 7.  into the World, and Demas' forsaking St. Paul's company is ascribed to this, that he 
(l) 2 Tim. iv. 10.  loved the present World. And plainly St. John gives this as a reason why the seducers he there speaks of, 
(m) 1 Joh. iv. 5.  spoke of the World, and were heard by the World, because they themselves were in the World, a plain sign that he had concluded them to have been in the World for something antecedent to their worldly practices and interests. This may suffice to show, that they who are out of the visible Communion of the Church are expressly excluded from the intercession of Christ.  
§ VII But though this might have been sufficient to show how little advantage they can have either from their own Prayers, or the Prayers of any others made in their behalf, because none can pretend to any hopes of acceptance otherwise than by virtue of his general intercession; yet that our Brethren may understand how constant this Apostle is to the sense I have given of him: I proceed further, to show that he allows no hopes of acceptance for any Prayers to be made by such Persons themselves whilst they continue in that separate Condition, nor for any others in their behalf, allowing only the exception now mentioned. This appears from what the same Apostle discourses concerning 
(a) 1 Joh. v. ●  the Sin unto Death. Therefore this sin is said to be of so heinous a nature, as that Prayers made for any good things for Persons guilty of it, whilst they continue guilty of it, cannot hope to find acceptance. For when he had told the Persons to whom he writes, that this was their 
(b) V 14.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the condition of their confidence of showing their faces before Christ when he should appear for the destruction of their enemies, mentioned before, Chap. two. 28. that if they would ask any thing from him he would hear them; he expressly limits this general encouragement by telling them that what was to be thus asked by them must be asked, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as it is commonly read, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to the Alexandrian MS. If this later reading be taken, than the meaning will be that what they who were on Christ's side in opposition to the Antichrists there discoursed of throughout that whole Epistle, might alone expect to have their Prayers heard, and none others. For the phrase is not the same as in other places where such Prayers are spoken of as are offered for his sake, or by virtue of his general Intercession. That is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does frequently signify distribution of Parties. This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies them of those Parties. And the name of Christ is frequently taken for his Authority. Thus it is said concerning the Heathens, 
(c) Isa. lxiii. 19.  Thou never barest rule over them; they were not called after thy name. Where bearing Rule, and being called after the name of their Ruler, are taken for the same thing. And thus the name of Christ is taken elsewhere for the external Profession of the Christian Religion. So that, according to this reading, the sense will be, that only they who take Christ's part in opposition to all other Parties by an external Profession of his Doctrine, and a visible acknowledgement of his Authority, that is, by owning those visible Governors who can prove their Authority derived from him, can offer any Prayers to him with any confidence of a gracious acceptance: which is the very thing I am immediately concerned to prove. And indeed it is not possible to understand the owning it as a Party in opposition to all other Parties, without external Communion with those who are of that Party, and external Submission to the visible Government of it. For whoever does disown a subordinate Governor who can make out his Commission, cannot be supposed to own the supreme Governor from whom he derives his Commission.  
§ VIII If therefore to avoid this, our adversaries be rather willing to adhere to the common reading; at least thus much will be gained for our purpose, that those Prayers only may expect to find acceptance which are according to the will of Christ, and that therefore those Prayers which are discouraged, are for that very reason to be presumed to be disagreeable to his Will. And to know what they are on which the Apostles design is particularly bend, we must have regard to that which follows. And there we find the reason of this limitation, and what Prayers they are which are agreeable to his Will, and what are not so: 
(d) Ver. 16.  If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and shall give him life, to them that sin not unto death (this is the Prayer supposed to be according to the will of Christ) There is a sin unto death. I do not say that he shall pray for it. This is the commonly received reading, according to which the Prayer of others in behalf of the sinner is spoken of, that that must not be put up for him who has sinned unto Death; and consequently, that being put up, it must not expect acceptance because it is supposed disagreeable to the Will of God. But the vulgar Latin 
(e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉— Veles. in var. Lect. 5. vulgata editione collectis.  reading it in the third Person, seems rather to refer it to the Prayer of the sinner himself, that he must not expect to be heard so long as he continues in that state. It remains therefore that I now inquire what this sin unto Death is, that our Brethren may understand how nearly they are concerned in it. And this will not be so difficult to know as it is commonly conceived if the former observation be remembered, that it is the Apostles whole design in this Epistle to deal with whole Parties, and to appropriate to the Orthodox Society what the Societies of Deceivers had been used to appropriate to themselves as signs that they were in the Right, and as invitations and allurements to draw Disciples after them. Now among other things that were then insisted on as Arguments or advantages of the Orthodox Party, this was one that in the Orthodox Party, wherever it was, Life was only to be expected, and that all other Parties or Societies besides were in a state of Death. This was granted on all sides. So that the Topics for managing the remaining disputes of those times, if they were to prove their own Party true, was either to infer that it was the true Party because Life was attainable in it, or to prove the advantage of Life being attainable in it from the other proofs they had that their own was the Orthodox Party; or if they were to confute their Adversaries, either to prove that their way was wrong, because Life was not attainable in the way observed by them, or to prove that they were in a state of Death, because their way of serving God was not such as had been appointed by him. It had been easy to have shown that all the Arguments produced by the Apostle upon this Subject are reducible to some of these Topics, not only in his Epistle, but his Gospel also. Where he makes use of the Authority of an Apostle, there his own Testimony was a sufficient Argument; because such a Person was indeed most competent for witnessing the Doctrine of his Master, and because his Testimony was generally revered even by the seducers themselves, as appears from their backwardness to appear publicly whilst any of the Apostles were living, at least it was generally revered by those good well meaning persons who might otherwise have been in danger of being seduced by them. But where he is more distrustful of his Authority, either in regard of the perverseness of the persons he had to deal with, or in regard of the peculiar Principles of the seducers who denied the Authority of his Master himself, which must consequently overthrow all his credit as an Apostle, which was only to bear witness to the Doctrine of his Master, yet still the things he either says as an Apostle, or proves as a Disputant, belong to some of these Topics.  
§ IX I am unwilling to run through the particulars for fear of being tedious. The very design of all the Miracles he had spoken of in his Gospel, himself expressly tells us was, that they, for whose use he wrote them, 
(a) Joh. xx. 30, 31.  might believe that Jesus was the Christ the Son of God, and that believing they might have Life in his Name. Where the name is taken the same way as formerly for that Party which owned him for the true Messiah, and the Son of God in opposition to those other Parties, which then followed the Antichrists or false Christ's, who pretended to that name as well as he. And we see that Life is immediately made a consequent to his being the true Christ, and the true Son of God, that he who really was so must give that Life to his followers. And when he had thus proved the credit of his Master by credentials much greater than any of his rivals could pretend to, from hence he proves his own credit as an Apostle: 
(b) Joh. xxi. 24.  This is the Disciple who testifies concerning these things, and who wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And particularly he proves his own credibility from his presence at our Saviour's Transfiguration, 
(c) Joh. i. 14.  which was at once an Argument of our Saviour's being really such as he pretended to be, when he was owned for such by God himself, and of the credit of him as an Apostle, who was made choice of as one of his Lords greatest favourites to be privy to his most secret concernments. But most fully he insists on this in the beginning of this Epistle. 
(d) 1 Joh. i 1, 2.  That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have beheld, and our hands have handled of the word of Life: (And the Life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and bear witness and declare unto you the Eternal Life which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us). And immediately after he tells the reason why he so much urges his Testimony in this particular: 
(e) Ver. 3.  That which we have seen and heard, that we declare unto you, that ye might have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with us, that is, Communion or Participation rather than Fellowship, as it is rendered in our English. No doubt meaning in the first place that they should leave or avoid the external Communion of the Seducers, and join in the Communion of the Orthodox Church; and in order hereunto implying, 2. That by doing so, that is, by being externally joined to the Church, they might expect to be made partakers of the benefits of the Church's Communion, which was a very proper Argument to induce them to the external Communion; and certainly, 3. Including among those benefits of the Church's Communion, that which he had before so particularly, nay only, mentioned, that of Life. And therefore seeing this Life was to be gained by keeping in the Church's Communion, it plainly follows, that till they had that Communion they must be supposed to want this Life, and therefore to be in a state of Death.  
§ X I forbear to show how this Exposition agrees with the Particulars of the Apostles management, and with his reasonings also as a Disputant: having thus shown that himself owns it as his principal design, both in his Epistle and his Gospel. That which I shall now observe, is, that this is mentioned immediately before this whole passage concerning the sin unto Death. 
(a) 1 Joh. v. 13.  These things I have written unto you that believe on the Name of the Son of God, that ye may know that ye have Life Eternal. And then follows the farther privilege of those who enjoy this Life, that they shall be heard in their Prayers, but with the limitation of which I have already taken notice. And therefore the Death mentioned on this occasion must in all likelihood be opposed to the Life here mentioned at the first occasion of introducing it. Consequently whereunto the sin not unto Death will be such a sin as is consistent with their being in a state of spiritual Life. And because they 
(b) Ver. 12.  who have the Son have Life, as the Apostle had told them immediately before; and they who had Communion with that Party in which he endeavoured to confirm them, had 
(c) Chap. i 3.  Communion also with the Father and the Son; therefore none of those sins which did not cut them off from the Orthodox Party could be unto Death, but were such for which their Prayers for forgiveness, might be heard, on the conditions of Repentance and amendment. Nay, on these terms he assures them of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a confidence of being heard in such Prayers. And that they might not wonder that he now supposed even these persons capable of sinning, though he had told them before that 
(d) Chap. iii. 9.  he that is born of God sinneth not, nay, cannot sin; he therefore adds, that every unrighteousness, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which in the Hellenistical style is frequently taken for that eminent degree of Righteousness, which the 
(e) Cicer. Off. L.i.  Greeks call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) that is, every failure of an eminent degree of Righteousness, which might be very capable of befalling even Righteous Persons themselves, but Righteous in an inferior degree, was sin, and that by this means it came to be very possible that there might be a sin not unto Death. Which exactly agrees with what he had said 
(f) Chap. i 7, 8, 9, 10. two. 1, 2.  before concerning these sins, even of such Persons: but especially where he said, If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he is the propitiation for our sins. For that is certainly the ground of the 
* 1 Joh. v. 14.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned here. For Christ is by his Office an Advocate for all his Church, but not for those who are out of it, especially as their case stood then with them, who maintained other false Christ's in opposition to him.  
§ XI And so on the contrary, considering also that 
(g) Chap. v. 12.  he who has not the Son, has not Life, and he who has not Life is certainly in a state of Death; therefore whatever sin does deprive of this Communion with the Son, that must consequently be a sin unto Death. It must be unto Death, both as itself deprives of the principle of Life, and as it makes all the other sins and lapses such a person may be guilty of, unpardonable, though he should amend them, without a change of his state, by depriving him of the benefit of Christ's Intercession for him, by virtue whereof alone he can expect that any Prayers himself can make for pardon can prove acceptable. Now that such a Person cannot expect the Benefit of the Intercession of Christ, I have already proved from the Doctrine of the same Apostle in his Gospel.  
§ XII And that they did not then think it lawful to pray for Persons out of the Church's Communion, especially for such as had separated themselves from it, (for concerning such only the Apostle speaks, and concerning such alone I desire to be understood;) nay, that they thought such Prayers to be sins, and so disagreeable to the will of God, as was implied in the passage already mentioned, appears plainly from the second Epistle, where the Author charges them to whom he wrote, that 
(h) 2 Joh. x. 11.  if any came unto them, and did not bring with him the Doctrine of the true Christ, they should not receive him into their houses, not give him the jus Hospitii, which was then a part of Communion; nay, more than so, should not bid him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the usual Greek form of civil Salutation at their first meeting, to which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was answerable at their parting. And that for this reason, because he that should bid him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, should thereby make himself a partaker of his evil deeds. By which it appears, that he who used only this civil Salutation to such a Person, sinned in doing so, and yet of all Prayers this seems to have had the least of a Prayer in it.  
§ XIII I dare not indeed altogether deny a possibility of pardon to be obtained for such Persons as are out of the Church's Communion, upon their coming over to it, and their prayers for Pardon. For the same Apostle expressly tells us that Christ is the 
(a) 1 Joh. two. 1.  Propitiation, not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world; Where certainly the whole World opposed to us must imply those who are at present out of the Communion of the Church. And seeing Christ is the Propitiation even for their sins also, they also may expect to have their Prayers for pardon heard on his account, upon condition of their repentance, and entering into the Church's Communion. And accordingly they are also mentioned in our Saviour's Intercession, where he also prays for them who should afterwards 
(b) Joh. xvii. 20.  believe on him on the Apostles Preaching. And therefore also St. Paul exhorts that 
(c) 1 Tim. two. 1.  Prayers, etc. should be offered for all men, and says it is good and acceptable to God to do so, for this reason, because he wills 
(d) Ver. 3, 4.  that all men should be saved, and come unto the knowledge of the Truth, and that Christ has therefore also given himself 
(e) Ver. 6.  a ransom for all. So Cornelius' Prayers were heard 
(f) Act. x. 4.  before his Baptism. But all this might be true though all men were allowed, only once, the liberty of being admitted into the Church. And it is certain that the case of Desertors is described in the Scriptures as much more desperate than it would have been if they had never been of the Communion deserted by them. As all Persons who were out of the Communion of the Church were supposed to be under the power of the Devil, and accordingly, casting out of the Church is the same thing with 
(g) 1 Cor. v. 5.  delivering over to Satan: so our Saviour himself describes the condition of a Desertor to be so much worse than it was at his first reception, and his last end to be so much worse than the first, that if he had one Devil at his first reception, he has 
(h) Matt. xii. 43, 44, 45. Luk. xi 24, 25, 26.  seven (which is usually the number used in Scripture for perfection) at his Desertion, and those more wicked than that which first possessed him. So also St. Peter; 
(i) 2 Pet. two. 21.  It had been better for them that they had not known the way of Righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment which had been given them. For it is happened to them according to the true Proverb, The dog is returned to his own vomit, and the sow that is washed to her wallowing in the mire.  
§ XIV And particularly the Doctrine of the Epistle to the Hebrews is very severe in this case; especially that passage in the tenth Chapter: where having persuaded them not to 
(k) Heb. x. 25.  forsake the assembling of themselves together, as the manner of some was, He immediately gives this reason why they should not do so. 
(l) V 26, 27.  For if we sin wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the Truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearful looking for of Judgement and fiery indignation, which should devour the adversaries. Here, by the connexion, it is very plain that the forsaking of the Assemblies, the visible Communion of the Church, is the sin here spoken of, which will also give light to other parallel places in this Epistle, particularly that in the 6th Chapter. And concerning this it is expressly said that there remains no more Sacrifice even for the other sins of those who are guilty of this. This plainly depends on what he had observed before 
(m) V 11, 12.  concerning the several daily Sacrifices offered under the Law, to which the one only Sacrifice of Christ was answerable under the Gospel. From whence he argues, that they who had forfeited their interest in this one Sacrifice must not expect any relief by any other, because the dispensation of the Gospel affords no other; no, nor any other repetition of this one Sacrifice which is but 
(n) Chap. x. 26.  once offered, neither daily, nor once a year, as those under the Law; nor that any further dispensation can be expected by them who fail of a relief by this, because the only reason why the Law allowed a further dispensation was its own imperfection and insufficiency to perfect its observers: but the Gospel is perfect, and its Salvation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for ever. Nay, he further urges the Argument, that even the Law itself allowed no Sacrifice for Apostatizers, 
(o) Heb. x. 28.  not from its Practice, but from its Religion. For the place alluded to is certainly that of Deut. xvii, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. especially compared with Chap. xiii. for it is the worshipping of other Gods, the transgressing the Covenant, Deut. xiii. 6, 7, 13. xvii. 2, 3, that is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the despising of the Law, Heb. x. 28. and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Heb. xi. 2. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here, Heb. x. 28. seems to allude to, Deut. xiii. 8. The two or three witnesses here are also mentioned expressly in that very case, Deut. xvii. 6. And accordingly he argues, that they who offer the same despite to the Gospel, not by transgressing its particular Precepts, but by disowning the very Covenant of it (which he supposes them to do who forsook the Christian Assemblies) must be liable to a much sorer punishment. Because hereby he 
(a) Ver. 29.  trampled under foot the Son of God, and counted the blood of the Covenant, by which he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and had done despite unto the spirit of Grace. For these are the privileges of the New Covenant, which he had been formerly so much commending above the old one of Moses, which must therefore aggravate any contempt that may be offered to this beyond the contempt of the Law of Moses. And accordingly this sorer punishment allotted for this contempt, is greater than that of stoning which was the highest that was proper to be inflicted by the highest Legal Judicatories, and which was the punishment appointed for this very crime, the now-mentioned place of Deuteronomy. Exactly the same way as our Saviour expresses the greater severity of the Gospel Punishment above the Legal by this same instance of 
(b) Matt. v. 22.  fire, after he had mentioned the inferior degrees by two of the supreme Judicatories, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that of the Ordinary City Sanhedrims, consisting of xxiii. and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, properly so called the great Sanhedrim of lxxii. at Jerusalem. And indeed this punishment of fire is that the Apostles always mention as the punishment, not only of those who finally persist in opposing the Gospel, but also, and more particularly of them who should Apostatise to them.  
§ XV Now by this way of reasoning it plainly appears, that they who deserted the Covenant-Assemblies, do thereby forfeit their interest in the Covenant itself; nay, are reputed despisers of the Covenant itself, which exactly agrees with the Principles of which I have been hitherto discoursing; and that they who do so have no interest in the Sacrifice of Christ, nor in any other, which indeed will cut them off from any benefit of Prayers, if we consider, that Sacrifices are only Solemnities of Prayers; and particularly, that Christ's intercession does principally consist in his presenting to his Father the memory of his own 
(c) Heb. seven. 25, 27. ix. 7, 8, 9, 24, 25.  Sacrifice once offered for us here on earth, as the intercession of the Highpriest among the Jews consisted in his presenting the blood of the Sacrifice, which had been offered without, before the Mercy-seat in the Holy of Holies, and that this is the very Doctrine of this Author concerning it; and that it is only on this account of the Sacrifice of Christ that any Prayers of men can expect to find acceptance, so that they who are defeated of their expectations this way, cannot expect that their Prayers should be accepted in the use of any other way.  
§ XVI I have the rather insisted on this place, because of the very ill use which is made of it by many of our Adversaries for perplexing the Consciences even of them who continue steadfast to their Church-Assemblies, to whom it appears that, according to this exposition of it, it will no way agree (which certainly must needs be an acceptable piece of Service to those who have suffered by their common misunderstandings concerning it, and must oblige all to keep close to the Church's Communion as they would secure themselves from being concerned in it) and that our Adversaries may understand how far themselves contribute to the bringing Persons under the discomforts of this Text, which themselves account so formidable, whilst they endeavour to withdraw them from the Regular Church Assemblies. Thus much, at least, seems certain, that if any be concerned in this Text in our present Age, these separaters are the Persons most likely to be concerned in it. But that they may see how constant this Author is to himself in this Doctrine, there is another Parallel place to this purpose in the 12th Chapter; 
(d) Heb. xii. 15.  where having warned them that they should not fall short of the Grace of God, (which is the term whereby the Gospel is usually expressed) to show the danger of doing so, he produces the example of 
(e) Ver. 17.  Esau, who though he afterwards desired to inherit the blessing, was yet rejected, and found no place of repentance, though be sought it carefully with tears. And if this be the case of Lapsors, to be like the Transgressor's of Moses's Law, to die without Mercy, to be like Esau, to find no place of Repentance; nay, not to have their Prayers heard for it, though they should be as ●arnest for it as he was for the Blessing, though they should seek it carefully, and even with Tears; then I doubt it will be too likely to expound St. John's words, 
(a) 1 Joh. v. 16.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not of the sins which such Persons are guilty of, who are in a state of Death, but of that very sin of lapsing from the Church, which at first reduced them into that state, that he durst not encourage them to Pray for forgiveness of it with any confidence that they should find acceptance in such Prayers.  
§ XVII Nor needs any wonder that this should be so, who believes that the passages of Scripture usually produced to prove the limittedness of the day of Grace do prove the thing they are produced for: Which is the rather apposite to pur present purpose, because this Author to the Hebrews makes the time of adhering to the Church-Assemblies to be the day 
(b) Heb. iii. 13.  of Grace, if he carry on the same design in that place as in the 10th Chapter. And indeed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 3d Chapter, seems to make it exactly Parallel with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the 
(c) Heb. x. 25.  10th. and to express the very use of their Ecclesiastical Assemblies. And what do we think was the use of that ceremony of shaking off the dust of their feet against refractory Persons, for a testimony against them, which was instituted by our Saviour himself, with a promise that he would ratify their censures in using it, that it should be 
x. 14, 15. Mark. vi. 11. Luk. ix. 5. x. 11, 12.  more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of Judgement, than for such Persons on whom these censures should be inflicted? Why do we find St. Paul, 
(e) Act. xiii. 51. xviii. 6.  when he used these censures, immediately to desert the Society of those against whom he had used them, and to forbear the use of any farther m●ans for their recovery, if he had not thought the condition of such Persons desperate, and the use of any further means unavailable for their good? And if they dealt so with those who never yet had received the Gospel, on their first addresses to them, when they had behaved themselves very obstinately and perversely; and yet withal profess that the condition of Lapser● is much worse than if they never had received the Gospel: it must follow, that whatever was employed by that ceremony must much rather agree to these Apostates, than to those to whom it was used.  
§ XVIII Besides, the Apostle pronouncing the sentence of 
(f) 1 Cor. xuj. 22.  Anathema Maranatha against those who loved not the Lord Jesus, if by not loving our Lord Jesus be meant Apostatising from the visible Profession of his Doctrine, and the visible Communion of those who were united in that Profession, as a 
(g) Dr. Hammond.  Learned Man has proved; and if by Maranatha be meant the same degree of Excommunication in the Syriack Idiom, with that which the Jews in the ordinary Hebrew Idiom, call Shammat●a, as there is very little doubt but it is, this will also suppose the Persons, against whom it was used, in the same condition uncapable of being benefited by Prayers, which were afforded them under the first censures, but denied them under the last, which was a consignation of them to the Judgement of God himself. And indeed the fiery indignation which should devour the Adversaries mentioned in the 
(h) Heb. x. 27.  Hebrews, as it is frequently mentioned as the punishment of refractory Persons and Apostates, so the time allotted for the infliction of this punishment is still determined to the 
(i) 2 Thess. i 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. St. Jud. 13.14, 15.  coming of the Lord, which exactly describes the condition of Persons described in this Sentence. However, the least that can be inferred from these places concerning the desperate condition of Relapsers, is that, at least, they have not that confidence of being received, even upon their return, without complete satisfaction which those have who at first come over to the Christian Profession; which was unanimously granted by the Catholic Church, even in those times when the Novatian Heresy was unanimously condemned by them; and that Relapsing is a sin of so great guilt, as, though every inferior degree of it be not unpardonable, yet becomes easily so when it is persisted in with any great degree of obstinacy and obduration, and which withal, of its own nature, is more likely to come to that degree than other sins which are not naturally so placular, which is a very prudent sufficient reason of that particular degree of zeal which the sacred Writers make use of against this rather than any other sin, and which may withal as nearly concern our Brethren, and oblige them to recover themselves out of the danger, as it did those to whom these things were addressed by the Apostles. And indeed I am very apt to believe that this was the true sense of the sacred Writers. But concerning the Novatian Heresy I have elsewhere 
(k) Proleg. ad D. Stern de Obstin.  discoursed as much as may suffice for our present concernment. And thither I refer my Reader.  
§ XIX However, Whether it were impossible to hope, or not impossible, that the Prayers of Persons out of the Church's Communion might be heard for their reconciliation, yet there can be no reason to admire that this should have been the Practice of the Church, to forbear Praying for Spiritual Benefit of Religion for Persons, who, as yet, were not actual members of the Church's Communion, nay, to distrust their being heard in such Prayers, if they should have made them. I will not now mention any Arguments taken from the reason of the thing, but only such as may clear the actual Practice of the Church. And certainly there cannot be a more likely Precedent for the Church's behaviour in this particular, than our Saviour's first instructions to his Disciples when he sent them forth to preach the Gospel. And they were these. 
(a) St. Matt. x. 12, 13.  When ye come into any house salute it. And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it be not worthy, let your peace return unto you. I need not warn that the wishing Peace among the Jews was the same customary form of Salutation, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was among the Greeks. It appears sufficiently from the Text itself, to go no further, where Salutation mentioned in the former verse is explained in the latter by letting their Peace come upon it. And particularly, that by this form of Peace all Prosperity is understood, but especially that of their Ecclesiastical state. So it appears when the Psalmist is so earnest in exhorting every Pious Person to 
(b) Psal. cxxii. 6.  pray for the peace of Jerusalem. And therefore when it is said that in case the house where they were proved not worthy, their Peace should return to themselves, the meaning seems plainly the same with that already observed in the 2d Epistle of St. John, that they should forbear those Salutations, and consequently that they should not presume to pray for any of those Spiritual good things as were signified by them, for such Persons as these were; and indeed he gave them no encouragement to expect that such Prayers should be heard, because he did not undertake to ratify them as he did where the Persons were worthy. And accordingly as this form of Salutation is used in several of the Apostles Epistles, so it is never used but to those who were in the Church's Communion; nay, frequently this limitation is expressly inserted. St. Paul prays for Peace, but it is only to the 
(c) Rom. i 7. 1 Cor. i 2, 3. 2 Cor. i 1, 2. Eph. i. u.2. Phil. i 1, 2. Col. i. 1, 2.  Saints, to them that 
(d) Eph. vi. 24.  loved the Lord Jesus, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 without following any of his Rivals, to the 
(e) Gal. i 2, 3. 1 Thess. i. 1. 2 Thess. i 1, 2. Eph. vi. 23.  Churches and the Brethren, to them that walk according to the 
(f) Gal. vi. 16.  Rule, and at the utmost extends his wish no further than to the whole 
(g) Ib.  Israel of God, and to them that 
(h) 1 Cor. i 2.  every where call on the name of the Lord Jesus. St. John 
(i) 2 Joh. i 2.3.  the Elder does so too, but it is only for such as are in the Truth, and for this very cause, because they were so. I mention not other places in their writings where the particularity of their address required this limitation.  
§ XX As for the Jews, they did so appropriate Spiritual favours to themselves, 
Sanhedr. cap. 10▪  as that they did not allow any Nations a portion in the World to come, how excellent lives soever they might lead, whilst yet they continued in their National distinction. And therefore it must have been extremely vain to have prayed for any such thing for them, that I may not now take notice of that contempt and hatred of all other Nations but themselves, which we see plainy possessed them by the Histories of the first times of Christianity. And it is very observable that the great design of the Apostles, and that which, no doubt, very much facilitated the progress of their Doctrine with many others in that Age, who had hardly ever been induced to have received it otherwise, being not to overthrow the confinement of these Promises (which are the foundation of the Prayers we are speaking of) to Israel, but only the confinement to the carnal Israel, to the seed of Abraham's flesh rather than of his faith; we have very great reason to believe that those great multitudes of them who came over to the Christian Religion on these terms, and who would not have done so on any other, must still have believed this confinement of the Promises to the Spiritual Israel. And considering withal that of the three Ceremonies of initiation, even of the carnal-Israelites, only two were disliked by those first Preachers of the Christian Religion, viz. those of Circumcision and Sacrifice; but that of Baptism was so well approved by them, as that they did not only receive it from the Jews as they had found it, but also endeavoured to prove that it had been prefigured and prophesied of, even in the Old Testament, as the proper way of distinguishing the Spiritual Israelite from others, as it had been formerly of the carnal Israelite; they must, on these Principles, have been inclinable to believe that herein the carnal and the Spiritual Israelite agreed, and therefore that still the Promises were confined, though not to Circumcised, yet at least to Baptised Persons. And this being an error (if indeed it had been one) so obviously following from the Principles by which the generality of them were then made Christians; and being so likely to be taken up by those who had been made Christians on those Principles, as recommended to them with the same Authority which had made their Christianity itself seem credible to them: it had highly concerned them who had used such Principles to them to have warned them of the error of such a consequence.  
§ XXI And now, if these things be so, they will deserve to be seriously laid to heart by our Brethren who shall find themselves concerned in them. If whilst they are out of the true Communion they have no interest in the Intercession of Christ, no Interest in that one perfect Sacrifice of his, nor hopes of any other: If they have no Title, even to the Prayers of good Christians for any Spiritual favours for them whilst they continue in that condition, excepting only that one for their Conversion: If such Prayers as should be offered for them cannot be offered with any confidence of being heard, because they are not agreeable to the Divine Will; nay, if they be so far from any hopes of acceptance as that they rather provoke God against them who offer them, by making them partakers of the sins of those for whom they are offered. If at least, neither they, nor the Persons who need the relief of such Prayers, have any Promise of being heard in them, and therefore must at length be left to the extraordinary uncovenanted mercies of God, 
Chap. 2●  which we have already shown how very weak and uncertain a support it is to them who have no better confidence; nay, if it should prove true that Desertors of the Church's Communion, on any pretence whatsoever, though it be that of Perfection, have not the very hopes of being heard in such Prayers as should be offered by themselves or others even for their Conversion itself, which I only propose as a thing too much, at least, in danger of being the sense of the places produced for it. I say, if these things should prove true, or even prove so much as probable to be so; it will concern them all to be, at least, more solicitous for finding out the true Communion, than as yet they seem to be, when their error is like to prove of so fatal consequence, if they should prove to be mistaken concerning it. At least it will follow (what I am at present only concerned for) that no pretence of Closet-Prayer without the Sacraments can supply the use of the Sacraments, when they are so far from being heard for those great and necessary Spiritual favours which are procured in the Sacraments, as that they have no hopes of being heard at all, if the Sacraments be neglected for them. But the reasons given by St. John through the current of his whole Epistle, why such Prayers should not be heard, are yet more formidable, that they who are not in the true Communion are in a state of Death, that they are in the World, how much soever they pretend to have escaped out of it, that they are really in darkness what Light soever they pretend to, which comes more immediately home to the case of these Enthusiastic Persons with whom I am at present dealing.  
§ XXII All that I can foresee as capable of being Objected for avoiding these consequences is only this, that forsaking the Christian Assemblies than was a forsaking, at least of the external Profession of the Christian Religion itself, whether upon the forsaking them they went over to the Heathen Idolatries, or to the Jewish Law, or kept themselves from all external Profession of any Religion whatsoever, so to avoid the Persecutions which attended the external Profession of Christianity. But that now there is no necessity of this, seeing the several Parties are all agreed in this, in the external Profession of the Christian Religion. That indeed the Reasons here urged for showing the danger of withdrawing from the public Assemblies do only concern the Christian Religion in general, not any particular Party of it in contradistinction to others. That the Reason why Separaters were supposed to be in a state of Death, was because such their separation divided them from Christ who is their Life. That this derivation of Life was from Christ himself, and Christ alone, according to whatever Hypothesis we understand it, whether of the Palestines or Hellenistical Jews. For the Jews generally expected that the true Messiah should be the Author of Life to them; and accordingly it is urged by St. John, not to discriminate one Christian Communion from another, but to discriminate the Christian Communion from the Antichristian, that is, indeed the Professors of the true Christ from the Professors of those who falsely pretended to his name. For certainly the Antichrists in St. John seem to be the same with the false Christ's prophesied of by the true 
a Matt. xxiv. 24. Mark. xiii. 22.  Christ himself in the Gospel, and concerning those our Saviour himself had warned them, that they should pretended to be Christ's themselves, and therefore that they should 
b Matt. xxiv. 5.23. Mark. xiii. 6.23 Luk. xvii. 23. xxi. 8.  come in his name, because they would take his name upon them. And indeed the current of the reasoning of the whole Epistle does seem plainly to suppose this Notion.  
§ XXIII As to the Notion therefore of the ordinary Jews 
c Vid. Maimon. in Chap. x. Sanhedr. Edit. Poco●k. p. 159. Coach in Exc. Gem. Sanhedr. Cap. 11. p. 317. Buxtorf. Syn. Jud. c. 50.  in which they ascribed Life to the Messiah, all that they could mean by it could only be that portion in the first Resurrection in the times of the Messiah, when they should live long and happily in Earth, but however should die at length; and possibly afterwards a Portion in the second Resurrection, when they should not eat nor drink, but enjoy pleasures wholly intellectual. Though I cannot tell whether the ordinary Palestine Jews did believe any thing concerning the second Resurrection. The Scribes pronouncing him blessed who should 
d Luk. xiv. 15.  eat bread in the Kingdom of God, and the Sadduces Question concerning the Woman who had married seven Brethren, 
e Matt. xxii. 28. Mar. xii. 23. Luk. xx. 33.  Whose wise she should be of them in the Resurrection, seem to imply the state only of the first Resurrection. And even this Notion we find to have been derived to the Primitive Christians, no doubt from their former Sentiments concerning the Messiah then expected among the Jews, and applied to our Saviour when they believed him to be the true Messiah who had been promised to them. But because the generality of those who were converted to the Christian Religion were of a more Philosophical genius, and were better pleased with the Mystical than the Literal expositions of their Law, as indeed being that which then had generally the greatest influence on their conversion; therefore the Life likely to be expected by them, and most likely to be valued by them, was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not only as that might signify a Life during the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Messiah, who was to be the Prince of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whom the modern Jews make to be mortal himself, but as it signifies a Life for ever. For indeed the Doctrine than received concerning the Messiah himself, was, that he should 
f Joh. xii. 34.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so as not to die at all; nay, this was received as the sense of the Law, no doubt according to the Mystical and Cabalistical sense of it, which had been given of it by their sublimer Doctors. Wherein are they also seconded by some of the modern 
g Vid. Coach in Sanhedr. ubi suprà p. 365.  Doctors themselves, how consonantly to the sense of their Brethren, I leave them to determine.  
§ XXIV Now according to these Philosophical Hellenistical Jews of the Dispersion who were influenced by the School of Alexandria, this Notion of Life was properly to be expected only from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and therefore St. John 
h 1 Joh. i 1.  calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his Epistle, and in his Gospel he tells us that 
i Joh. i. 4.  in him, that is, in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, was Life. Which agrees exactly with the Philosophical Systemes of those times. For, 1. They granted a Mystical Life belonging to the Soul, as well as a Natural one belonging to the Body, and this opposed to a Mystical Death, which was only capable of agreeing to immortal Being's; And, 2. As they made this Mystical Death to consist, not in a cessation of Being, but a separation from God, so, by the Rule of the same proportion, they made the Life opposed to it to consist in an Union of the Soul with God, who was thought to have the same influence in quickening the Soul, as the Soul had for quickening the Body. These two things are the express Doctrine of the Pythagoreans, if 
a In Aur. Carm.  Hierocles may be believed; and of the 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Trism. Poem. c. 1.  Egyptians, if the counterfeit Trismegistus represent their Doctrine faithfully. 3. The God with which the Soul was capable of being united immediately was not the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was conceived to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, having no certain seat in the Universe, and therefore uncapable of being enjoyed by Mortals, but by the mediation of the Son; just as the Apostle tells us, that he inhabits 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the 
c 1 Tim. vi. 16.  Light unapproachable, that no man hath 
d Joh. i. 18.  seen God at any time, that no man 
e 1 Tim. vi. 16.  either hath or can see him. But the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the resemblance of his Father, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Author to the 
f Heb. i. 3. Wised. seven. 22.  Hebrews, therefore in being joined to him they were made capable of contemplating and enjoying the perfections of the Father, as far as it was possible for a creature to do so. And therefore 
g John i 18·S  the only begotten Son is said to reveal him to us, and we are said to see his glory in the face 
h 2 Cor. iv. 6.  of Jesus Christ; and our Saviour himself tells St. Philip that he who had seen 
i Joh. xiv. 9.  him had seen the Father also. And hence that Doctrine of the Philosophers, and from them of Origen and the Alexandrians, however mistaken by later Fathers, that the Father was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the sense that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was used against the Pyrrhonians, not for an adequate comprehensive knowledge, but for any that was certain. And particularly, 4. They held the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned in Plato's Timaeus, from whence the Daemons, whom they supposed to be the immediate Authors of this inferior World, were supplied with the immortal seed which they were to infuse into those Being's, who were to consist of a nature mixed of mortal and immortal. So that by this means the immortal part, even of the Soul of Man, was thought derived from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And who can then think it strange that this Diviner kind of Life should be derived from him also? Nay, 5. the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is one of the benefits expressly ascribed to this God of the Universe. So Pythagoras (or whatever ancient Pythagorean is the Author of that ancient fragment quoted by the 
k Apud Justin. Martyr. Paraen. p. 18. Ed. Par. sed correctiùs apud. Clem. Alexandr. Protrep .. p. 47. Ed. Par.  Fathers under his name.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that I may not mention later Testimonies. And, 6. They take the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the whole Archetypal World and the repository of all the Divine Ideas. And they did not think its influence to be only as a Pattern for the Father to work by, but ascribed the production also of the things to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 itself. They allowed it the influence of a 
* Didym. apud Euseb. Pr. Eu. L.xi. c. 23.  Seal not only to represent, but impress its own likeness. And therefore as the Son is said to bear the character 
l Heb. i. 3.  of the Father, so we are said to bear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the image, not immediately of the Father, but of the second 
m 1 Cor. xv. 49.  Adam who is the Son. And therefore among other things derived from him this of Life is also reckoned, That 
a Joh. v. 26.  as the Father has Life in himself, so has he given to the Son to have Life in himself; And 
b Ver. 21.  as the Father quickens so also the Son quickens whom he will. And accordingly as these Philosophical Authors call him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. in regard of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which we derive from him; so for the same reason they call him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in regard of the Life which we derive from him also. For, in this Philosophical language, this seems to be the true Importance of this term 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to signify the abstract Ideal perfections as they are in the Patterns in contradistinction to the like perfections as they are received by the Creatures. Which if others had observed, they would never have fallen into so strange misunderstandings concerning the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as ascribed to Christ. For by it no more is meant than that, beatified men are called 
c Proleg. ad D. Stern de Obst.  Gods in the language of that same Philosophy, so they are made Gods by participating immediately of the Deity of the Son. But as the Son's Deity is not Archetypal in regard of the Father, but of the Creatures, so there will nothing hence follow so dangerous as these men apprehend, who have not acquainted themselves with the Principles of this Philosophy, as if he should therefore have his Deity uncommunicated from the Father. Nay, rather as the Creatures cannot be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the language of this Philosophy, in regard of the Son, because they are according to the Image of the Son, so, by the same Principles, the Son cannot be called so, because he is, even as to his Divine Person, the Image of the Father. But this only by the way to show the use of this same Philosophy for clearing this difficulty with which others have been so much perplexed. 7. Therefore it is yet more particularly observable, that, by the whole Scheme of this Philosophy, the recovery from a state of Death to this Divine Life must wholly depend on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For this new Divine Life was recovered by the awakening of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by aspiring upwards, which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so much spoken of in this Philosophy, by exercises of the intellectual operations, and by disuse and dying to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But all these things are most properly ascribed to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, according to this Philosophy. I need not instance in particulars, because themselves make application this way as often as they speak concerning these matters.  
§ XXV And therefore if these Persons would ascribe the original of this Life to their Messiah, it was requisite that they should hold that as Messiah he was to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also. And when I consider the several Arguments made use of by the Apostles for proving Christ to be the Messiah, from the old Testament itself, from such Expositions as were not likely to have agreed to a pure Man, according to the Principles of these Persons; nay, when I consider that Philo in his Mystical Allegories of the Scripture does expound some things of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Apostles do by way of Argument apply to Christ as acknowledged Characters of the true Messiah, with those Persons with whom they had to deal; nay, when I consider that all the Spiritual benefits which were expected from a spiritual Messiah, such as was most likely to have been owned by the Persons I am speaking of, were not, according to their other Principles, capable of being expected from any but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: I say, when I consider these things, I cannot but think it very probable that these Persons did own indeed that the true Messiah was to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Whence it will follow that in all regards true Life must be expected from the true Messiah only, so that they who are separated from the true Messiah must, for that very reason, be supposed also from the true Life, and therefore to be in a state of Death. But then this state of Death being proved only from Principles proper to the true Messiah, will only by force of the consequence agree to Persons wholly separated even from the external Profession of him, not to them who separate only from any one of the several Parties which all agree in Profession of him, which is our Adversaries Case at present.  
§ XXVI In answer hereunto, I confess I could be hearty willing that our Brethren could excuse themselves from the danger of their separate condition by this Apology which I have suggested in their behalf; and I confess withal that there were peculiar aggravations in the circumstances of Apostates in the Apostles times which do not agree to their condition. But especially I am concerned for those severe Texts which seem not to allow of any hopes of acceptance for Lapsers, even upon condition of a return, and a serious Repentance, which might have been more fit to have been expected than in our brethren's case whose circumstances are less aggravating. But, 1. If our dissenting Brethren would allow the same candour in expounding other Texts produced by them for their own designs, as they are likely enough to allow here where they are so deeply concerned, they would find the unjustifiableness of many of their pretences. Particularly they would find how little reason they have to look on the Discipline described in the Scripture as a precedent for us now, when they should find most of the Officers and Offices there mentioned occasionally, to have been fitted peculiarly to that Age of miraculous and extraordinary effusions of the Spirit which we cannot now pretend to; and that no part of the Scripture-History which they make use of, comes down so low, as that either the Death of the Apostles, or the withdrawing of those Gifts should oblige them to take care of settling an ordinary establishment when those Extraordinaries should fail them.  
§ XXVII But, 2. If we may judge by Ecclesiastical History, we can hardly think that the generality of those Seducers did so set themselves up for Christ, as directly to deny that he was so who was so really. We cannot understand these false Christ's of any of the Jewish Seducers. The times of Judas Galilaeus and Theudas were too early for these writings of St. John, nay, by that time his Epistle and Gospel were written, it is very probable that their whole Sect was extinguished; nay, it appears to have been so from what 
a Act. v. 36, 37.  Gamaliel says concerning them in the Acts. And the times of Barcocheba and his fellow Seducers were too late. And therefore they seem really to have been such as were received for Christ's, even by Christians themselves. Thus Simon 
b Iren. L.1. adv. haer. c. 20. Simon and Dositheus. Orig. L.1. c. Cels. p. 44.  Magus pretended to have been, as the Father in the time of the Law, so the Son in the time of the Gospel; so that they who owned him for Christ, were so far from disowning the true Christ to be so too, as that the only reason why they took Simon for Christ, was only because they took him for the same with him who really was so. Indeed the Basilidians would by no means allow that he was really 
c Iren. L.i. c. 23.  crucified, but Simon of Cyrene in his stead. But then the reason was, because they thought the Jews were deluded, and did not crucify that Person whom they intended to crucify, and who had transacted the rest of the History of the true Christ. 
d Iren. L.i. c. 21. Euseb. L.iii. Hist. c. 26.  Menander also pretended to be the Saviour, which no doubt was then taken for a proper attribute of the true Messiah, but being Simons Scholar, it is very probable that he followed Simons Doctrine concerning the Person who was truly the Messiah as to humane nature, because we do not find that he innovated in that particular. If the Ebionites did any way derogate from the office of Jesus as the true Christ, it was in denying him to be the eternal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as the Socinians do now) which I have already shown to have been probable, to have been also ingredient in the notion of the true Messiah, according to the Doctrine of those times. I need not mention Cerinthus, because his Doctrine was the same with Ebions in this particular, if his Person were not also the same. As for the 
f Vid. ●ruditissimum Pearson. vind. Ignat. Part. 2. p. 6.24.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they indeed did make his humane nature an appearance only, that they might avoid the scandal of the Cross. But than whatever reality did belong to this appearance they did not deny to belong to Jesus, much less did they deny that Salvation which was the great benefit of the Messiah, to have been really performed by that Jesus (for that is the absurd consequence which their Catholic Adversaries charge upon them, but never charge them with asserting it in express terms) and therefore their denying Jesus to be the Christ, was only interpretatively and consequently, so far only as a true humane nature was an essential ingredient in a true Christ.  
§ XXVIII And therefore when the Catholics prove their own Christ to be the true one, and from thence immediately overthrow all the pretences of others that pretend to that name: the main force of the Argument consists in this, not but that the same Christ might have appeared at several times and in several Persons, 
a Sometimes of an Angel, sometimes of a Man. Justin. Mart.  as themselves had acknowledged concerning his apparitions in the old Testament, so that for all that the Catholics Christ and the Heretics might have been the same; but that taking for granted (which all these Heretics seem to have granted them) that Jesus was the Christ. The Question whether he intended to appear again in the Persons of Simon, or Menander, or any of those other Seducers, was much fit to be decided from his own Doctrine than from the Enthusiastical pretences of concerned Persons? And for his Doctrine, the notorious Tradition of the Church was a much more likely way of conveying it than the secret informations to which the Heretics pretended; and that they who had constantly continued under the Government and Officers appointed by himself and his Apostles, were as certainly in his Communion as any Sect of the Philosophers derived their Succession from their first Founder by keeping up the Succession of his Chair: that if themselves were in Communion with him, the others who had visibly innovated and set up themselves in opposition to them could not be at the same time in Communion with them also. So that the principal Argument made use of against the Heretics was the credibility of the Church's Doctrine; and the principal expedient for securing Persons from the danger of those errors, was to recommend their keeping close to those Assemblies which could derive a regular Succession: And this was not only used by Ignatius, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and so downwards, but even in the Apostolical Age itself.  
§ XXIX Now in this way of arguing, they are not so much proved separated from Christ, because the Doctrines maintained by them did really destroy Christ, as their Doctrines are proved destructive to Christ, because they were thought to be so by that Communion which had the best means of knowing the mind of Christ; and their Communion is proved to be not with the true Christ, because they had departed from the Communion of them who undoubtedly were at first in Communion with him, and still continued so by all the proofs by which a Succession was capable of being proved. In which way of proceeding, it is plain that it is supposed that Communion with Christ could not be maintained without Communion with his visible Church, and in after Ages, without a Communion with that Church which could derive a visible Succession from that which originally was so; I say this is supposed Antecedently to the proof, that the Seducers were disunited from Christ, both because it was from hence proved that their Doctrines▪ were destructive to the true Christ, because the Church said they were so, and because their Communion is proved not to have been with the true Christ because it was not with his Church. But of this I may have more occasion to discourse more largely hereafter. I only observe at present that they are not therefore said to have been disunited from Christ, because they did in express terms disown him, which is the principal thing which is urged to show how different their case was from the present case of our Brethren.  
§ XXX. But, 3. Whatever the occasion was, yet the Argumnets used by those Primitive Writers to convince those Seducers of the dangerousness of their condition do certainly come home to our brethren's Case. My meaning is, they do not only prove that the Seducers could have no Communion with Christ, because they did either expressly or interpretatively deny him; but also because they had no visible Communion with the visible Church. So I have already shown that it was a visible Association which St. John meant 
b 1 Joh. i 3. , when he exhorted them to whom he wrote to communicate with his own Party, because he and his communicated with the Father and the Son. It seems then there was no communicating with Christ, however Orthodox a Profession they made of him, without a continuance in the Orthodox Communion. So the Author to the Hebrews 
c Heb. x. 25, 26.  does not make the denying of Christ to be the true Messiah to be the wilful sin of which he there speaks so dreadfully, but the forsaking of the public Assemblies. And the whole reasoning of St. Paul in comparing the Mystical Body of Christ with the natural Body, does plainly suppose, that although all Grace be derived from Christ the Mystical Head to the several Members of his Mystical Body, as in the natural Body all the vital influences are derived from the Head to the several Members respectively; yet there is withal the same mutual necessity of the Members to each other for receiving these influences from the Mystical Head, as there is in the Natural Body for receiving influences from the Natural Head. And therefore it is impossible▪ in the Natural Body that any particular Member should receive influences from the Head, if separated from its Fellow-Members, by which those influences are to be propagated to it; so it will also be as impossible by the same Analogy of reasoning, for any Member of the Mystical Body of Christ to receive vital influences from Christ the Mystical Head of that Body, if separated from its Fellow-Members of the same Mystical Body. And it is observable from the Offices and Gifts there mentioned that it must be an external Organical Body that is there spoken of, in which only it is that those Offices and Gifts were capable of being exercised. And from the reasoning, they must not only be the Gifts but the Graces of the Spirit, which are most properly to be considered as vital influences, that are thus derived. And then Persons divided from the Church must necessarily be in the state of Death, as St. John supposes them, as necessary as it is in the Body natural that that Member should be dead which receives no vital influences from the Head. But these are also things which I may have occasion to discourse more largely in my second Part, and therefore say no more concerning them at present.   

CHAP. XII. The very Case of abstaining from the Ordinances on pretence to Perfection, seems to have been taken up, and condemned in the time of the Apostles.  
THE CONTENTS.  
8. This very pretence of abstaining from the external Ordidinances under the pretence of Perfection seems to have been taken up, even in those Primitive Ages. 
Euseb. Dem. Eu. L.iii. c. 4.  The Philosophical Notions of those Ages concerning the worship of the supreme Deity. §. I. How this Hypothesis was received first into the Elective Philosophy thence taken up by the Hellenistical Jews, and from them derived to the first Converts to Christianity. §. II. The several reasonings of the Primitive Christians that might make them, in interest, favourable to this Hypothesis. §. III. Particularly their pretending to a Mystical Priesthood might make them less solicitous for their dependence on the literal external Priesthood. §. IV. Instances of several like mistakes of those times in reasoning from Mystical Titles. §. V How the Genius of this Philosophy has inclined men to this way of reasoning, wherever it has prevailed, even among our modern Enthusiasts. §. VI Inference 1. That what the Apostles did resolve in this particular, they did resolve with a particular design upon our Adversaries Case. §. VII. That the Prudential establishments of the Apostles are sufficiently secure. §. VIII. Inf. 2. Hence may appear the insecurity of this way of arguing, in general, from Mystical Titles to the neglect of external Observances. §. IX.X. Inf. 3. It plainly appears to have been against the design of the Legislator in the very Case of the Jews from whom the Christians borrowed it. §. XI. Inf. 4. That the whole contrivance of things by the Apostles plainly supposes that they also did not allow of this Plea for excusing any from the Public Ordinances. §. XII. Inf. 5. The Philosophers themselves never intended this Plea for their exemption from the Mysteries and external Rites of Initiation then used, to which the Sacraments are answerable among Christians. §. XIII, XIV. Inf. 6. The great design of this way of arguing was to exclude themselves from paying any external worship to the Supreme Being, and so destructive to the very foundation of the Christian Religion. §. XV. And this very rationally on the Hypothesis then received. §. XVI. But the reason of this Argument does not hold against those Exteriors which are observed by the Christian Institution. §. XVII. It is very probable that our Adversaries Case is particularly spoken to in Heb. x. 22, 23. §. XVIII.  
§ I TO proceed therefore with my present design, it is further observable. 8. That this very pretence of abstaining from the external Ordinances under the pretence of Perfection seems to have been taken up, even in those Primitive Ages. Those Philosophers who excused their neglect of all exterior worship of the Supreme Being, by pretending that the only proper and acceptable worship of him was that of a 
a Vid. Testimonia Porphyr. Apollonii Tyanei, Theophrasti, apud Eus. Pr. Eu. L.iu. c. 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, etc. Porph. ipsum. L.11. Abstinent. & Hierocl. in Aur. Carm. Cyr. in Julia. L.1.  pure mind, a striving to be like him, a following his conduct, an expressing his Perfections, as far as humane frailty was capable of imitating them, in their own lives, and by that means moving all others with whom they conversed to honourable thoughts of him, they urged their pretences so far as to destroy all necessity of external worship of him in public solemn Assemblies appointed for that purpose. They pretended that the 
b Hierocl in Aur. Carm.  minds of men were the most acceptable Temples, that an holy Soul was an Image of him, and represented him with more advantage than any material Image could possibly do, that good men were all Priests, that their hearts were the most suitable Altars, and their own Persons the most grateful Sacrifices they could offer to this Deity. That there was no need of going to certain places to worship him, because he was everywhere; nay 
c Senec. Ep. 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Porph. de Abstin. apud Euseb. Pr. Eu. L. iu.19. Extat apud. Porphyr. ipsum. L.11. Sect. 52.  within them, that there was no need of depending on particular Persons to be Authorized by their Office, to moderate the Solemnities of his worship, because indeed the best mind was the best Priest, and had God nearest to him, and most favourable to his Prayers. That they who had arrived to this Perfection as to converse immediately with the Deity himself, were so far from being advantaged, as that they were rather prejudiced by their external Solemnities of his worship; that they rather debased their thoughts of him, and made them less worthy of him than they would have been in their own way of dealing with him. That Philosophy was a properer expedient to bring the mind to this temper than any external observations whatsoever.  
§ TWO I need not tell how generally this Hypothesis prevailed in that elective Philosophy, which generally influenced the world at the first appearance of Christianity; nay, it may be, at the public appearance of Judaisme itself, after the Macedonian conquests of those parts. I need not observe how much their general interest obliged them to defend it, when they had to deal with such Persons as objected to their neglect of paying external worship to the Supreme Being. I need not observe farther how much the Hellenistical Jews were generally influenced by that Systeme of the elective Philosophy which had been by Potamon, the first Author of it, settled in the Schools of Alexandria, which was the University where the Jews had most interest, and was accordingly most frequented by them of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I think, I may confidently say, much more than Athens itself. And as those of that Philosophy seemed to have endeavoured to reconcile all the Sects of Philosophers that were for Dogmatizing and Religion against their common Enemies, the Sceptics and Epicureans, by putting Mystical senses on the otherwise indefensible Fables of their Poets, and by that means reconciling them with a plausible Scheme of Philosophy; so the 
* For the way of understanding the Scripture Allegorically, see the Testimonies of Eleazar from Aristeas, and of Aristobulus in the same Euseb. Pr. L.viii. c. 9, 10. which he produces for this very purpose, c. 8. Philo and Aristobulus are produced also for this purpose by Origen. L.iu. contra Cells p. 198. From whence it will appear that this way of exposition was considerably ancienter than our Saviour, and that the account here given was the true reason of it.  Jews, especially the Hellenists, took the same course to recommend their own Law to the Heathens, by the same contrivance of Allegorising it, and by that means not only weakening Objections against the Letter of it, but reconciling it with that very Philosophy which had obtained so great a name among the Gentiles themselves. And we find that among the Jews themselves there were some who were thus so extremely drawn over to the spiritual sense as even to be inclinable to neglect the external observances of the Law. The Essenes' were very Philosophically addicted, the whole Sect of them, and accordingly had an excessive value for the 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Philo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. apud Eus. L.11. Hist. c. 17. p. 55. Rursus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. ib. p. 57 So again describing their Assemblies: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Philo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. apud Euseb. Pr. Eu. L.viii. c. 12.  Mystical Expositions of the Law, and the more they were exercised in them by so much less observant they seem to have been of the ritual customs enjoined by the Letter of it. The very Practical 
b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Philo Quodomn. Sap. ●it lib. & apud Euseb. Pr. Eu. L.viii. c. 12.  Essenes' themselves were less observant than the other Jewish Sects, but the Theoretical Essenes' seem to have exceeded them as far as they did the other Jews in adhering to the Spiritual design, even to the neglect of the Letter of the Law. Now this was the Sect that of all others was most inclinable to be brought over to the Christian Religion. Especially when the Christians took this very same method to recommend their own Doctrine to the Jews, as the Jews had done to recommend theirs to the Philosophers, that is, when they undertook to show that their own Religion was indeed no new one, but that very Mystical Judaisme which these Philosophical Hellenists had so much boasted of. And accordingly we find no mention in the Histories of the first times of Christianity, of any opposition made against the Christian Religion by the Essenes', though we find frequent mention of the other two famous Sects, the Pharisees and Sadduces; and soon after the very memory of them seems to have been extinguished, very probably by reason of their unanimous conversion, not to mention several customs then used generally by the Christians, which it is most likely the Essenes' brought over with them upon their conversion, as Praying towards the East, etc. that I may not instance in those many other customs common to the Christians and the Essenes', of which a plausible account may be given how the Christians might have received them from other Originals.  
§ III But yet to show further how very likely the first Converts to Christianity were to err on this hand, to urge the Spiritual design of Religion, even to a neglect of its external ritual observances, it is very considerable that these very Principles seem to have had a principal influence on their conversion, and were accordingly made use of by the first Preachers of Christianity, to take off their Auditors from these externals, both in Judaisme and the popular Gentilism, which were inconsistent with the Spiritual nature of the Christian Religion, and which indeed were the strongest prejudices in both to make them averse from receiving the Gospel. Thus against the Heathen Images the Christians ordinarily insist on those Authorities of the Philosophers, who make Man the best and liveliest representation of the Supreme Deity, and thence conclude that all other Images were to be rejected. So against external Sacrifices they quote those passages of the same Philosophers that disparage the pompous Hecatombs of the wicked, and make holy Souls acceptable with very mean Sacrifices, or none at all; nay, indeed make the Soul itself the most acceptable Sacrifice. The same thing might have been shown in their Disputes against the magnificent Temples of the Jews and Heathens which the Christians than wanted, and indeed in all their Disputes whatsoever against those external Solemnities which were not practised among the Christians, though generally received among their Adversaries. Our Saviour himself argues against the frequent Washings of the Jews from the greater care they ought to have of cleansing the inside, 
St. Matt. xxiii. 26.  and against their superstitious observance of difference of meats from the greater pollution they were capable of receiving from what came out of their mouths, 
St. Mark seven. 18.  as coming from their hearts than from any thing that only entered into it from without; and against the confinement of the external solemn worship of God to Jerusalem, 
St. Joh. iv. 24.  or mount Gerizim from the Spiritual nature of God to which such a confinement is not so agreeable, and to whom holy Souls cultivated with Spiritual improvements are agreeable wherever they are.  
§ IV Many like instances of reasoning might have been also observed from the Apostles. I only take notice of one which might give a very likely occasion for them then to take up such fancies as our modern Adversaries, against whom I am at present discoursing, have taken up now. That is, their being called a Royal Priesthood, 
1 Pet. two. 5.9 Rev. i 6.  and being chosen Kings and Priests unto God, which might very probably make them believe that the Prayer of a good man, though never so private, might be as acceptable to God as the solemn Prayers of a Priest, if he were not otherwise so good a man as he who prayed more privately; and that indeed Personal Holiness gave a man a better Right to offer up these Spiritual Sacrifices, than any Holiness of Office. This very Title given to the Jews (from whom the Christians took it, as they did all their other Spiritual Privileges, which they challenged and appropriated to themselves as being the true Israelites for whom these Privileges were originally intended) had occasioned the like misunderstanding among them. Corah's principal argument against the confinement of the Sacerdotal office to Aaron and his Sons, was, that all the congregation was holy as well as they. 
Numb. xuj. 3.  But how much a more likely occasion had they of falling into this mistake upon the first Conversions to the Christian Religion, when they knew with what design they had been used by the Philosophers, and especially the Stoics from whom they were taken into the Elective Systeme, purposely to deprive the Supreme Being of all public solemnities of worship, and to advance a wise man to that degree of Perfection, as to be able to perform all offices by himself without any dependence on th● public administrers of the vulgar Religions? especially considering that the Converts from Gentilism were more likely to take up these Notions from the Authorities, and to understand them in the sense of the Philosophers, than from the Old Testament, with which we must presume them less acquainted. Upon which supposition they must have been ignorant of this decision given by God himself against their sentiments, even in that very Case of Corah.  
§ V Besides we have very many instances to let us see how very inclinable the vulgar was to mistake these Mystical Titles. When they heard that every Christian, immediately upon his becoming a Christian, was made free, we find how forward they were to understand that their freedom must exempt them from all Duties to their ordinary Superiors. We see thereupon how necessary the Apostles found it upon all occasions to inculcate the Duties of 
a Eph. vi. 1. Col. iii. 20.  Children to their Parents, 
b Eph. vi. 5. Col. iii. 22. 1 Tim. vi. 1, 2. Tit. two. 9. 1 Pet. two. 18.  of Servants to their Masters, and of 
c Rom. xiii. 1, 2, 3, etc. 1 Tim. two. 1, 2, 1 Pet. two. 13.  Subjects to their Sovereigns. We see how necessary it was to persuade them to 
d 1 Pet. two. 13.  to submit to every humane Ordinance for God's sake, not to 
e 1 Tim. vi. 2.  despise their Masters, because they were Brethren, and in general not to 
f 1 Pet. two. 16.  use their Liberty for a cloak of maliciousness. When Women were told that in Christ Jesus there was 
g Gal. 3.28.  no difference between male and female, we then see how necessary it was to restrain them from exercising their gifts in public, and 
h 1 Tim. two. 12·  exercising Authority over the Man, where they presumed their own gifts to be greater than those were of the Men over whom they exercised it; and thereupon it seems to be that their Duty of Subjection to their 
i Eph. v. 22, 24. Col. iii. 18. 1 Pet. three 1.  Husbands is so often urged on them. And when they had heard that Christ was to 
k 1 Cor. xv. 24.  put down all Authority and power, this also gave many of them occasion to be ill affected to all Authority, and to 
l 2 St. Pet. two. 10. Jud. 8.  speak evil of Dignities. I do not speak of the Jews mistake of our Saviour's Doctrine concerning 
m St. Joh. viij. 32, 33.  Liberty, as if he had therefore implied that they were all slaves in the ordinary notion of the word; nor his words concerning 
n St. Joh. two. 19, 20. St. Matt. xxvi. 61. xxvii. 40. St. Mark. xiv. 58. xv. 29.  raising up the Temple in three days as if he had meant it of their material Temple; nor his words concerning the 
o St. Joh. vi. 51, 52.  eating of his Body and drinking his Blood, as if he had meant them in that barbarous sense wherein they understood them. I say, I mention not these because they were Adversaries, and therefore willing to misunderstand him, and withal willing to cavil, even where they did not really misunderstand him. But the instances I have given do show how the Disciples themselves who were willing to understand him as well as they could, or at least would never have professed themselves to have been otherwise, were notwithstanding apt to misunderstand their Master in such instances as these were, that none may wonder, that (this being the familiar way of teaching in those Oriental Countries) they could have been so strangely misunderstood by their Auditors in a way of teaching which was so familiar to them. And certainly it was as easy for them to collect from their being allowed the Title of Priests under the Gospel, that they had a right to offer the Evangelical Sacrifices, and therefore that the power of administering the Gospel-Ordinances did belong to them rather as eminently-Religious than as Authorized Persons, as it was to collect from their being called to freedom by the Gospel, that therefore they ought no Duty to any of their Secular Superiors. And this the rather in the first disturbed times of the Gospel, before there was any settled establishment of Government, and when the gifts of the Spirit were thought sufficient to Authorise the Person so gifted to use them, till the disorders of that course seems to have put them on a necessity of providing otherwise.  
§ VI And accordingly wherever the Genius of this Philosophy has prevailed, their Men have been inclinable to make this use of it, to think themselves by eminent measures of Perfection to be capable of being improved beyond the benefit of the Sacraments. It is very well known how much that Philosophy had to do in forming the whole establishment of the Primitive Monks, and it is observable that they, according to the Notions they had framed concerning Spiritual Life, allowed of this very thing, 
Anastas. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  that Men might at length out-grow the Sacraments. The like might have been observed concerning the Popish Mystical Divinity, which is no other than an improvement of the Pseudo-Areopagites Doctrine, as that itself is no other than an application of the Philosophy I am speaking of to the Practice of Christianity. And these do also teach the same thing that Persons eminent for Perfection may, at length arrive to that pitch as not to need the Sacraments. And even in our Modern Euthusiasts and Superordinancers I am very inclinable to impute it to the same Original. It is indeed somewhat surprising to observe, but he, who shall be pleased to observe, will find it true, that the Enthusiastic style of Jacob Behmen, Henry Nicholas, and the Quakers, and such other Enemies of Learning, such strangers to Antiquity, and to the tongues they wrote in, should so agree with the Platonism of the elective Philosophy I am speaking of. However it comes to pass, whether by likeness of temper, or likeness of Spirit, or the Hypocrisy of the first Masters of these Sects who possibly feigned themselves to be more unlearned than they were, that what knowledge they might have occasion to show, might look more like to Inspiration, or that they might have light on some neglected Translations of some little things of that kind, which might have given them those little hints which might have been sufficient for a warm brain to work upon; yet it cannot be admired that they who had by any means light upon those Principles, should also light on a mistake so obvious, and so very popular, and into which unwary Persons have been always so apt to fall, pursuant to these Principles.  
§ VII Now the Inferences I would make from my foregoing Discourse are these. 1. That our Adversaries may not think their Doctrine so singular, but may see that as their Principles were known, and as the Consequences they draw from them very obvious even to the Persons of those Ages themselves; so they have reason to believe that what the Apostles did resolve on in this particular, they did resolve with a particular design upon our Adversaries Case. And therefore they are not to allow themselves the liberty of making conjectures from the reason of the thing, and by that means both guessing what the Apostles would have done, if their circumstances and pretences had been pleaded to them, and avoding all Arguments deduced from their Authority whilst they may think they can pretend any disparity in their case and circumstances which the Apostles were not obliged to take notice of in fitting their establishments for the Age they lived in. And this observation will make the Apostles establishment Argumentative in this Case, though we suppose them conducted therein by no higher measures than those of ordinary Humane Prudence, as we have reason to believe they were not in some of their Ecclesiastical constitutions which they made, not as Apostles, providing for all future Ages, and all possible circumstances; but as the Governors of the Church in that present Age, and so concerned no further than for their then present Circumstances. In what they were immediately inspired by the Holy Ghost, and in what was desired for all Circumstances, we have reason to believe that the Holy Ghost himself foreseeing all Cases, what was so constitueed must have been fitted to all circumstances that should ever happen, and therefore that whatever can be pretended now, was then foreseen and provided for, if ever it should be likely to be of general concernment; for such things only are in Prudence fit to be provided for in general Constitutions. But in Prudential Constitutions made by the Apostles as Ordinary present Governors of the Church in that present Age, there is not that reason to expect that they should have been assisted with higher influences of the Spirit than ordinary Governors are. And therefore they must have acquitted themselves well in such things, if what they did was fitted to the circumstances of that Age, those of them at least that the Apostles were acquainted with, though the constitutions themselves had not been otherwise more infallible than those are which are made by Ordinary Governors.  
§ VIII But however, if we will allow, what is very reasonable to believe, that even in such constitutions as these were, the very Prudence of the Apostles to have been so assisted, though not to discover any Truth which had not been discoverable by them in the use of their natural reasonings, yet at least to secure them from error in those reasonings, that they should judge nothing to be true but what really was so, and was capable of appearing to be so by virtue of those Arguments which they were capable of discovering by their natural faculties: we may then at least conclude, that if this pretence of Perfection for excusing the Persons so pretending from the Ordinances, was a Case with which the Apostles were then acquainted, it is reasonable to believe that in making their constitutions, though only of present concernment, they did ordain what they thought fit to be ordained, even in this case also, because, on this supposition, this Case also was of present concernment. And then supposing further that their very Prudential Constitutions were yet Infallibly prudent, that is, Infallibly fitted to the Cases then foreseen; it will follow, that if the Apostles did not then think it fit to make any allowances for such Persons pretending Perfection, the reason must have been, because it was really unfit that any allowances should have been made for such Pretenders. And if so, this, at least, will follow, that this pretence alone is not even a just excuse from the Ordinances, And yet, though the Apostles had not had any greater assistance than that of their natural Prudence, yet certainly every truly-Pious humble Christian, who will not so far presume as to think himself more perfect than he were, cannot choose but pay a great respect, even to their Judgements, in the Case whose assistances seem to have been such as that they did as well enlarge their Naturals as well as cultivate them with Supernatural improvements. And that this was a Case very likely to have been extant, even in the Apostles times, I have endeavoured to show by this account I have given of its Original.  
§ IX A second Inference is, To let our Brethren see the Insecurity of this way of arguing from mystical Titles to the neglect of external observances. I have given several instances of errors which this way of arguing brought several less-discerning Persons into then, and which were condemned for Errors by the Apostles themselves, and I believe even our Adversaries themselves will not doubt but that they were Erroneous. Nay, even in the very same places where they find pious Persons called Priests they find them called Kings too. 
Rev. i. 6.u.10.  And can they therefore think they may take upon them the Office of Temporal Kings as they do the Office of Priests? Will they therefore refuse Subjection to the Ordinances of the State as they do to those of the Church? Why may they not as well pretend to have out-grown the Political contrivances to make men virtuous, as they pretend to have out-grown the ordinary contrivances of the Church for that purpose? Of the two, certainly the Provisions of the Church are much more perfect than those of the State, and therefore must require much greater Perfection in him who will pretend to have out-grown them, and who will also expect to be believed in such his pretences. And then what confusion must this bring the world to when they shall, by this means, have freed themselves from all restraints whatsoever? when the worst men, who are usually the highest Pretenders, shall have this Apology allowed them for all the disorders they can make by this pretended exercise of their Liberty? When the Proudest men, who have usually the best opinion of their own Perfection, shall, by this means, be allowed to shake off all yokes and Superiorities, and to drive on all their arrogant and ambitious designs under this fair pretence of asserting their Christian Liberty.  
§ X If, to avoid these consequences, they tell us, with our Saviour, that their Kingdom is not of this world; 
St. Joh. xviii. 36.  why should not they say the same of their Priesthood too? why should they rather be allowed to encroach on the Priesthood of the World, in presuming to administer to themselves those Sacraments whose administration God has only entrusted to the public Priesthood, or in presuming to free themselves from a dependence on them, by pretending that they do not need any thing for which the public Priesthood was ordained; than to encroach on the Kingdom of the World, by presuming, on the same pretence, either to administer Justice to themselves where they should need it, or in excusing themselves from any debt of Duty to their Secular Superiors, on pretence that they need not any Protection from them? And at present it is perfectly sufficient for my purpose to show the weakness of these Arguments, which are the only ones they can bring for their Assertion; and the rather so, because it is but reason to expect that all Persons who plead exemption from standing Rules, should produce very positive and direct proof that such an exemption was intended by the Legislator, so that the proof will be incumbent on them, not the disproof on us. So that if they fail in their proof of exemption, that failure alone is enough to reduce them to the general Rules. For it is always rational to presume that all general determinations were designed by the Legislator to include all those who were not expressly exempted by him. At least this general Presumption concerning the Legislators mind, is much more likely to be approved by himself as agreeable to his own design in making those determinations, than these uncertain guesses which these interested Persons make both concerning the singularity of their own Case, and the Judgement which the Legislator would have made of it, if he had thought himself obliged to take particular notice of it. But neither does it only thus appear that the Inference which they would make from these mystical Titles, is, in the whole kind of it, very weak for such a purpose as they produce them for: But,  
§ XI 3. It plainly appears to have been against the design of the Legislator in the very Case of the Jews, from whom the Christians borrowed it. I have already observed that this Title was taken from the Old Testament, and challenged by the Christians to themselves, only on account of their being the true Spiritual Mystical Israel for whom those Promises were more properly designed by God, than they were for that Israel, who had no better plea to the name of Israel than their carnal extraction. However, considering that this Title was given primarily to the carnal Israel as a Type, at least, of the Mystical Israel, though intended primarily for the Mystical Israel; there is reason to believe that it really belongs to the Mystical Israel in the same sense as it was challenged by the carnal Israel, and as it was allowed by God himself who gave it, in his deal with them. And therefore if the generality of the carnal Israel at that time did not understand their Mystical Priesthood: so as to excuse them from dependence on the Literal Levitical Priesthood, and if it be withal certain that God did never intent it so; nay, was so far from intending it, as that he declared his extreme displeasure by most exemplary punishments inflicted on them who made use of this pretence, and ventured to put it in practice; the same things mud in reason hold as to this privilege as it is challenged by the Mystical Israelite. But that God himself never intended that this use should be made of this Privilege, appears plainly by the now-mentioned instance of Corah, who made use of this very pretence for justifying his refusal of Subjection to Aaron and his Sons, that all the Congregation was holy, 
Numb. xuj. 3.  whom yet God punished for making that use of it with extraordinary Society, though the Persons who pleaded it had an inferior degree, even of Holiness of Office, which was more than others could pretend to barely on account of that Holiness and Royal Priesthood, which they might challenge on account of their being Israelites. And that the holiest among them did not think themselves excused by their Mystical Priesthood, from a dependence on the Levitical Priesthood; nay, rather always thought their constant attendance on it one of the most eminent exercises and instances of their Holiness, appears from the great expense they were at for maintaining the Temple-Service, from the long and chargeable journeys they made at whatsoever distance in the Holy-Land, nay, very frequently, even in the dispersion itself, that they might be present at Jerusalem at the times appointed by the Law; from their great complaints in time of exile, and their hard opinion of the state of excommunicated Persons, and from that general Popular Notion then prevailing among them whereby they ascribed more to the punctual observance of these external Sanctifications than to real Holiness itself. 
Phil. iii. 6.9.  These things were accounted the very Righteousness of the Law, and these were the vulgar measures of Popular Holiness. But though this be abundantly sufficient to show that this use of this Privilege cannot be justified in the Mystical Israel, on account of their being Israel, which was never challenged by the carnal Israel themselves, nor ever intended for them; yet to give all possible satisfaction in this Case, it is further observable,  
§ XII 4. That the whole contrivance of things by the Apostles, plainly supposes that they also did not allow of this plea for excusing any from the public Ordinances. They plainly suppose that the most perfect, as well as others, stood in need of Church-Society. They plainly form the Church into a Body Politic, and obliged all, the most perfect as well as others, to observe their respective Duties, which was not done by the Philosophers who maintained our Adversaries Notions. They plainly confine the Graces of God to the Sacraments, that so no Persons might on any pretence of Perfection think they did not need the Sacraments, unless they were withal so perfect as not to need the Graces also conferred in the Sacraments. They make the influences of the Spirit derived from Christ the Head, to particular Members by the mediation of other Members, the same way as the vital influences are derived in the Body Natural. They confine his influences to his Body, and make the Sacraments to be the only ordinary means of joining or continuing a Member in that Body. They make the casting-out of the Church's Communion the same thing as a delivering over unto Satan, 
1 Cor. v. 5. 1 Tim. i 20. Vid. cap. xi. §. 4, 5, 6.  and describe the condition of such Persons as very sad, that they are in the World, in Darkness, nay, in a state of Death itself. These are all of them other contrivances of things than they would ever have settled, if they had allowed any Plea of Perfection whatsoever, as sufficient to excuse the pretender to it from the External Communion of the visible Church.  
§ XIII And further, 5. It is very considerable in this whole matter, that even those Philosophers themselves, who allowed this Notion of Perfection, as sufficient to excuse Persons who were endued with it from the Sacrifices and some of those grosser ways of Worship of their Deities, which were more suitable to popular capacities, who thought a wise man might Sacrifice as acceptably with a little meal as others with a Hecatomb: nay, that his Prayers might be more acceptable than the Sacrifices of others; yet never thought of extending it to the Mysteries and forms of initiation into the more familiar acquaintance with their Deities. These they were so far from thinking meanly of, as that indeed they were the most perfect sort of Persons for whom they thought them most proper. Especially the greater Mysteries, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, were purposely so contrived that meaner spirited Persons might never have the courage to undertake them. Therefore the Egyptian initiations were so extremely severe that they thought to have terrified Pythagoras himself from his curiosity to be acquainted with them, and Appion, 
Joseph. count. Appion. Nonn. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz.  the Jews great Adversary, died of his Circumcision which was only one of them. Therefore the preparatory trials of Mithras were so many, and so rigorous, that very many perished under them. To this end were their frightful shapes, their showing their Images only with Torches not by daylight, their tedious and solemn preparations, only to advance the horror of the Spectacle. Therefore they were first expiated by all the Purgations proper in the respective Cases, that so they might approach the Idol itself with the most exquisite Purity. Thence the Proclamation before the Orphaicks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to warn all impure Persons to beware how they ventured to approach them. And therefore they are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and they are principally recommended by the Pythagoreans for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which they make the highest pitch of Philosophy, and oppose to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Purgation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they conceived proper for Beginners.  
§ XIV And to these the Primitive Christians thought the Lord's supper answerable, and accordingly spoke of it in all that sacred style which the Philosophers had used concerning these greater Mysteries, as may be seen punctually observed, among very many others, by the Pseudo-Areopagite. And yet even the lesser Purgative Mysteries were not so neglected as that any Person, how perfect soever, durst presume immediately to venture on the greater without these preliminary expiations. No Moral Purity whatsoever was thought so great as to make these ritual Purgatious needless to him who was desirous to initiate himself in any of their particular Religions. The most Perfect Persons among them, and they who were thought to approach nearest to the Purity of the gods themselves; nay▪ who were often themselves called gods, in such a sense as the name required when it was communicated to inferior Being's. As they often thought it necessary to initiate themselves, so when they were admitted, they were not admitted on other terms than the Ordinary Lustrations. Such were the 
a Hercules in the Eleusin. Scholiast. Aristoph. in Plut. Scholar in Homer. Il. Theta in Tzetzes Lycophr. Alex. Argonauts in the Samothraclan. Apollon. Rhod. Argon. Castor and Pollux. Plutarch. Thes.  Heroes, the 
b Demetrius Polycrates. Plutarch. Demetr. Adrian. Spartian. Antoninus Capitolin.  Emperors, and the 
c Pythagoras, Jamblich. de vita. Pyth. Ch. 16.  Philosophers. Of all which sorts there are several instances of Persons who were initiated, and initiated in the common way; but I believe no one Precedent can be given of any who were thought too Perfect either to need the initiation itself, or any one external Rite with which it was ordinarily performed. At least they were so extremely few as that no modest man can, in initiation of such Precedents, find in his heart to reckon himself in the number. No wise man, who throughly considers and understands his own interest, can venture the loss he may suffer if he should neglect them on confidence of a thing wherein he may so easily prove mistaken. Which will again assert the necessity of Baptism, which in the Christian Institution was answerable to these lesser Mysteries. But I shall not now enlarge further to show that their Sacraments were rather thought to hold proportion to the Heathen Mysteries than their Sacrifices, because I may possibly take an occasion to insist more largely on it on another occasion. However at present this Observation may suffice to show that, even pursuant to these Philosophical Notions themselves, and the influence they might have had on the minds of the Primitive Christians, no Perfection can be pleaded such as may excuse from the use of the Sacraments.  
§ XV And further, 6. It has also appeared that the great design of pleading this Spiritual way of worship of the supreme Being to the neglect of external Ritual-Observances was indeed to excuse themselves from paying him any external worship at all. And indeed seems very rational on that Hypothesis which was then commonly received concerning the natural Philosophical reason of the worship of their ordinary Daemons. 
Vid. Oracula, aliaque Plutarchi & Porphyrii Testimonia apud Euseb. L.5. Praep. Eu. c. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16▪ 17.  For they conceived that the Daemons commonly worshipped were not purely Spiritual, but, at least, clothed with vehicles more or less gross according to the several degrees of their respective excellencies. And hence they inferred that the Daemons themselves were sensibly delighted and nourished either with the Souls or nidor of the Sacrifices offered to them. And that this was the true reason why the different Daemons were pleased with different sorts of Sacrifices, and different sorts of Trees in their Groves, and peculiar places and ceremonies of worship, that their vehicles were of as great diversity of complexions as men's Bodies are, and therefore inclined them to as great a diversity of desires; because that the same thing which was grateful to the vehicle of one Daemon would either not affect the vehicle of another, or would prove ungrateful to it. And as they thought these vehicles to be material, so they thought them subject to the same influences to which the matters were subject whereof they consisted. And accordingly as all matter was supposed to be under the dominion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so they conceived these vehicles to be also, and that they were by this means subject to the fatal influences of the Stars, and even to the influences of Sublunary Bodies also, as herbs, and stones, and the steams of Animals that were offered in Sacrifice to them. This seems to have been the true Philosophical reason of all the Judicial Astrology and Magic which were then in so good esteem with the Persons I am speaking of.  
§ XVI Now, on these Principles it is very true that no Bodily worship is suitable to the nature of the supreme Being, that is, there is no Bodily Being that is capable of affecting a Nature so perfectly abstract from matter as God's is with any sensible pleasure or advantage. In this regard himself expressly disowns such a way of Worship, and that even in such a time when he was otherwise pleased to accept of bloody Sacrifices. Thinkest thou that I will eat Bull's flesh, and drink the blood of Goats? 
Psal. i. 13.  And in that regard he immediately requires a more Spiritual kind of Worship. For so it follows, Offer unto God thanksgiving, 
Ver. 14.  and pay thy vows unto the most Highest. But as this whole design of excusing themselves from the public solemn Worship of the supreme Deity, was a thing directly contrary to the fundamental Principles of the Christian Religion; nay, indeed it seems to be the principal design of this Religion, to restore the public solemn Worship of the chief God, which had before been taken from him, and given only to inferior Daemons; and this seems to have been the principal Dispute between the Christians and the Philosophers: so our Adversaries will have reason, when they reflect on the great unlawfulness of the design, to distrust the Principles by which they defended it. And therefore when they shall perceive that the tendency of this way of arguing from the Spiritual Nature of that Worship which must be suitable to the supreme Being to the neglect of the external Observances of his solemn Worship in public Assemblies, aims at the overthrow of the fundamental Principles of the whole Christian Religion, and was designed so by them who first made use of it: They cannot choose but have a great unkindness for this way of arguing, if they have any kindness for the Christian Religion, which is so plainly undermined by it. And that this account of their design and Principles is true, I might refer to Porphyries account of Sacrifices, 
De Abstinent. ab esu Animal.  which he gives in the name of the Pythagoreans, whose cause he principally undertakes to defend, but which withal seems generally to have been received into the elective Philosophy which then prevailed.  
§ XVII But besides the reason of this Argument will by no means hold in those exteriors which are observed by the Christian Institution. The Sacraments are not pretended to have any natural influence on God, but only to be means of conveying his Graces to us. And how can it be against the Nature or decorum of a Spirit in dealing with Being's which are not Spiritual to use means suitable to the capacities of those Being's with whom he deals? If we conceive any commerce at all between Spiritual and Corporal Being's, this is certainly the most likely way we can think of how such a commerce should be maintained. Corporeal Being's are not able to converse by means wholly Spiritual; and therefore it is absolutely necessary that if God would be pleased to have any deal with them, he should maintain them by Corporeal significations. This moral use of the Sacraments, as Solemnities of transacting the New Covenant, does rather derogate from the Perfection of God, not from that Perfection which a Corporeal Being is capable, as it is Corporeal. If further in the Symbols of the Heathen Mysteries there might have been fancied something that in its own Nature might influence the vehicle of the Soul, and more easily dispose it for receiving Spiritual influences, which dispositions such Souls as are already perfect might not be supposed to need, if this is not the Case in our Christian Mysteries. The Symbols here used are such as are familiar among us, and therefore if they had any such natural virtue, must exert it as well out of the Sacraments as in them. So that all their influence must be wholly ascribed to the Divine appointment. And why then should any Soul which is not so perfect but that it needs the Divine Assistance, be yet thought so perfect as not to need those means which he has been pleased to appoint for the conveyance of those Assistances?  
§ XVIII And indeed I know not, whether the Author to the Hebrews did not allude to some such fancy of some who mysticised Baptism, possibly to the disparagement of the Literal Baptism. For having exhorted those to whom he wrote, to draw nigh [to Christ] with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having their hearts sprinkled from an evil Conscience, 
Heb. x. 22.  as if he had been afraid that they should understand him of this Mystical Baptism, he after adds, 
Ver. 23.  and having our Bodies sprinkled with pure water, let us hold fast the Profession of our hope without wavering. That he should add the mention of this literal Baptism, after he had already taken notice of the Mystical Baptism, which is indeed the truly beneficial Baptism, I cannot but think was done with particular design in an Author so accurate as this is to the Hebrews, and who generally lays so much weight on his particular expressions. And when I consider what he immediately infers from it, that they should hold fast the Profession of their hope without wavering, then methinks his design seems to be yet clearer. For plainly by their holding fast the Profession of their hope without wavering, he means not so much an adhering to the Practice of the Christian Duties, as to the belief and external Profession of the Christian Religion. This was the thing that the Hebrews than were most in danger of, of relapsing to Judaisme. As to their lives, and their sincerity in what they professed, 
Heb. vi. 9, 10. Heb. x. 25.  the Author himself gives them a very good Testimony. And soon after he shows again what he means by it, when he persuades them not to forsake the assembling of themselves together, that he also meant an adhering to that external Communion wherein that hope was professed, as I have elsewhere observed. 
Chap. 11. §. 14, 15.  Now for persuading them to keep to the external Communion of the Church, the external Baptism was the properest Argument, because this was indeed an external initiation into a particular visible Society, and was not so applicable to the external Parties to which they might fall when they deserted the Communion of the Church, as the Mystical Baptism might be pretended to be, by them who should be seduced to a defection. This sprinkling from an evil Conscience being a thing transacted internally, and so not capable of discovery in itself, could not oblige to one Party more than another, at least it could not be known to what Party it obliged any otherwise than by supposing it confined to the external Baptism, which their senses could inform them where it had been received. As therefore it was very agreeable to the Author's interest to urge the external Baptism for such a purpose as this was, so it was as much for his Adversaries interest to disparage, and, if he could, evacuate the obligation of the external Baptism by that Argument which I have already shown to have been then so Popular, that is, by extolling the Mystical Baptism as the only really beneficial Baptism as to all those advantages for which Baptism was designed. This therefore the Author seems to have been ware of, and, to prevent any such evasion, and withal to urge his own Arguments more closely and convictively, immediately adds this mention of this external Baptism. If this were really the Author's meaning, than it will afford us a direct confutation of our Adversaries Notion, at least in this particular of Baptism. The sense of this Divine Author will then appear to be full and resolute in the case, that this Mystical Baptism is not to be supposed separate from the external Baptism, and that the receiving this external Baptism in the external Communion of the Church is an obligation to all who have so received it, not to forsake the public Assemblies of the Church whereof they are Members, as they would expect the benefit of this Mystical Baptism, which on this supposition is so inseparable from it; nay, that these are now as necessary for entering into Heaven, as the external Lustrations were then in the time of the Law; for the Priests entering into the Holy of Holies, what personal Holiness soever he might otherwise pretend to. For to this he plainly alludes in that part of the context which gave the whole occasion for bringing in those words of which we are at present discoursing. And that this is really the Apostles sense, will appear to him (who shall consider the coherence with the Considerations now mentioned) not improbable conjecture.   

CHAP. XIII. The danger of Separation proved from Heb. VI.  
THE CONTENTS.  
§ I Lastly, This sin of withdrawing from the public Assemblies, on any pretence whatsoever, is highly condemned in the Scriptures, and the condition of Persons guilty of it is described as extremely dangerous. §. I. This proved from Heb. vi. The design of the Sacred Authors in these kind of Discourses is to warn the Persons with whom they had to deal against Lapses, not from a good Life, but from the true Communion. §. TWO, III. This proved particularly to be the design of this place. Illumination put for Baptism, both because of the interest Baptism gave them in Christ who was the true Light, §. IU. And in regard of the visible Glory which then seems to have accompanied Baptism, in which regard this Title was likely to have been taken up rather in the Apostles Age than afterwards. §. V How properly this Title was given it as a lesser Purgative Mystery. Fire the most Purgative Element. §. VI And that by which the Purgativeness of our Saviour's Baptism had been before particularly described. §. VII. The other expressions of this Text applied to Baptism. §. VIII. That separating from the visible Communion of the Church was a breach of their Baptismal Obligations proved from the design of the Baptism of those times. Baptism a solemnity of admission into their Schools, and an obligation to adhere to the Master. §. IX. And not only to the first Masters, but to the lawful Successors to their Chairs. §. X. The dishonour to Christ by falling away, mentioned in the Text to be understood only Interpretatively. How this was proper to the Case of desertors in those times. §. XI, XII. How it is applicable to our present Adversaries. §. XIII. The Punishment of this crime mentioned in the Text. §. XIV. The application of this also to our present Adversaries. §. XV. What it is to Baptism in the name of the Spirit. §. XVI, XVII. What is meant by the Impossibility to renew the Lapsers here spoken of. §. XVIII. An Objection. §. XIX. Answered. §. XX. Application to our Present Adversaries. §. XXI, XXII.  
AND Lastly, This sin of withdrawing from the public Assemblies, on any pretence whatsoever, is highly condemned in the Scriptures, and the condition of Persons guilty of it is described as extremely dangerous; so dangerous, as that it can be no small matter, nor no small evidence of a great matter, that can encourage any wise considerative Person to venture his Soul upon it. I have already shown something of this on other occasions. In discoursing concerning the sin unto Death, I have shown, that in St. John the dispute was between Parties, betwixt the Party of the Church and those of the Deceivers; and that whatever did belong to Christ was confined to his Party, and the contrary is said of those who joined with the Deceivers: That as Christ is the Life, the Truth and the Light, so they who join in the external Profession of him are said to have Life, to walk in the Truth, and in the Light, and on the contrary, that they who deserted this Party externally professing him, are therefore said not to have the Son, nor those privileges which are only to be had by him, but on the contrary to be in falsehood, to be in darkness, to be in the World, and in Death, for that very reason. I have showed, that if they should be mistaken in a matter of this nature, their very recovery itself, how penitent soever they should prove, is described as very hazardous, so hazardous as that no slight reasons, nor slight conveniences, can make amends for it. I have shown that they have no Promise that their own Prayers should be heard for any Spiritual good thing whilst they continue in that condition, nor that the Prayers of any others should be heard in their behalf. I have shown that the sin against the Holy Ghost, which is so usually dreadful to our brethren's Consciences, is most likely to be incurred by this Practice of leaving the Communion of the Church. But I must not recapitulate what I have there discoursed, as the several Heads under which I discoursed them gave way. I only add some few things now which were not so naturally reducible to the former Topics.  
§ TWO That of Heb. vi. is a Text which our Brethren find extremely afflictive to them, when they are under anguishes of Conscience. I hearty wish they would seriously consider how much more their separation may expose them to the danger of it, than those uncertain guesses at the temper of their own Spirits, which according to their way of management does usually occasion their fearful apprehensions concerning it. I have already observed that it is the great design of the Writer of this Epistle to secure the Hebrews, to whom he writes it, from falling away to their old Profession of Judaisme. And accordingly as the greatest part of the Epistle is spent in Dispute, in proving the Christian Religion true from the Notions then received amongst the Jews themselves concerning Mystical Judaisme, which he applies to the Christian Religion; so the frequent excursions which he makes, as he has occasion, to apply the several Parts of his Discourse, are plainly to confirm them in the visible Christian Communion. For otherwise his whole Discourse had signified little, if they might have had liberty of professing this Mystical Judaisme, as they had done formerly, and as he plainly supposes the Jews to do still, when he argues from those Mystical Notions as things acknowledged by them, in the Jewish Communion.  
§ III And the like might have been observed concerning all those Parts of Scripture which are written professedly against the Errors and Seducers of those times, that the design of such Discourses is not, as our Brethren usually take it to be, to secure them from falling from a good Life, but primarily from falling from the true Religion, and that Party wherein the true Religion was professed▪ and if on such occasions, any thing be spoken of their Lives, it is only as a good Life might secure them from Seduction, or as their departure would occasion their living ill, either as the Doctrine of the Seducers tended to defend an ill Life, as generally their Notions did concerning Christian Liberty, or as their wavering and inconstancy to Par●●es might take them off from any serious belief of any Religion at all, at least from any vehement concern for any one Party, when the owning of it, should engage them in sufferings, as, God knows, we see it does, by too many present experiments in the many Divisions for which I am at present concerned. And indeed all their pains had been needlessly employed, if our Adversaries Notion of a Church had been intended. What need had there been to have been so solicitous for an invisible Church consisting of Elect, which could never fail how much soever they had neglected them? And why should they have been jealous of them, of whose present condition they often speak, as well as themselves could desire, if they had thought they could not fall from that Grace which they had once received? Certainly our Brethren themselves cannot understand these things of any other Church than a visible one, wherein these Elect Persons were not so distinguishable from others who were not Elect, which might engage for a solicitousness for all, when they knew not who they were that were in danger. Besides, the Apostles Discourses do plainly suppose some to have fallen, and that so notoriously as that others might beware of their example, and the Persons themselves could not deny a change from what they had been formerly. But if they might have had the benefit of their Faith and Repentance, and their Moral invisible Dispositons in another Party, their fall could never have been so notorious.  
§ IV But whatever it might have been in other places, yet plainly the fall, here described, is from their Baptismal Profession, from that condition into which they were initiated by those Fundamental Rites mentioned in the beginning of the Chapter, particularly those external ones of Baptism and Imposition of hands. 
Heb. vi. 2.  And if men would but expound the Scriptures as they do other Books of the same Antiquity, that is, explain the terms of Art in the same sense they did from whom they were taken, and as they did for whose information they were designed, there could be little doubt of it. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Illumination here was plainly the very term used by the Christians in St. Justin Martyrs time for Baptism. 
Ver. 4.  Nor can it be admired that the Christians should call their own Mysteries by Mystical Titles. 
Apolog. 2. p. 49. D.  It cannot be thought more strange in this Sacrament than in the other. If we be said to be all one Body, 
1 Cor. x. 17. 1 Cor. xii. 13.  because we partake of one Bread, we are also to be baptised into one ●ody. Besides, the Mystical way of teaching, which was so generally in use in the Eastern Nations, the Christians proving the Truth of their Religion, as I have said, from Mystical Judaisme, plainly inclined them to use a Mystical Language in all their writings. And among them all there is none who makes more advantage of these Mystical Notions and Language than this Author to the Hebrews, and it may be none who is more Critical, in observing the phrases and terms of that Language. And if he would observe the Propriety any where, where would it better become him than in a Subject of this Nature? The reason why Baptism was called Illumination, was, because it ingraffed into Christ who was the true Light. And it is very well known how constant the Writers of the New Testament are in using this Mystical expression concerning 
a Luk. two. 32. Joh. i. 9.viii.12 Act. xiii. 47. 1 Joh. 1.5. Rev. xxi. 23.  Christ, and how constant withal they are in describing our conversion to him as a conversion from 
b Act. xxvi. 18.  darkness unto Light, as a 
c 1 Pet. two. 9.  calling us out of darkness into this marvellous Light, etc. And what is Baptism else but the Solemnity of this conversion? And why should we think it strange that they should use this word in the Mystical sense, even in the Apostles times, when we find them so constant to those Mystical Notions from whence it plainly came to be applied to Baptism?  
§ V Besides, as the Holy Ghost was given in Baptism, so in the Apostles times it was usually given with a sensible signification, and it was but necessary for the conviction of the Infidel beholders, who might, by this means, be satisfied of the Divine Authority by which they preached, when they saw their Promises of the Spirit so ratified by God in a way themselves were capable of judging of. And among these sensible significations, one of the most familiar, and which the Jews had been most acquainted with, was that of a Shechinah, a visible glorious Light surrounding the faces of those Persons on whom the Holy Ghost was thus pleased to descend. Thus it was with 
d Exod. xxxiv. 30.  Moses in the Mount, and our Saviour at his Baptism and on his Transfiguration, and it is most likely that the fiery cloven tongues which sat upon the Apostles on Pentecost were of this nature. And even among the Heathens themselves the ignis lambens is taken notice of, which appeared on some of their Heroes▪ on 
a Virgil. Aen. 2.  Ascanius, and 
b Liv. L.i. c. 39  Servius Tullius, and in the Samnite War on 
c Flor.  and upon other 
d Vid. Appian Syriac. p. 198. Ed. 1670. & ib. not. Tollii.  occasions this appearance of fire was counted lucky, as signifying a propitious presence of the Deity. And it was usual for them to picture them as we do our Saints with rays of Light. And why might not this visible appearance of rays of Light on Persons newly Baptised be a very pobable occasion why Baptism itself was called Illumination? 
Thence the Coronae radiatae on the first Emperors, when they affected to be Gods.  If it was then it will be more likely that the name should have been taken up in the Apostles own times than afterwards when these Supernatural appearances began gradually to decay, and to grow less familiar. For though several other miracles continued to the second Century and downwards, yet there is no reason to believe that this did, at least we have no footsteps of its appearing ordinarily over Persons Baptised. 
Heb. x. 32.  Besides, there is one place more wherein this same Author uses this same word of Illumination. And whether it be necessary it should be understood so or not, yet it cannot be denied but that it is there also conveniently intelligible of Baptism. And indeed the former days spoken thereof do most conveniently refer to their first initiation into the Christian Religion.  
§ VI I might have added further, for showing how very agreeable it was to the Notions of a Sacrament which then prevailed, that Baptism should be called Illumination, that Baptism was the lesser Mystery, and the proper Office of such was understood to be Purgative rather than Perfective, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rather than 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that was the Sacred Language. And that the two Elements, which were thought most Purgative▪ were fire and water, which were therefore generally used in these Purgative Mysteries. Accordingly fire was used among the Purgative Rites of the Initiations of Mithras, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Porphyr. Ep. ad Anebunt. ap. Euseb. Pr. Eu. L.iii. c. 4.  and of the Egyptians; and when Cores would purge a Child of its Mortality, 
Nonn. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. in Nazian. Stel. 1. Apollodor. Bibl. Selden. de Diis Syr.  she did it with fire; and thus not only the modern Rabbins, but even the LXXII themselves seem to have understood the Israelites making their Children pass through the fire, of their initiatory Purgation, when they express it by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which is the proper sacred term for that purpose, which whether it were true in this case or not, yet at least supposes that they who thus expounded these Texts, did know that this was used in their initiations at least. in those Eastern Countries, which we have reason to expect to have most influence on our Christian Mysteries. And the use of brimstone in these fiery Purgations was so very ordinary that it is conceived thence to have had the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used for purging, not only very frequently in the LXXII. but also in profane Authors. And hence it was that the fire, 
— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theocrit. Eid. 24. v. 9.  even of Hell, and of the general Conflagration were thought Purgative to the Souls who were to pass through them, not only by the Philosophers, but by many of the most ancient Fathers. As therefore the visible Element of Water was made use of for purging the Body, which is the effect it is usually applied to by the sacred Writers so it is also very probable that the Spirit when it descended upon them, did descend in the likeness of fire, as it did upon the Apostles at Pentecost, that is, that the Schechinah, in which it appeared, had the resemblance of Fire.  
§ VII This I therefore conjecture, because as it is described by St. John Baptist as the Property of our Saviour's Baptism, 
Matt. iii. 11. Luk. iii. 16.  that it gives the Holy Ghost, so the Holy Ghost there given is peculiarly characterized under the resemblance of fire. For so I understand this Baptising with the Holy Ghost and with Fire, to be a giving of the Holy Ghost with that external signification of a Glory, which is called fire. I confess this is peculiarly applied to the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles at Pentecost. 
Act. i. 5.  But when I consider it as opposed to St. John's Baptism I cannot but think it was also as ordinary then for Persons baptised by the Apostles to receive the Spirit with this external Symbol of fire, as it was for them to want it in other Baptisms. I need not also tell how very proper it was in the Mystical Language of those times to call the Spirit itself by the name of fire, 
* The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Chaldee Oracles, the liquidus ignis in Virgil, where see Servius. And God is described as a Being whose Soul is Truth, and his Body Fire. See Boet. de cons. Phil. So Porphiry concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. de Abstinent. L.ii. & ap. Eus. Pr. Eu. i. 9.  and that not only by them who thought it really so, but by them who were more Orthodox in the Philosophy of it, only because they could think of no sensible resemblance that held a nearer proportion to the Purity of a Spirit than fire did; and one great design of this Mystical language was to help the imaginations of those to whom they used them to frame worthy Ideas of Spirits, and the most suitable to their nature they were capable of, by those sensible resemblances which were nearest to their nature. And that from this fire, Baptism should be called Illumination, cannot be thought strange, not only because it seems to have been really no other than an irradiation of a lightsome glory, but because indeed in the Hellenistical idiom which was derived from the Hebrew, the same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies both light and fire, and accordingly we have the fire, at which St. Peter warmed himself, 
Mark xiv. 54.  in the High-Priests Palace, called by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
§ VIII And accordingly it were easy to show how very naturally all the other things mentioned in this Text do agree to the condition of Persons newly baptised. Their 
a Heb. vi. 4.  tasting of the heavenly gift, seems to be the same with their partaking of the Spirit itself which is so often said to be 
b Joh. seven. 39. Rom. 5.5. 1 Thes. iv. 8.  given by Christ, or of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which, as I have said, seems in those Ages so ordinarily to have accompanied the Spirit itself, and is called also by the same name of Gifts. 
c Rom. xi. 29.xii.6. 1 Cor. xii. 1, 4, 9, 28, 30, 31. xiu.12. Eph. iv. 8. Heb. two. 4.  That this Gift should be called a heavenly one, cannot be thought strange, not only because it was so really in opposition to worldly Gifts, but because the Scripture always describes these gifts with relation to that place. And accordingly as Christ himself is said to be the 
d 1 Cor. xv. 47  Lord from Heaven, so 
e St. Jam. i. 17.  every good and perfect gift is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the Father of those Lights from whence Baptism is called Illumination. And which yet comes more close to our present Case, the Baptismal Regeneration is also said to be 
f Joh. iii. 3.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because the Principle of Divine Life there infused is from above: And if it were needful to give a critical account of the metaphor of Tasting, it were easy to show how the Allegory is continued in likening the Spirit to meat. So the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in St. 
a 1 Pet. two: 2.  Peter, and in this very 
b Heb. v. 12, 13, 14.  Author, opposed to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. However this word does properly signify the first beginnings of Spiritual fruitions, as tasting is the first beginning of eating, and so will more properly belong to Baptism than any other state of a Christian. Their partaking of the Holy Ghost is the principal design of our Saviour's Baptism, who does not only baptise with water, but with the Holy Ghost. Their tasting of the word of God is their partaking of that word which is the 
c 1 Pet. i 23, 25.  incorruptible seed of this Baptismal Regeneration, and which, to answer the Metaphor of tasting, is also compared to meat. 
d Matt. iv. 4.  And the power of the World to come, seem plainly to be those extraordinary Gifts of the Spirit which are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and which, as I have already observed, seem then to have been communicated to every baptised Person. And very agreeably they are called the powers of the World to come, because Christ, whose powers they are, is described by this same Author as 
e Heb. two. 5, etc.  the Prince of this World to come, whom therefore such a Largess would very properly become.  
§ IX Supposing therefore the fall, here described, to be a fall from the Obligations they had undertaken in Baptism, the Argument hence deduced to persuade them to continue in the Church's Communion will be the same with that concerning which I have lately discoursed on Heb. x. 22, 23. But for clearing the force of it in both places, it will not be amiss to show further that by this fall is properly meant no other than a desertion of the external Communion of the Church. To this purpose I consider that Baptism among the Jews was properly a Ceremony of admitting Disciples into the School of a Rabbi. This I shall not now prove, because I shall have occasion to do it in my Second Part. This therefore being supposed, it will plainly follow that our Christian Baptism also does admit us, as Scholars, to Christ as our Master and Rabbi, 
St. Matt. xxiii. 7, 8, 10. St. Joh. xiii. 13, 14.  for so he is pleased to call himself. Now the Obligation of a Scholar, as such, is to frequent his Master's School, and to submit to the Rules by which it is governed. And as he ceases to be Scholar of any Master, and would then have been thought to have deserted any Sect, either of the Rabbins or Philosophers who had deserted the Schools wherein the Doctrine of the Sect was taught, and the Chairs in which they sat who taught them; so we have reason in the same way of proceeding, to presume that he leaves the Christian Profession, and ceases to be a Scholar of Christ who leaves the School of Christ, and the Chair wherein his Doctrine is taught, or refuses to be subject to the Constitutions which were issued from those Chairs. I am sure Christ himself obliges his Disciples to observe and do whatever the Scribes and Pharisees bid them do for the very Authority of the Chair of Moses wherein they sat. 
Mat. xxiii. 2, 3.  And so they call themselves Moses' Disciples in opposition to their being Christ's Disciples. And accordingly the places wherein the Primitive Christians kept their Meetings were in the form of Schools, and the Chairs of the Apostles are mentioned and appealed to by Tertullian, 
Tertull. Praefer. c. 36.  and particularly the very material Chairs wherein St. James sat at Jerusalem, 
Euseb. Hist. L.vii. c. 19  and St. John at Ephesus were preserved for some considerable time after.  
§ X Nor was this duty of a Scholar due only during the principal Master's Life. The Succession was maintained, and whosoever was lawfully and orderly placed in the Master's Chair upon his decease, to him the Scholars were as much obliged as they had been to the Master himself, and were as much disowned from belonging to the Sect if they deserted the Schools then, as if they had done it while the Master was living. Aristotle was guilty of deserting the Academical Sect for leaving the Aeademia, and gathering Scholars to himself in the Peripatus in opposition to those in the Academia, as well in Xinocrates and Speusippus' times, as when Plato himself possessed the Chair. And so our Saviour himself allows the same Authority to the Scribes and Pharisees, 
St. Matt. xxiii. 2.  because they sat in Moses' Chair, though so many Ages after, as if Moses himself had sat there. And therefore they who now leave the Chairs and Schools of Christ, do thereby as much cease to be his Disciples as if they had deserted them when Christ and the Apostles were living. And if we would know who they are who now possess the Chairs of the Apostles, the enquiry will not be difficult if we admit their Testimony who by their living so near those times had very good reason to know them, at least incomparably better than we have at this distance from them. And they when the very early Heretics had given them occasion to insist on this Topick to justify the Succession of their Doctrine by the Succession of their Chairs, which was so early that the Succession could not have been so soon forgotten, they, I say, unanimously make their present Bishop's Successors to the Apostles in this very office of the Chair, and prove their Succession to them by producing Catalogues of single Persons. It therefore Baptism oblige us to fidelity to the Chair and School of Christ, and we fall from our Baptismal Obligation, whensoever we desert that School or refuse Subjection to the dictates of that Chair; if the Chair of Christ was still continued in his Apostles, so that falling from their Chair is consequently chargeable with a defection from Christ himself; if the Chairs of the Primitive Bishops continued still the same with that of the Apostles, and the Chairs of the present Bishops the same with those of the Primitive Bishops on the same account of a Regular Succession, which makes any Chair the same in later Ages as it was in the former; than it will follow, that as it was a falling away from the Discipleship of Christ, when this Epistle to the Hebrews was written, to leave the visible School of Christ, that is, the external Communion of the Church then, it must, by the same parity of reason, be the like falling away now, to leave the same external Communion of our present Bishops.  
§ XI HAVING therefore thus shown what this falling away is, and how far our present Adversaries are concerned in it; I now proceed to consider what the mischief of it is which this Author makes use of as an Argument to deter men from it. And here are two things to be taken notice of: the greatness of the mischief of such a state, and the difficulty of recovering out of it. The former is only supposed, the other expressly asserted in the Text. And both of them are so extremely considerable, as would suffice to discourage any wise man from venturing on them without very great necessity, and very great evidence too. A little inconvenience would not be thought little if it were either not at all, or very hardly repairable. But what shall we say then when the mischief is as formidable in itself, as in its being irreparable? In the danger itself two things are observable: the greatness and heinousness of the sin; whence is inferred the Justice of a proportionable great punishment. The sin is said to be a crucifying to themselves of the Son of God afresh, and a putting him to an open shame. Which are only to be understood interpretatively, that the falling away from the Communion wherein Christ had been professed, was interpretatively a new Crucifixion of Christ as far as he was capable of being again crucified, not by repeating of the Jews malice against him, but by a virtual approbation of all that had by them been done against him, as being done deservedly. Wherein I do confess there was something of aggravation peculiar to those Ages, and Persons, and Circumstances which this Sacred Author had to deal with that is not so applicable to our Adversaries Case. For them indeed to fall back to their Countrymen who had crucified our Saviour, was plainly to imply that they had committed no such 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Piaculum in murdering him as might oblige them to forbear a commerce with them, at least in Sacris, as, in those times, they thought all were bound, to forbear any such commerce with them who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, till they had been expiated. And particularly Murder was accounted such a piacular Crime, especially when the Persons guilty had devoted themselves for it, 
St. Matt. xxvii. 25.  as the Jews had done in our Saviour's Case, when they wished that the guilt of his blood might light on themselves and their Children.  
§ XII This devoting of themselves had been of itself sufficient, according to the Principles of those times, to contract a great 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, though there had been no other guilt in the Case, as among the Heathens is clear in the instance of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and devota Capita, 
In the Case of the Decii they brought ill success to the Enemies where they were. Liv. L.viii. c. 9 L.x. c. 28. vid. Macrob. Saturn. iii. 8.  and among the Jews themselves by that notable instance of the escape Goat instituted by God himself, who though they were not of themselves guilty of the crimes they suffered for, but only by imprecation of the Punishments deserved by them, were thence forward looked on as unholy, and the Persons under a Legal uncleanness who had any thing to do with them. And, which was yet more considerable in this Case, it was one most considerable ingredient in their Preach, to upbraid the Jews with the guilt of this Murder. They tell them that they had with wicked hands crucified and slain him; 
Act. two. 23.  that they had crucified the Lord of Life, that they had been his Betrayers and Murderers. 
Act. iii. 15.vii.52 Act. v. 28.  And accordingly the Highpriest and the Sanhedrim tell them that they intended to bring that man's blood upon them. And how could they, who had charged them so heavily in this particular, ever think of returning to them, but that very return must have been taken for a virtual recantation of these heavy accusations? They must therefore have thought them no Murderers, and must therefore be supposed to justify what they had done from being Murder. But this could not be done without supposing our Lord a criminal, and guilty of those very crimes of which he had been accused, and for which he had been condemned by his Crucifiers. For the kill of an innocent, or even of a guilty Person, yet not guilty of the Crimes for which he had been accused, or not guilty of Capital Crimes, at least not such as might have deserved that severe kind of Death which he had suffered, could not have been altogether excused from Murder. Which must have supposed him a Blasphemer, a Deceiver and a Rebel; for these were the Crimes of which he had been accused by his Crucifiers. And this was indeed to Cruicifie him afresh, and to put him to an open shame, in the sense now mentioned, that is, to own that he was really as bad as the Jews took him to be, and that the pain and shamefulness of the Death he had suffered from them (for the shame is to be referred to the kind of suffering by the Cross, with which it is also frequently joined on other 
a Heb. xii. ●  occasions, rather than to the shame of their disowning him; nay, this very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is elsewhere ascribed to the Cross) was no more than he had deserved. This was indeed, as the same Author elsewhere expresses it, 
b Heb. x. 29.  a trampling under feet the Son of God, that is, indeed, a showing the greatest possible contempt of him, which is elsewhere 
c Psal. xci. 13. Isa. xiv. 19.xxviii.3 Matt. seven. 6.u.13 Rev. xi. 2.  importance of that Phrase: a counting the Blood of the Covenant by which they bade been sanctified an unholy thing, that is, indeed, so far from being fit to expiate the sins of others, (as the Blood of the Covenant ought to do) as that it needed expiation itself, as it must needs have done, if it had been shed for Crimes of his own that had justly deserved it; a doing despite to the Spirit of Grace, that is, of the Gospel, which they had received, 
d Gal. iii. 2.  not by the works of the Law, but by the Obedience of Faith, accounting that itself an evil and deceiving Spirit, as they must needs have accounted it if it had been given them by the means of a Deceiver.  
§ XIII THESE are aggravations I confess unapplicable to our brethren's Case. Their departure from the Church does not imply their taking Christ himself for a Deceiver, but their thinking them deceived, from whom they depart, in pretending to a Succession from him. And therefore as far as this special aggravation of the crime is a particular reason of the severity of the Punishment, so far I shall ingeniously confess that I think our dissenting Brethren unconcerned in it. But then withal it will be fit to be considered that this disparity of their Case can only be as to the intention of the Persons, not as to the nature of the Thing. They who in those times and circumstances deserted the School of Christ, to go over to his professed Adversaries, must have been more sensible of this consequence of their doing so, because the party, to which they went, did in terms profess to believe our Lord an Impostor, which was the Principle from which all these dreadful consequences followed. And their knowing this must needs have been an extreme aggravation of their Crime. But as to the nature of the thing, the Case is the same now as then. Whosoever deserts Christ's School must necessarily imply that he is not such as he pretended to be, that is, not so Authorized from God as himself pretended; for if they thought him so they could never pretend any reason why they should desert him. And then all the other consequences follow out of Course. For whoever pretends an Authority from God when he has it not, must be supposed so wicked for doing so, as that there is no other crime chargeable on him by his greatest Adversaries, but it may then prove likely for him to have been guilty of it. So that in this regard the Cases of our present Adversaries, and those of the Apostles times, would be like that of two Persons assisting a Rebel, who should pretend a Commission from his Prince, but falsely. The one of them, I suppose, knows the falsehood of his pretence: the other does not; but thinks that whilst he serves him he serves his Prince. Both of them are alike guilty of the same Crime, and both are as real Enemies to the Royal Authority, and may do as much real mischief in prosecuting the Rebellion: Only the Crime is not alike imputable to him who knows what he does to be Rebellion, as to him who mistakes it for Loyalty. So if they be as really Enemies to Christ whom our Adversaries mistake for his Friends as they were in the Apostles times who did not so much as pretend to be his Friends; if they really disown the Chair of Christ in disowning his Regular Successors in that Chair, though they pretend only to disown the Men who are at present possessed of the Chair; the Crime of deserting this Chair now will prove as grievous as it was in the Apostles days, though it be not now so imputable to the Persons guilty of it as it was then when they had better information. However it will highly concern our Brethren by no means to neglect the real guilt, whatever they may think of the imputation, if for no other reason, yet for this, that the neglect will certainly aggravate the imputation. Besides, that the imputation itself may prove really greater than they are ware of.  
§ XIV THIS therefore being the guilt here spoken of, let us now consider the Punishment of it, from whence it will both appear how great the guilty is, and how liable our Adversaries are to the Punishment suitably to their proportion of the guilt. And this is rather employed here than expressed, when it is said to be so great as to need a Renovation. For it is hereby intimated that all they enjoyed before is so totally lost by this fall as that nothing remained of it, and if they would recover any of the advantages of the former state, they must recover them by a new admission into that state, and an admission so entirely new as if they never had been of it, so little benefit they could expect from their former Admission, even in order to the making their second Admission more easy and compendious. Now this Renovation itself does also refer to Baptism. So Baptism itself is expressly called the laver of Regeneration, and of the renewing of the Holy Ghost, 
Tit. iii. 5.  by which we are also said to be saved. The same word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in both places. From these things therefore it follows that the Holy Spirit of our Master, which is his internal Teacher, which must open the understanding of his Disciples, and make them capable of understanding his sublimer Doctrines, his Acroamaticks, which according to the methods of Teaching in those times, were only entrusted with those of their Scholars whom they found to be of extraordinary capacities (which method was also punctually observed by our Master himself,) I say, it follows that this Spirit, by which the Scripture usually signifies all the good things of the Gospel, is so entirely lost by this lapse of theirs from their Baptismal State, as that it is not recoverable but by a new admission into Christ's School again, such a one as that was whereby they at first became his Scholars. Which would be so far from fitting them for the Mysteries of Christianity, (for which it is the great design of this Author to persuade them to fit themselves, in this whole Chapter, that they might be the better capable of apprehending the mystical discourse concerning Melchizedec which occasioned this whole digression, and which he immediately resumes in the following Chapter) as that it would only be a laying the foundation again, a reducing to their beggarly Elements, 
Heb. vi. 1.  as he elsewhere expresses it; as rambling Scholars who have absented themselves from School, are usually degraded lower than they were before, upon their return to it. But this holds more severely in learning Christianity than in the Discipline of ordinary Schools. For because the things learned in ordinary Schools are such as are capable of being both learned and retained by the natural faculties of the Scholars; therefore, though their deserting one School, and going to another, must needs put them backward in the method of the Master whom they had deserted, yet not so backward as to oblige them, upon their return to him again, to begin anew at his first Elements. But the Mysteries of Christianity are supposed not intelligible otherwise than by the Spirit, nor retainable without the help of the same Spirit which at first assisted to the understanding of them. And therefore where this Spirit is lost, as it is plainly supposed to be lost by deserting the School, and following any other Master besides him, all their former learning, and all the new learning they may have since got elsewhere, must, on this supposition, signify nothing; and therefore, they who have left the Spirit of Christ, must, upon their return to his School, be degraded to their first Elements, and especially that of recovering the Spirit, which they are, by this means, supposed to have lost. This Exposition, as it will make the reasoning of the Apostle cogent, so it will be found exactly agreeable with his whole design, as they will find who shall be pleased to compare them.  
§ XV BUT to make application of it to our Adversaries with whom I am at present dealing, it is very observable that this Punishment thus expounded will not suppose any of those peculiar aggravations of their Case against whom this Author wrote; but is plainly grounded on the contrivance of the things themselves and the manner of their establishment by Christ, which will as exactly reach our Adversaries Case now as it did the Case of those Adversaries of the Apostles. For the reason given here as that which brought this loss upon them is not so much their going over to the School of Christ's nototorious professed Adversaries, (wherein indeed their Case was different from that of our present dissenting Brethren) but as their leaving the School of Christ by forsaking the Communion wherein they had received that Baptism which could only validly initiate them into that School, and entitle them his Disciples; which is also exactly the Case of our present Brethren. And this very desertion of Christ's School is here supposed, not only, to be the merit (though that were sufficient for my present design against our modern Adversaries, who as they are, thus far at least, guilty of the same Crime in deserting the School of Christ, so do thus far also deserve the same punishment, that is, they do equally deserve that degree of punishment which is proper and proportionable to this degree of guilt,) but the means on which this loss does naturally follow, according as things are settled by Christ's own establishment. He supposes that their falling away from Christ's School must deprive them of his Spirit, which is his internal instruction, and so proper to his School, and his Disciples, as any inferior means of Teaching are proper to ordinary Schools, as well as the Teaching of the principal Master. Whoever leaves one School to go to another, does as necessarily lose the Teaching of the Usher as of the Master of the School which he is supposed to leave. And therefore as our Brethren by their deserting the School of Christ are supposed, in the way of arguing used by this Sacred Author, to lose the Title they had to Christ as their Master, who by this means ratifies the Acts of his Successors in his Chair, that they who are not of their School, shall not be of his, as the same thing was observed in Successions in other Schools from whence the precedent was taken in the first establishment of Christianity; and as it is also necessary that they who have not Christ for their Master, must also lose all the particular means he makes use of for communicating his instructions to his Disciples; so necessary it is, by this way of Arguing, which this Author proceeds on, that our present Adversaries, as they are also guilty of the same desertion of Christ's School, should also lose this internal Teaching of the Spirit which he makes use of for communicating his instructions to them. For plainly the Spirit seems to have been designed to supply the Office of Christ as a Master. And when the Holy Ghost is called a Paracletus, I cannot think the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from whence he is called so, to be only comforting or exhorting, or interceding only, but rather instructing. I am much more inclinable to think this to be the Notion of it where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is mentioned, and where the Disciples of Antioch are said to rejoice, 
Act. xiii. 15.xu.31.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that is, for the instruction they had received from the Apostles concerning their disobligation from the Law of Moses. I am sure this Notion of the word is most agreeable with that account which is given of him where he is called by this name, 
Joh. xuj. 12, 13.  that he should teach them all things, and show them things to come, besides the many things which our Saviour had to say to them, which as yet they were not able to bear, but should be able, when this Paracletus should come upon them. And this seems to be the thing which this very Author had in his mind when he observes it as the Privilege of the new Covenant that men should under it be taught by God, 
St Joh. vi. 45. Joel two. 28, 29. Act. two. 17, 18. 1 Joh. two. 20.  that is, no doubt, by this Spirit which he would then p●ur out upon all flesh. I need not mention that St. John appeals to this Unction as that which should teach them all things to whom he writes, and many other things which might have been observed from other passages of Scripture.  
§ XVI I shall at present only mention one thing more, which as, if it should prove true, it will very much confirm what I am now proving, so possibly it may not be ungrateful to the Reader, and the rather so, because it is not; that I know of, commonly observed. That is, that I verily believe this to be the true reason of Baptising in the name of the Spirit, because Baptism did admit Scholars to the School of the Spirit. For as our Saviour himself professes that the Doctrine preached by him was not his, 
St. Joh. xuj. u.14, 15.  but his Fathers that sent him, which will very justly entitle the Father to the Title of a Master in the School we are speaking of; so he withal tells us of the Spirit whom he designed to send, that he should take of Christ's (no doubt of his Doctrine, as he immediately says, that whatever the Father hath is his, and he had elsewhere told us that it was his Doctrine which he had received from the Father) and show it unto them. So that Baptism in the name of the three Persons, will imply an admitting Disciples, not as the ordinary Baptisms of those times did pretend to do, only to some eminent men who were to be the Masters of the Sect to which Baptism did admit them, but to God himself in all the three Persons, who yet were not to be taken for three Masters, but one. For, as our Saviour by preaching his Father's Doctrine is said to glorify his Father, in owning him as the original Master; so the Spirit, by inculcating the Doctrine of the Son is said to glorify the Sun by still owning the Son as the Master of those instructions which were thus inculcated by him. And as the Son's receiving his Doctrine from his Father does not derogate from his enjoining the Title of a Master also, so neither will the same reason of the Spirits receiving his Doctrine from the Son hinder him also from the same Title of a Master. And this I take indeed to be the useful reason why it is so frequently inculcated by our Saviour that he and his Father were 
a Joh. x. 30.xvii.11, 22.  one, and by St. 
b 1 Joh. v. 7.  John that these three are one: not so much to prevent any danger of Polytheism, for that was a thing the Jews, to whom he preached, were not so much in danger of; nor to prevent any scandal that the Jews might have taken up against the Christian Religion as if it had by this means countenanced a thing to which they were so averse: (for it might have been shown that this Notion of the Trinity was not new to them, and that our Saviour asserted nothing more concerning it than what had been asserted by their most eminent Hellenistical Doctors, and during our Saviour's own Life time he did not speak things so clearly in this matter as his Apostles did afterwards) but to prevent all danger of taking them for three Masters, and under that pretence erecting three Schools, and making Divisions and Emulations among their Scholars, which they were otherwise very likely to have done in consequence to the Notions then current concerning these Baptismal forms. And accordingly the Gnostics, who, by living nearer to those times, had better means than we have now, of knowing the meaning of the Forms and Customs, when they Baptised into the name of the Mother of all, 
Iren. L. 1. c. 18.  seem also to have owned that Mother for their Mistress on account of those Seeds by her infused into them, by which they pretended to come by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that knowledge of Mysteries they boasted of. And if this were so, it was very agreeable that they who had thus deserted Christ's School should also be deprived of the Instructions they might have received, not only from Christ himself, but also from the Holy Spirit, who was to preach nothing to them but what he had received from Christ.  
§ XVII BUT this will appear yet less strange to them who shall be pleased to consider how often the Spirit is called by the name of Christ himself. I shall elsewhere have occasion to produce instances, and therefore shall forbear them now. I only observe at present that if this be so, the Mastership of the Spirit is no other than the Mastership of Christ. And so indeed it should seem, that the Spirit is to Christ as the Shechinah was to God in the Tabernacle and the Temple, and accordingly these Shechinahs, or visible appearances, are more frequently ascribed to the Spirit than to any other Person of the Trinity. And indeed, when the Spirit is called the Spirit of Glory and of Christ, it seems to be called so, as being, indeed itself, the Glory by which Christ manifests himself in the Soul. As therefore God himself was said to be present with the Israelites when his Shechinah was present with them, and as he is said to remove his presence when that was withdrawn or removed from them; so, according to this way of explication, wheresoever the Spirit of Christ is present, Christ himself will be present also. And therefore, if they who desert his School must thereby lose the presence and Mastership of Christ, they must by necessary consequence lose his Spirit also. Now the deserting of the School of Christ I have already shown to concern our present Adversaries as nearly as it did them who lived in the times of the Apostles.  
§ XVIII TO proceed therefore in my Explication of this passage of this Divine Author, I now come to that which is indeed most difficult in it. That is, the impossibility of renewing such Lapsers as are here spoken of to Repentance. And here it will be convenient to show, 1. What is meant by renewing them to Repentance. And then, 2. What is meant by the impossibility of it. As to the former, we have already seen that the fall here described is a fall from their Baptismal state, and therefore the renewing them implying a putting them in the same state wherein they were before; the renewing here spoken of will be most obviously intelligible of a restitution of them to the state of their Baptism. And not to lay any stress on the Critical importance of this term Renovation, I have also shown that Renovation of the Spirit is peculiarly ascribed to Baptism, though it be given there to Persons who never had it before, as it is a Renovation of that Spirit which Adam had in his Innocence, and we might all have had from him if he had continued in his Innocence. And that the Renovation here described is said to be to Repentance, that also very well agrees with this Notion of our being hereby restored to the state of Baptism. For Repentance and Baptism are always joined together, 
Act. two. 38.  Repent, and be baptised every one of you, says St. Peter. And it seems to have been the design of the common Baptisms there used, to expiate them from their former impurities as well as to admit them to a purer way of living for the future. So St. John Baptist before his Baptism preaches Repentance, and he charges those who were baptised by him to bring forth fruits worthy of Repentance. And the same was the design of the lesser Mysteries among the Heathens, to which Baptism was thought answerable among the Christians. They were Purgative, as the greater were Perfective. These things therefore being thus supposed, both these terms of Renovation, and renewing to Repentance, will be conveniently intelligible of Baptism itself. And so the force of the Argument will be, that a Restoration to their Baptismal state, that is, their being again admitted as Christ's Scholars, and so the entitling them to the privileges of Christ's School, among others, that of the internal instructions of the Spirit, is not regularly to be expected without a repetition of their Baptism itself, because that is the Ceremony of admission into it, so that as they who were not at first baptised were never Christ's Disciples, so they who cannot be baptised the second time, are not capable of becoming Disciples a second time on supposition of a Relapse. But Christ's Institution admits of only one Baptism. Whence the Author might infer the same Argument for the difficulty of the restitution of Lapsers to the Church Communion here, as he does in the tenth Chapter. As he there infers that they who had their sins once forgiven them upon their coming to Christ, on account of his Sacrifice being offered for them, could not expect that they be a second time forgiven if they fell away from their first state which entitled them to forgiveness, because the Sacrifice of Christ is not like that of the Law, repeated often, but offered up once, and that for ever; so here, Christ having instituted but one Baptism, by which men are to be admitted into his School, they who forfeit the benefit of their first admission by deserting the School, can never expect the benefit of a Second. And if remission of sins be the effects of this Baptism which is here described as a renewing to Repentance, it will then follow, that they who cannot be admitted to a new Baptism, must, on that account, be excluded from those hopes, which a second Baptism might have given them, of the remission of their sins. If this Exposition be admitted for the true sense of this Author, than the impossibility will be understood strictly and properly, that as it is really impossible for them to get a second Baptism, so it will be also impossible to gain that Renovation which cannot be expected without it.  
§ XIX IT may be replied that besides Baptism, here is another Ceremony of admitting Disciples mentioned in the Text, that is, 
Heb. vi. 2.  imposition of hands, which was not thought so uniterable as Baptism was: And that this might supply all the defects of a second Baptism to Persons who had forfeited their interest in the first, by forsaking the Discipleship into which they had been admitted by it: That this was thought to have all the virtue of Baptism; that it made them Disciples of the School of Christ, according to the customs of the Schools of those times; that it gave them the Holy Spirit, and that more properly than Baptism itself; for the Samaritans received the Spirit, not by the Baptism of St. Philip, but by the impositions of the hands of St. Peter, and St. John; that it was also a means of remitting sins, and was accordingly practised in the reconciliation of Penitents. That this was the very Ceremony made use of by the Church in the reconciliation of Penitents for all the ends now mentioned, in opposition to the Novatians: That this Divine Author does suppose that the foundation may be laid again, 
Ver. 1.  when he so dissuades the Persons to whom he writes from running the hazard of it, and therefore cannot suppose a restitution of Lapsers to their Baptismal state so impossible as is here supposed; That he seems plainly to suppose this as his own sense, and not only as the sense of those with whom he had to deal, when the reason he insists on to dissuade them from this hazard, is only that they would thereby lose so much of the progress they had already made to Perfection by suffering themselves to be by this means reduced to their first beginnings: That their sailing thereby in point of Perfection, is sufficient for the Author's design in this whole Chapter, to show how much they would thereby unfit themselves for that strong meat which he makes proper for perfect Persons (that is for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in both senses, as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Person full grown in opposition to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for whom milk was more proper; and as it signifies a Person come to a nearer familiarity with the Deity in the Mystical style, for it was to such that the Mysteries were communicated, and they were only such who were capable of being benefited by them, in opposition to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to those who had only been purged from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) when they should by this means degrade themselves from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the very first Cathartick Mysteries, and if they were Children who had need of milk, they must then be reduced to the imperfection of newborn Babes; and that if the thing may be done, that is, if Persons who have forfeited their Baptismal state may be again restored to it, it is no great matter how they come to be restored, whether by another Baptism, or only by imposition of hands; whether to the same degree of Perfection they had attained to before, or whether only to an inferior.  
§ XX I could hearty wish that this were the whole danger, that though Persons Lapsing from their Baptismal Obligations, might not expect a new Baptism, yet they might be restored gradually to the state in which they were before they fell; and that this Restitution by imposition of hands, though less entire and slower than that of Baptism, yet might at length prove the same way beneficial to the Persons thus restored. What the Church has thought in this matter, even since the opposition to the Novatians, is abundantly sufficient for my design. If our Brethren did believe now, as they did then, that in Baptism all former sins were entirely remitted in a moment without any further satisfaction than their Covenant there undertaken, that they would not commit them for the future, but that the restitution by imposition of hands, after a Lapse from their Baptismal state, was not to be obtained but by a course of long and severe Penances; for several Crimes for several years according to the Penitential Canons then in force, for some not till the time of their Deaths, if even then itself; if they did believe that the sin of Schism was of as piacular a nature as they believed it then, (of which in my second Part, 
Conc. Elibertin. ) and thought themselves obliged upon their return from it to grieve and humble themselves for having ever been guilty of it as Moses and Maximus, and other holy Persons of St. Cyprians Age did: The very impossibility of being restored by a second Baptism, and their being consequently obliged to endeavour a Reconciliation by a way so much more tedious and rigorous as this was of the imposition of hands, would have been taken for Considerations so weighty as that very few things else would be thought sufficient to contervail them. Even this hazard of their Salvation by their Separation from Christ's School, would, by the Principles already proved, oblige them rather to submit to all unsinful impositions of his Chair than they would suffer themselves to be exposed to so apparent hazard, by being cast out of that School, much more, rather than they would themselves willingly desert it.  
§ XXI BUT when I consider it with relation to this Author's design: when I consider that Baptism is not expressly here named, but the renewing to Repentance, by what means soever that were to be expected of those which had been mentioned before, among which this of Imposition of hands was one, and that the force of the Argument rather lies in this, that there is but one solemn admission into Christ's School allowed of, when I consider that the Imposition of hands here spoken of is as naturally intelligible of that Imposition of hands which accompanied Baptism, as of any other which might afterwards be made use of for the recovery of those who had fallen from their Baptismal Integrity, and it is much more certain that the Holy Ghost should be given by that Imposition of hands which accompanied the Sacrament instituted by Christ for this very purpose, that they might thereby receive the Holy Ghost, than by that imposition of hands which had nothing more to encourage those who received it, that they should receive the effect designed by it, besides that general power which Christ had given the Apostles and their Successors of giving the Holy Ghost to such as they thought fit to receive him by that Ceremony of imposition of hands; when I consider that the very denial of the repetition of the Solemnity of the first reception, which was as well by Baptism, as by imposition of hands, looks like so designed a discouragement of Persons who were afterwards to be admitted by imposition of hands alone, as if the later admission were a thing by no means pleasing to God, but only indulged by him for the hardness of men's hearts, as Polygamy and Concubinate of old, and as the Eastern Church did in the Case of second Marriages to which they denied the sacred Solemnities which had been observed in the first; when I consider this Text in conjunction with several other Parallel ones in this Epistle, where this same Author speaks his mind in the same Case, that what is here said concerning the impossibility to be renewed, is elsewhere expressed by a denial of any further Sacrifice to be expected by Persons in this Condition, and by their finding no place for Repentance as Esau did not, though they should, as he did, seek it carefully, and that with tears: These things, I say, being thus considered and allowed for, though I dare not altogether discourage such Lapsers as are received by imposition of hands without Baptism from hoping to receive the effect designed on account of the general Commission given to the Apostles and their Successors of giving the Holy Ghost by the imposition of their hands, as well out of Baptism as in it; yet truly, I cannot but think that God himself intended to exclude such Persons from much of the comfort of their reception, by excluding them from a repetition of those Solemnities by which they were received at first, and by making no particular express Promise to ratify such imposition of hands, besides his general obligation to ratify the Prudential Acts of Persons Authorized by him. And possibly it might be his design to exclude such Persons from so valid a Legal Plea to the Covenant, and leave them only to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the Chancery of it, which yet might in the event oblige God, though the Persons restored by it might want much of the conviction here which might assure them that it should indeed oblige God. This, as it would be the most agreeable with the Politics of Government, as on the one side to encourage none to venture on the state that should need such a restitution as this is, without an extreme, and a very real necessity; so on the other side, not to drive those, who, through humane frailty should be reduced to it, to utter despair: so indeed, all things considered, I am apt to think that it will prove most likely to be the real design of this sacred Author. I know indeed that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is elsewhere taken in the Scripture for that which is not simply impossible, but externally difficult. So our Saviour himself says in one place, that it is impossible for a rich man to be saved, but in another does only imply that it is extremely hard for them to be saved, and it was impossible that a Prophet should perish out of Jerusalem, only because it was very unlikely to fall out so, considering the hardness of the hearts of the inhabitants of that City. But though this were sufficient for my present purpose, yet considering the things now mentioned, I can hardly think it so meant here.  
§ XXII Now by this our present Adversaries may perceive how far they also are concerned in the badness of the condition, and the difficulty of recovery out of it. For by this it plainly appears that the Argument concerning the difficulty of Restitution is not so much grounded on the crucifying to themselves the Son of God, and putting him to an open shame, (at least, not as this was the peculiar aggravation of the Apostates of that Age, as this was not only employed by leaving his School as a false Doctor, but expressly asserted in regard of the Party to whom they went, who did indeed expressly assert it) but rather on the no provision God had made for the reception of such as should return after such an Apostasy; and the Justice of God in making no such provision for them, on account of these aggravations. Otherwise, if God had pleased, why should it be impossible for him to forgive a second Crucifixion when he had actually forgiven a first? Why should it be impossible for him to forgive an interpretative Crucifixion, when he had already forgiven a real one? The plain reason therefore must have been that God had instituted no Ordinary means with a design for their reception, and that, in this regard, it was impossible it should be done because it was indeed impossible in the course of Ordinary means. But then the reason given is not to show why it should be impossible to God himself, but why God might make it impossible, in the sense now mentioned, by providing no means how it should be done. And can our present Adversaries then plead any thing which may allow them better hopes than the Apostates of that Age, of being received again. Can they now pretend better than they could then to a reiteration of their Baptism? Was it just for God to make no provision for their recovery after that aggravation of an interpretative Crucifixion of Christ in regard of the Party to which they joined themselves upon their desertion? And is it not also just (for the other was only just not Obligatory) for him to inflict the same Punishment in regard of the interpretative Crucifixion of Christ, which we have shown our present Adversaries to be guilty of, in the desertion itself? Can they show any thing peculiar in the Christian Religion why Lapsers to Judaisme should not be received again into the Christian Communion, rather than the Lapsers into any other Sect? Nay, is not Baptism equally denied to the Penitents who return from other Sects as from them? and are they not received and reconciled upon their Repentance, by the Absolution of the Church as familiarly as other Sectaries? And if it were only on account of the general establishment of one only Baptism that they were then discouraged to hope for a reconciliation, Why should not our present Adversaries think themselves as much concerned in that as the Primitive Apostates to Judaisme.   

CHAP. XIV. Separation from the Church proved to be a sin against the Holy Ghost.  
THE CONTENTS.  
§ I The danger of the sin of Separation, and the difficulty of its pardonableness, are very prudent and lawful reasons for bearing with a lesser sin that is more easily pardonable. §. I, II. What is meant by grieving God's Spirit, and how it comes to be unpardonable. §. III, IV. Two influences of the Spirit resisted by the Israelites. §. V This applied to the state of the Gospel. How the Christians were likely to understand these things according to the Mystical way of expounding the Old Testament which prevailed among them. §. VI Our Saviour used herein a way of speaking notorious to the Jews. §. VII. Grieving the Spirit the same with the grieving of Christ. §. VIII. 1. As to the Testimony which the Spirit gave him by Miracles. §. IX. How our Saviour's threatening was fulfilled. §. X. The sin against the Holy Ghost a resisting of the Gospel Dispensation. §. XI. 2. Murdering of the Prophets, a sin against the Holy Ghost, as he is particularly a Spirit of Prophecy. §. XII. This particularly applied to our Saviour, and the state of the Gospel. §. XIII. 3. Resisting the influences of the Holy Ghost in us. Applied to the Jews. §. XIV. To the Christians. §. XV. According to the Hellenistical Philosophy. §. XVI, XVII, XVIII. 4. Resisting the Government of the Church which was then ordered by the Spirit. §. XIX. Separation from the Canonical Assemblies of the Church a sin against the Holy Ghost. §. XX. Concerning the Punishment of this sin against the Holy Ghost, and the way of arguing used by the Writers of the New Testament from Old Testament Precedents. §. XXI, XXII.  
ANOTHER sin that our Brethren are usually troubled with when they are under any anguish of Conscience, is that against the Holy Ghost, concerning the irremissibility whereof the expressions are indeed very dreadful. If therefore they be in danger of the guilt of this by their falling away from the Communion of the Church, this I presume, themselves will account such as ought not to he ventured on, but on very great, and very real necessity; not on so mean accounts, and so little probabilities, as those are whereby they usually defend their Separation. And if the fear of a little sin in obeying their Superiors be taken for so just a reason to excuse their disobedience to their Superiors; and not only their disobedience, but their resistance, and Separation from them; they certainly, when they shall find that by their suffering themselves to be cut off from the Church, and much more by their voluntary separating themselves from their Superiors rather than they will pay them the obedience which is due unto them, they shall bring themselves into the danger of being guilty of a sin incomparably greater in itself, and more difficultly pardonable than that is, which themselves can fear they should prove guilty of by their obedience; this will certainly oblige them in all Prudence, when they find themselves put upon the necessity of a venture, to venture on a lesser evil rather than a greater, and to account that evil no evil at all, at least not such as shall be imputed to them as an evil, when they find themselves forced upon it by the unhappy necessity of so hard a choice. I know it is a Plea of late much insisted on by them, that even the appearance of a sin, nay, the suspicion of it, is sufficient to excuse them from the otherwise lawful commands of their Superiors as long as their private Consciences cannot free themselves from that Suspicion. And this pretence would have indeed a greater appearance of Truth, if their Obedience to their Superiors were indeed as indifferent a thing as they suppose it to be when they make this pretence to excuse themselves from it. No doubt a suspicion of sins, especially if that suspicion be thought probable by the Person who is under the suspicion, is sufficient to excuse him from a performance otherwise indifferent.  
§ TWO BUT if our dissenting Brethren would state the Case right, they should suppose a sin in both Cases, on the one side the sin of doing the things required from them, and on the other the sin of disobedience to their Superiors, and dividing the Church of Christ. And then no doubt they would not scruple but the securest resolutions of their Consciences in such a Case would be to choose that which were likely to prove less sinful and more pardonable. Nay, when themselves say that in this Case of probable evidence, or at least of the appearance of such probable evidence, their disobedience can be no sin, it can only be on this account that they can pretend it, that their Duty to obey God in such an instance is greater than their Duty of obedience to their Superiors, if indeed they own them as Superiors, and acknowledge any Duty to them. If therefore it may appear on the contrary, that the sin they are in danger of by dividing themselves from the Church is greater, and less pardonable than the sin they would incur by submitting, or at least by paying passive Obedience to a seemingly sinful imposition; if they may be convinced that the sin of setting up or countenancing opposite Conventicles is greater and more difficulty pardonable than the sin of wearing a Surplice, or kneeling at the Sacrament, etc. Then by the Rules of their own reasoning it will follow that these instances, which otherwise had been sinful, are notwithstanding in this Case no sins at all, and therefore can be no sufficient reason to excuse their Separation from being sinful. And that this is so, as I have proved already, so I now proceed to show particularly from this Topick of the sin against the Holy Ghost, which I presume themselves will not deny to be a sin both greater and more difficultly pardonable than any of those which they pretend to excuse their Separation from being sinful.  
§ III NOW for clearing this sin, which seems hitherto to have been so little understood, I consider that it is usual in the Old Testament, when it is to express a provocation of God of the highest kind, to express it by a commotion of mind suitable to that which is in men, when they are extremely angry. And therefore as in little Angers in men, though they be violent for the time, yet they soon pass away, and leave no great disturbance on the mind of him that is angry; but in great ones the very mind is disordered, and so the transports become more lasting as well as more vehement, and the Person who is supposed to be so angry, is also made by it more implacable, and less capable of accepting any terms of reconciliation; so the Scripture represents the Anger of God himself. That the anger of men was thus expressed according to the form of speaking used in those Countries, we have instances, not only in our Saviour 
a St. Joh. xi. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Joh. xiii. 21.  when he is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but in 
b Psal. cvi. 33. So Dan. two. 3. seven. 13. Job seven. 11. xxi. 4. Psal. lxxvii. 3. cxlii 3.  Moses in the Old Testament itself, who is said to have been provoked in his Spirit when he spoke unadvisedly with his lips. That it is hence also applied to God instances may be seen in 
c Gen. vi. 6.  Genesis, and 
d Is. lxiii. 10.  elsewhere. And generally whenever this expression is used God immediately resolves on some severe temporal Punishment to be inflicted on the Persons who had thus provoked him, and that so peremptorily as that even their Penitence itself should not prevail with him to change his resolution. Then he makes his Decree, and sometimes confirms it with an Oath. Thus in Genesis 
e Gen. vi. 3.  when he had resolved that his Spirit should no longer strive with them, he immediately resolves that their days should be an hundred and twenty years, that is, that that should be the respite he would allow them before the deluge. And elsewhere when his Spirit is said to be grieved, then follows the mention of the judgement which elsewhere he inflicted on them who had so provoked him. And above all other sins for which God is said to be thus angry after the Law was settled, Idolatry is by Maimonides observed to be the only one. 
Mor. Nev. Part. i. cap. 36.  And that we have seen in Deuteronomy to have been so described, not as a violation of a single Precept only, but as a breach of the whole Covenant. And it is very observable further, that whatever this might mean in the literal and immediate sense, according to the custom of the like 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 on other occasions ascribed to God, yet the Hellenistical Jews who Allegorized their Law, and who had the Notion of this Spirit of God as a subsistent Being, and frequently take for less occasions than this was of bringing in their Allegorical senses, were very likely to ascribe these passages to this Spirit, as a distinct subsistent Being. And indeed these other two subsistences of the Son and Spirit are so described in the New Testament, and in the passages of the Old applied to them by the most ancient Fathers, no doubt from the Cabalistical Mystical Expositions then received among the Hellenistical Jews, as that it could be no great violence to apply them this way, on supposition that a Mystical sense was to be allowed besides the Literal, which was a supposition that seems to have been generally approved by these Hellenistical Jews of whom I am now discoursing. Thus as the Son is taken for that intrinsic Wisdom of the Father in the Proverbs, which he is said to have possessed from the beginning, 
Prov. viij. 22.  and which the Fathers do accordingly make it as necessary that he should have possessed it from the beginning as that he should have been wise from the beginning; so the Holy Spirit is by the Apostle made as intimate to God as the Spirit of a man is to a man. For so he argues: 
1 Cor. two. 11.  Who knoweth the secrets of a man but the Spirit of a man which is in him. Even so no man knoweth the things of God, but the Spirit of God. As Properly therefore as the Spirit of a man is said to be grieved and disturbed when the man himself is grieved and disturbed, so properly this subsistent Being may be said to be grieved and disturbed when the Spirit of God is said to be so. And as when a man is said to be excessively grieved it is all to one purpose whether we say that he himself is grieved, or that his Spirit is so, because the grief of the man is supposed to be in his Spirit; so also, by the rule of the same proportion, when God is said to be excessively grieved, we are to understand all those places of a grieving of his Spirit as properly▪ as if it had been expressly mentioned.  
§ IV AND it is farther yet Observable, that in this way of speaking 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God is pleased to express himself as if he were under the same transport of humour as men are when they are in those Passions. Thus in the Parable of the unjust Judge, he is supposed to hear the Prayers of his People, as well to avoid the trouble of being wearied by them, 
Luk. xviii. 5.  as for the reason of the thing itself. And particularly in this very Case of great provocation of his Spirit he is described as if he suffered the same transports as revengeful Persons do when they are under the like disturbances. Thus as revengeful Persons ease themselves of their revengeful humour by executing their desired revenge; 
Isa. i. 24.  so God is said to ease him of his Adversaries, to ease himself of this disturbance of his Spirit by inflicting that punishment on them which they had so justly deserved from him. And in the dramatic way of acting these Passions, which is so familiar with the Prophets, he is described as implacable and as much bend upon revenge, and delighted in it, as revengeful Persons are when they are under the like disturbance. No doubt his meaning is thereby to put us in the same expectations from him as we should naturally have from a revengeful Person under his highest transports; and to assure us, that though he himself felt no such transports as are there described, yet he intends to deal with Persons so threatened by him, exactly as such Persons would do who really felt such transports. And therefore as such Persons who are so disturbed by great provocations, at length resolve to relieve themselves by executing their desired revenge, and when they have done so, resolve also that no Prayers of their Adversaries shall appease them, but that they will for the future as much insult over their miseries as they have hitherto pitied them; the like dealing we have reason to fear from God when his Spirit is the same way provoked. And this seems to be the most natural account how this sin against the Holy Ghost comes to be unpardonable.  
§ V NOW there are two influences of the Spirit of God, that without us, in miraculous performances, and that within us in secret emotions of our own Spirit. And in both these influences, when resisted, God is said to have been provoked even under the Old Testament, and when provoked, did generally resolve on some severe Punishment, which he did accordingly execute most punctually, without any revocation of his Decrees on whatsoever address that might have been made by the Persons threatened by him. Of the former we have an instance in the Case of the Israelites in the wilderness, which I the rather take notice of because it is an instance produced for this very purpose by the Author to the Hebrews, 
Heb. iii. 4.  who does most insist on this sin of any of the New Testament Writers. Now in their Case they had seen the miracles which God had done in Egypt, besides those many more which they had experienced, and on which they continually subsisted during the time of their travel in the Wilderness. And yet after all these instances, they continually questioned the presence and Providence of God among them, and put him to new experiments, and seemed as little concerned for what was past, as if they had never known them. This was the thing that, at last, 
Psal. xcv. 11. Heb. iii. 17, 18.  so provoked God, that he swore, those who had seen those things, and were so little benefited by them, should never enter into his rest, that is, into the Land of Promise, which he accordingly performed with that severity that not one of that Generation, except Caleb and Joshua, who had not been guilty like the rest, 
Gen. vi.  entered into Canaan. An instance of the other we have in that of Genesis. For the Spirit which had striven with them, and which God threatens that it should no longer dwell with them, seems most naturally intelligible of the Spirit within them, which accordingly the Ancients suppose to have been taken taken away from them who had resisted it. And this instance was also punished with a certain and prefixed vengeance. 
1 Pet. three 18, 19, 20. iu.6. 2 Pet. two. 5.  And it is urged to this purpose by St. Peter.  
§ VI TO bring this therefore home to the state of the Gospel, it is again to be remembered what I have elsewhere observed, that is the great design of the Apostles to reconcile Christianity with this Cabalistical Mystical Scheme of Notions which then prevailed among the Hellenists, as it seems to have been the great design of them who introduced that Scheme among the Jews, thereby to reconcile their Law with that Scheme of Elective Philosophy which then prevailed among the Dogmatical Philosophers who were withal favourable to Religion. And indeed of the two they were more favourable to these Mystical Expositions of the Scripture than to the Literal themselves, as indeed all were who were for the Mystical, because they thought the Mystical was principally designed by God himself. And therefore we find how slight occasions Philo and the Alexandrians who follow him, take for overthrowing the Literal sense. But the Primitive Christians were above all others, concerned in interest, to advance these Mystical senses, because it was indeed from them that they derived the most substantial Proofs of their whole Religion against those Adversaries with whom they had then to deal, as may be seen in the generality of the Arguments they make use of throughout the whole New Testament. And therefore seeing this Notion of the Spirit for a subsistent Being was, at least, received among them, they must have been most likely to understand all those passages of the Old Testament wherein the Spirit of God is said to be grieved, of this Spirit of which I am now discoursing.  
§ VII AND indeed this seems to give the most plausible account of the Prudence of our Saviour's Argument against the Jews with whom he was then dealing when he introduced this mention of the sin against the Holy Ghost. Certainly he would never have warned them of a sin which they had neither understood what it was, nor was he himself pleased to inform them. For to what purpose had such a warning been? How could they avoid the sin if they knew if not? And why should they be warned of it if not with a design that they might avoid it? And sure he would not have argued against Adversaries on Principles so far from being granted by them as that they did not understand them. Nay, if they had proceeded on new discoveries of the Gospel, not the Jews only, but even the Disciples themselves had not understood them, so ignorant even they were as yet of the Gospel Mysteries. Nor was there the same reason why he should speak obscurely here as there was in other things which he usually concealed in Parables. It was not any thing that was of future concern only to them as those were which were then timely enough known by them when they were accomplished. But the avoiding of so great and dangerous a sin as this, was a thing of very great and present concernment. And certainly so gracious and indulgent a Master as he was would not have kept them ignorant of it. And accordingly we do not find that they asked any more Questions, or made any further cavils concerning this as they usually did concerning other things which they did not understand. Supposing therefore, as upon these considerations, it is most reasonable to suppose that our Saviour spoke to them in a Language with which they were already well acquainted from the Old Testament, or at least, from the LXX Translation of it, I conceive the account now given from thence most probable how they were likely to understand these expressions.  
§ VIII BUT to proceed to Proofs yet more positive from the New Testament, as this sin of the Jews in the Wilderness, which proved so fatal to them is often mentioned in the New Testament as the Precedent of the like sin under the Gospel, so to make it more exactly parallel, they are said to have tempted Christ in it. Neither let us tempt Christ as some of them also tempted him, and were destroyed by Serpents. 
1 Cor. x. 9.  Here I consider that it is Christ only in his Divine Person who could have been tempted by them in the Wilderness. 
1 Cor. x. 9.  His humane nature was only prefigured in the brazen Serpent, and was not capable of being tempted by them. Now how often is it that his Divine Nature in opposition to his human Nature is called the Spirit? It was the Holy Spirit that came upon the Blessed Virgin when she conceived him, which the Fathers usually understand of this Spirit. 
Luk. i. 35.  It was by the eternal Spirit that he offered himself, certainly by his Divinity that he offered himself in his humanity. 
Heb. ix. 14.  It is the great Mystery of godliness that he was manifested in the flesh, 
1 Tim. iii 16. 1 Pet. iii. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this sense Luk. xvii. 33. Act. seven. 19.  and justified in the Spirit. He was put to death in the flesh, and quickened in the Spirit, that is, did not die as to his Divinity, for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies to save alive as well as to make alive. Which exactly agrees with what we have elsewhere observed that the Spirit is itself called Christ. And what can be more agreeable to the design of these places where this sin is mentioned by our Saviour, than this, all things being considered? As in the places now produced the flesh and Spirit are joined together and opposed, so in these places the Son of man and the Holy Ghost are the same way opposed. Not that I think that our Blessed Saviour took his own Divinity for granted in dealing with the Jews, or that he proceeded on the supposition of his being anointed with the Spirit, and with the fullness of it, any otherwise than as it was capable of appearing to them, that he was so the same way as the Holy Ghost appeared to them in the Wilderness as an assistant of Moses, that is, by as stupendous Miracles as had ever been performed by Moses himself.  
§ IX AND so the Argument would hold exactly, that as on account of the Miracles performed by Moses, their obstinate refusal of conviction by those Miracles was not taken only for a contempt of Moses, who was a frail man like themselves, as Moses himself had often told them, Who are we that ye murmur against us? Your murmuring is not against us, but against God. 
Exod. xuj. 7.  And if the Lord make a new thing, etc. then shall ye know that these men have offended, not us, but the Lord; and was accordingly resented by God himself, 
Numb. xuj. 30.  and punished as a contempt of his Holy Spirit, by whom those Miracles had been performed; so our Saviour giving the same evidence of his Mission as Moses had done, they had reason to expect that God would also resent the contempt of those Miracles, not as an affront offered only to the Son of man, as he seemed to them, but as an affront to the Holy Ghost, by whose power alone his Miracles were performable as well as those of Moses. And as it was not every lighter affront to the Holy Ghost himself that had been thus punished in the Israelites in the Wilderness with an irrevocable sentence, but a high degree of provocation of him; so our Saviour had particular reason to warn them to beware of that high degree. For what could be a greater provocation to the Holy Spirit, than to call him an evil one? Yet this was the thing the Jews were likely to be guilty of in ascribing the Miracles themselves that were performed by our Saviour, to Belzebub the Prince of the Devils, if they still▪ persisted in it after our Saviour had warned them that the Holy Ghost would resent such injuries as offered to himself. And therefore though their affronts against our Saviour, as the Son of Man, had been no more severely punishable than those against Moses had been, (considering only his Person as a Man, though an excellent and good one,) which had never brought those capital Punishments upon their Forefathers in the Wilderness, as Moses himself had often warned them who suffered under them; yet their hard Speeches against the Holy Ghost, (for that is the meaning of blaspheming him,) might expect not only a capital Punishment in this World, like that of their Forefathers in the Wilderness, but also in the World to come, which was a thing they had not formerly been so generally acquainted with, but was a Revelation reserved for the coming of the Messiah, who was the Prince of the World to come, and proper to the times of the Gospel, as the Author to the Hebrews tells them. So that if the Gospel which he preached to them should prove true, as the Miracles he did in confirmation of it proved it true▪ they must expect to suffer for sins committed against this Dispensation, not only in this, but in the other World, because these sufferings in the other World were a principal Discovery of the Gospel.  
§ X AND indeed this threatening of our Saviour was punctually executed on them who persisted in their obstinacy notwithstanding his warning, by a Punishment, not only in the other World, but even in this, every way as remarkable as that was of the destruction of their Forefathers in the Wilderness, that is, in the destruction of their Temple and City, and soon after in the dispersion and exile of their whole Nation from that beloved Canaan which their Forefathers in the Wilderness thought themselves so unhappy for because they did not live to see and enjoy it. And if it were necessary to make a Notion of a Punishment in the other World which might also be National, as their Punishment in this World now mentioned was, and as that was also of that generation of their Forefathers which perished in the Wilderness; I should take it to be the depriving them of the Privileges they had formerly enjoyed on account of God's Covenant with them, that they should be no more God's People, that they should have no more interest in the Promises of God, and that special Providence of his which, on that account, had been formerly so watchful over them, that they should lose their interest in the true Messiah, which was the principal Promise without which the performance of all other Promises, as they expected them, had been little significant to them. These were Punishments of the other World, as it was expected by them under the Messiah. And these things they afterwards suffered for this very fault of resisting and blaspheming those mighty influences of the Spirit whereby the Gospel was recommended to them by the Apostles, as they now did on the same way of recommendation of it used by our Lord himself. This I take for a clear and easy and intelligible account of what the Evangelists tell us concerning this whole matter.  
§ XI NOW by this it appears, that this sin against the Holy Ghost is a resisting the Gospel Dispensation for which the Holy Ghost is pleased so eminently to concern himself. For this is that which has peculiar to itself the concerns of the other World, of which the Messiah was expected to be the Prince. And accordingly resisting this Dispensation is elsewhere usually characterized as a resisting of the Holy Ghost. So in the Case of Ananius and Sapphira who had consecrated a Possession to the service of the Church, 
Act. v 3.9.  but kept back part of it, St. Peter charges them with lying to the Holy Ghost, and agreeing to tempt the Spirit of the Lord. 
Act. seven. 51.  So St. Stephen: Ye stiffnecked, and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost; as your Forefathers did, so do you How their Forefathers had resisted the Holy Ghost he had before shown in the whole Chapter, exactly agreeably with the account I have given of it, concerning their frequent Lapses in the Wilderness, and elsewhere, notwithstanding the many Miracles God had been pleased to do for their conviction. And their present resisting the Holy Ghost at that time is plainly their perverse behaviour against St. Stephen's Preaching, 
Act. vi. 8.  notwithstanding that also had been confirmed to them by many signs and great Miracles. 
Heb. x. 29.  So falling away from the Church Assemblies, is, in the Author to the Hebrews, a doing despite to the Spirit of Grace. So St. Paul tells the Thessalonians, that he that despised the injunctions of the Apostles, of which he had been speaking, despised not men, 
1 Thes. iv. 8.  but God, who had also given them his holy Spirit. Therefore he entreats the Ephesians that they would not grieve the holy Spirit by which they had been sealed to the day of Redemption. 
Eph. iv 30.  And as this Office of performing Miracles is still ascribed to the Holy Ghost, so our Saviour, in regard of the Miracles performed by him, 
Act. x. 38.  is said to have been anointed with the Holy Ghost, and with power which enabled him to heal all those who were under the power of the Devil. And so all those who are said to have preached the Gospel with that power with which we see it was preached in the History of the Acts, are still described as Persons full of the Holy Ghost. Therefore we find so often mention of the demonstration of the Spirit, 
1 Cor. two. 4.  and of the Testimony of the Spirit given to the Gospel, which plainly infer, that whoever resists the Gospel so demonstrated and testified, must necessarily reflect on the wisdom and veracity of the Spirit himself. And that these things are so frequently mentioned on all occasions, seems plainly to have been with design to give men warning of the greatness and dangerousness of the sin they were likely to prove guilty of in resisting the evidence of the Gospel, which was the same that our Saviour had in warning the Jews of it in the Gospels. This may suffice to show in general that a resisting of the Gospel Dispensation is a resisting of the Spirit and that particularly on this first account, as it is a resisting of the Miracles done by the Spirit in confirmation of the Gospel.  
§ XII A second resisting of the Spirit with which the Jews are also expressly charged was their resisting and murdering the Prophets, and particularly; with reference to the Gospel, in murdering of their Saviour himself. This St. Stephen charges on them immediately after the words now mentioned, as instances how they had resisted the Holy Ghost, and how they still continued to resist him. 
Act. seven. 52.  Which of the Prophets (says he) have not your Fathers persecuted? and they slew them, who foretold of the coming of the Just one, of whom you have now been the betrayers and murderers. The persecuting therefore and killing of the Prophets, was that resisting of the Holy Ghost who had spoken by those Prophets, of which their Fathers had been guilty, and their own murdering the Just one himself, who was also a Prophet, 
Luk. xxiv. 19. 2 Chro. xxxvi. 15, 16, 17, etc. Jorem. xxv. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, etc.  mighty in word and deed, was the instance of their doing like their Fore fathers. And this is often taken notice of in the Old Testament as a reason of God's dealing so severely with their Forefathers, and of his giving them up at last to those Judgements by which he intended to punish their undutiful behaviour. And our Saviour himself takes notice of it, as the particular reason why Jerusalem should be destroyed, because she had killed the Prophets, and stoned them that had been sent to her. 
Matt. xxiii. 37. Ver. 34.  And among the Prophets he reckons those whom he designed himself to send to them. So also in the Parable of the King who let out his Vineyard to the unfaithful Husbandmen, he first mentions the several sending of the Servants, 
Matt. xxi. 41. Mark xii. 9. Luk. xx. 16.  but when he tells of their murdering the Son, there he concludes as the utmost trial of his Prince's patience, and makes him immediately resolve cruelly to destroy those wicked men. And this seems also to have been the gradation which was observed by the Author to the Hebrews, 
Heb. i. 1.  that whereas God had spoken to their Forefathers in sundry times, and in divers manners by the Prophets, he had now in those last days spoken to them by his Son; which they were therefore to look on as the last trial, and which, if they neglected, they could expect no relief by any other Dispensation, nor delay of the threatened vengeance, this being the highest degree of provocation. This seems exactly to agree with the whole reasoning of that Epistle. And it very well agrees with the Notion of the unpardonableness of the sin I am speaking of.  
§ XIII BESIDES it is very considerable to this purpose, that this sin against the Holy Ghost as he is the Spirit of Prophecy is peculiarly threatened in that Law which is understood to promise a Succession of Prophets. For so the words run: A A Prophet will I raise unto them out of the midst of their Brethren, 
Deut. xviii. 18, 19  like unto thee, and I will put my words into his mouth that he may speak whatsoever I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whoever shall not hearken unto my words which be shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. 
Maimonid. Fundam. Leg. Cap. ix. §. 4.  The Punishment here threatened, the Jews themselves understand to be a capital one, which is as far from any relief or hopes of pardon as any expression used concerning the Punishment of this sin against the Holy Ghost implies that to be. But this place will appear yet more apposite to our purpose when it is considered, that however a Succession of Prophets may be secondarily employed, yet the words express but one, and that one Prophet is as expressly applied in the New Testament, 
Act. iii. 22.vii.37. Abarbin. de Pen. Excis.  to our Saviour. And what is here said to be God's requiring it at their hands, is there called a destroying out of their People, which as it rather implies the Punishment of Excision, as they call it, which was rather to be expected from God himself than to be inflicted by the Civil Magistrate, and as it thereby resembles the Shammatha, the turning them over to God's own Judgement at his coming, which, as I have said, was inflicted on desperate Offenders, and as it is, like the expression of the XII Tables, 
Tull. de Legib.  which for the most piacular Offences allotted no other Punishment but this: Si secus farit, Deus ipse vindex esto; so it exactly agrees with the account which the New Testament gives of the Punishment of those who should prove refractory to the Gospel, 
1 Thes. i 8, 9. ii.8.  that they are reserved to that flaming fire in which Christ was to be expected to appear at his coming, and for which St. Judas says they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in regard of those many passages of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Jud. 4.  Old Testament which were thus applied by the Christians of those times, besides the Prophecy of Enoch so applied by himself. And among the rest this passage was so applied by St. Peter. And this later Exposition, as it is more Mystical, 
2 St. Pet. iii. 7.  so it is, in that regard, more agreeable to the Genius of the Christians of those Ages.  
§ XIV A third sin against the Holy Ghost, proper to the Gospel-Dispensation also, is our resisting his influences in us. This was the sin of the Old World which brought God to a final resolution that he would destroy man, whom he had made, 
Gen. vi. 7. Ver. 3.  from off the face of the Earth, and to prefix a certain time within which he would perform what he had threatened, which was the way to make his Decree concerning it irrevocable. They had striven against his Spirit, 
Ver. 3.  and he therefore resolved that it should no longer strive with them. And this instance is the more remarkable, because this is proposed as an Example of what should befall those under the Gospel who should follow the Example of the disobedience of those who lived in those ancient times, 
2 Pet. two. 5.iii.5, 6, 7.  that as their refractoriness to those good motions brought upon that Age of the World an Epidemical Judgement of Water, so the like refractoriness to the like good motions under the Gospel should bring down an Epidemical Judgement also, but a more dreadful one than that was, even one of fire. And this was also a sin very naturally agreeable to the Gospel Dispensation, and withal very peculiar to it. For as all they who are Christ's have this Spirit, (for the Apostle plainly tells us that they who have not his Spirit are none of his, 
Rom. viij. 9. ) so on the contrary, none but they who are Christ's are supposed to have this Spirit. The Gentiles are supposed to be without God in the World. 
Eph. two. 12. Gal. iii. 2. Judas 19  The Jews are not supposed to get it by the works of the Law, but by the hearing of Faith, and for Apostates they are supposed sensual, and not to have the Spirit, how much soever, they pretend to it. This having God so very near them, 
Deut. iv. 7.  was the Privilege of Israel above all other Nations, but not now of the carnal, but the Mystical Israel. 
Maimonid. Mor. Nev. P. iii. c. 17, 18.  Now it is a Rule among the Jews, that Providentia sequitur Intellectum, so that they only who partake of understanding, and especially of this Divine degree of it of which the Spirit is Author, do also partake of this care of Providence, and that differently, according to the different degrees whereby they partake of this understanding. And it is indeed by this Principle, that they give an account of the singular Providence of God over them above all other Nations: That because all other Nations are supposed to partake only of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is supposed to be only a material passive degree of understanding, therefore they are supposed subject to the material influences of the Stars, and to the Angels of the Orbs, to whom those influences are supposed to belong. But because every Israelite as an Israelite has the Shechinah, partakers of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of the breath of God, because they have Souls of a nobler extraction, made of the dust of the throne of Glory, as it is expressed in their Mystical Language, because they partake of it in that eminent degree as to be a Nation of Prophets as no other Nation is supposed to be; 
Cozri.  thence it is that God who cannot choose but be concerned for his Spirit, cannot, on that same account, avoid being concerned for them, and that with a degree of care suitable to those eminent influences enjoyed by them above any other Nation. For they suppose Prophets to be under a more peculiar care of Providence, even than other ordinary men.  
§ XV NOW I have already shown that Christians, that is, the Mystical Israel, are, in the Scripture, supposed to succeed them in this very Privilege of their being all Prophets. And it is from this peculiar Privilege, which they were supposed to enjoy above all other Nations, and this peculiar Right to Providence above them, that they give an account of the severity of God's deal with them above all others, that even little neglects were punished more rigorously in them than the great and notorious contempts of other Nations. 
Cozri. Amos iii. 2.  You have I known of all the Nations, says God, therefore will I punish you. And accordingly God gives it as a reason of his severe deal, that he is an Holy God, purer of eyes than to behold iniquity, and that they must therefore be a Holy People, 
Habbak. i. 13. Leu. nineteen. 2.xx.7. 1 Pet. i 15, 16. Leu. xi. 44, 45. Leu. x. 3. Act. xvii. 30.  not indulge themselves in those liberties, which he might have born with in the Gentiles, but would not forbear in them; that he would be sanctified by all them who drew so near to him as they were permitted to do. Which agrees exactly with the condition of things as they are described under the New Testament▪ where God is said to work at the times of ignorance, 
1 Pet. iv. 17, 18.  but to begin his Judgements at his own house, to deal so severely with them, as that the righteous should scarcely be saved; and that therefore God expected that they who were come over to him, should do more than others, that they must not allow themselves the liberty of living in the 
a 1 Thes. iv. 5.  concupiscences of the Gentiles, and following their former 
b 1 Pet. i 18. Eph. two. 3.iu.22.  vain conversation, but behave themselves for the future according to the decorum 
c Eph. v. 3. Phil. i 27. 1 Tim. two. 10. Tit. two. 3.  of Saints. The most rigorous Punishments we then read of were those that immediately related to the places of God's peculiar presence. Even the meanest irreverences to that, though of Persons otherwise well meaning, were punished Capitally and Exemplarily. Such were the Cases of the 
d 1 Sam. vi. 19.  Bethshemites, 
e 2 Sam. vi. 7.  Uzzah, 
f Leu. x. 1, ●.  Nadab and Abihu. Now this is applied by the Apostle himself to ordinary Christians, that because they have the same 
g 1 Pet. iv. 14.  Spirit of Glory, (no doubt with relation to the visible Glory▪ which consecrated those places) resting on them and abiding 
h 1 Joh. two. 14.  in them, their Bodies 
i 1 Cor. iv. 19.  are to be treated as Temples of the Holy Ghost and therefore sins against their Bodies now must as much redound to the dishonour of their Holy Ghost as the profanation of his Temple would have done them, and might accordingly expect as severe a Punishment. And the reason of the thing will require it. For when we consider the Holy Ghost as a living and abiding Principle residing in us, we must suppose every wilful sin we commit as done in as peculiar a presence of his as that was which consecrated those Holy places, but this special aggravation besides, that our sins now are not only done presumptuoussy in his presence as those were then, but also in resistance of his contrary motions and influences in every particular act of Gild. Which is an aggravation proper only to the Mystical Israelites, that is, to Christians, who because they alone can be supposed under the care of the Holy Ghost in every particular act they do, who have him as a living and abiding Principle, can therefore only be supposed to resist him in every particular deliberate Gild.  
§ XVI NOR is this account of things agreeable only to the Notions of the modern Jews, but also to those of the Hellenistical Philosophy when then obtained in the times of the Apostles. They also thought that in the golden Age, as long as the Divine seed continued among men, that is as long as they lived 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so long the Gods themselves appeared and conversed familiarly with men, till the degeneration of men's lives to Irascible first, and then to the Concupiscible degree of the Souls, by degrees exiled them back to Heaven again, so that Astraea was the last of them that stayed below. Yet she also departed at last according as the provocations of men grew more and more intolerable. And it is observable that this was made to be the Age of the Giants, who in the Poets Mystical way of expressing things are said to have fought against the Gods themselves, as it seems most probable, for resisting these Divine influences which are then supposed to have been so familiar. And these Giants are not only supposed to have brought the deluge, but to have been cast into Tartarus, and so to have been punished in the World to come, as well as in this, for their great impleties. I need not observe how exactly these things agree with the Notions of the Hellenists and the Primitive Christians concerning the old World that strove with God's Spirit, and were therefore destroyed by the Deluge. The sense of the Hellenists appears sufficiently from the Translation of Gen. VI and Job. And the account of these things in Philo and Josephus. The sense of the Primitive Christians from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in St. Peter, from the Sibylline Oracles, 
2 Pet. two. 4. and Bogan. Praef. ad Dickinson. Delft. Ph●ni●iss. & Winder. de vit. functor. statu.  the Book of Enoch, and all that followed it, as I think the Fathers did unanimously for the first three Centuries. They all give the same account, and in the same language, as the Heathens do concerning their Giants which perished in the Deluge of Deucalion, according to them who make the Deluge of Deucalion as general an one as that of Noah was. And I have already noted how the New Testament compares the sin of the Apostates from the Gospel with the sin of those who perished in the old World, and makes the Punishment by fire which should be inflicted for the sin of these, exactly answerable to the Punishment by the Deluge which those suffered for a guilt of the like nature. But if we will Critically distinguish the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Angels on the Deluge which was said to come on those who were born out of the blood of those Giants; yet the Parallel will yet hold more exactly in this Case. For this instance of these Angels who are said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in St. Peter, and are therefore answerable to the Giants in the Poets, given as a Precedent what these desertors of the Gospel were to expect. And accordingly Enoch's Prophecy which, in all likelihood, was spoken expressly concerning these Giants, yet applied by St. Judas to the Apostate Christians. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Judas 14. Ver. 13.  And the blackness of darkness which was reserved for those Christian Apostates, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in our Saviour, seems plainly the same with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Giants, which is described in the Poets as the lowest part of Hell, 
Hesiod. Theog.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. By which way of Explication, as their Punishment is made the same with that of the Giants, and that is the severest imaginable, the very depth of Hell, which is therefore as severe as can be thought of for the sin against the Holy Ghost; so their sin must be supposed of the same nature too. And therefore their resisting these motions of the Spirit which they had received by the Gospel, must, in proportion, be supposed to be the same fight against God, of which the Giants were guilty, which is also as great a guilt, and as properly ascribed to the Spirit, as any one can conceive that to be which is called the sin against the Holy Ghost.  
§ XVII AND particularly that Christianity was a restoring men to that Divine seed which those before the Deluge enjoyed till they lost it by their misdemeanours, and therefore consequently that it must expose men to the guilt of sinning against the Spirit as they did, appears from Justin Martyr's making that living 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be the same thing with being a Christian, from Constantines' applying all the Eclogue of Virgil, where he describes the return of the golden Age, according to the Principles of Hesiod and Plato, to the state of Christianity, from their making the Spirit to be a Divine Nature as that was then, and their supposing it to make us the Sons of God, as Plato calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who lived then. Nay, so far did the Primitive Christians follow this Philosophical Hypothesis as that several of them thought the souls of men derived from the Stars as they did, and that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the restitution of them to the Stars from whence they had descended, if not their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and coalition with the fontal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which they had been derived to the Stars themselves. However it appears that according to this Notion concerning Christianity, they must have conceived Christians to have been under a peculiar care of Providence in regard of these communications of Intellectual influences, as the Jews suppose themselves to be. And accordingly the Hellenistical Philosophers made this to be the image of God exactly as the Scripture does, and made the following of the suggestions of this good Daemon to be the following of God himself, and must therefore make the resisting it to be a resisting of God also. So the Pythagorean verses wish that men would know the Daemon they enjoy, and indeed they derive the influences of the supreme Being by this concatenation of Spiritual Being's in the several parts of the World, so that the several influences are to be taken for God's, because it is from him that they originally proceed, by which means also the contempt of them will also reflect on God himself. How they are thus contrived that this may follow may be seen in Apuleius and in Philo's Explication of Jacob's Ladder. 
Apul. de Deo Socratis. Philo. Hierocl. de Provident. Fragm. apud Phot. Biblioth. num. 251.  And indeed there are who make the very Notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be properly taken, from the care of this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 within us, rather than from that whereby the World is governed in general. But the passage of Seneca, an Author of the Apostles Age is very considerable to our purpose, where he tells us that a holy Spirit, which he calls a God, is in us, and that he deals with us as we deal with him, if we deal ill with, exactly as the Psalmist, with the perfect man thou shalt be perfect, 
Psal. xviii. 26 2 Sam. xxii. 27  but with the froward thou shalt learn frowardness. Besides this there is also another way, according to the Platonical Hypothesis, how this participation of the Spirit may entitle us to the special Providence of God. And that is, that as long as men were good God kept the Government of the World in his own hands, but as they degenerated, so he was thought to leave it to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as if he than took no further notice of it. I might have shown how this Notion seems also to have been taken up by the Primitive Christians; 
See Hackw. Apol. for Provide. Act. xvii. 30. Act. xiv. 16. Luk. i. 68, 78.  that this was the reason why they thought the World to have decayed, that for the time past, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he took no notice of the man's of men, but suffered them to walk on in their own ways, that he had now looked down from Heaven, and visited his People. And possibly this might have been the reason why they expected the end of the World, that is, of that Iron Age of it, and waited for a new heaven, 
2 Pet. three 13.  and a new Earth wherein righteousness was to dwell. For the Golden Age was immediately to succeed the Iron. And the reason that made the Golden Age so happy was that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Epinomid & apu Euseb. Pr. Eu. L.xi. c. 16.  as Plato calls him, was to take the Government into his own hand And therefore seeing Christ, whom they took for this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had the Government of all things now committed to him by his Father, it was very reasonable for them suddenly to expect those happy times, which, according to this Hypothesis, were consequent to such a Government. This seems to have b●●n really the thoughts of the Author of the Sibylline Oracles, and the Emperor Constantine in expounding the Eclogue of Virgil to this purpose. And this must also make the sins committed under the Government of Christ to reflect upon him, and would consequently concern him more particularly to take care to see them punished according to their desert.  
§ XVIII AND if the violation of particular Laws, by this constitution of things, be so great a sin, and in which the Spirit is so concerned to see them punished who are guilty of that violation; what shall we say of casting off the Legislative Power itself, and disowning the Power which necessarily requires Subjection to Subordinate Governors as well as to the Supreme? What of not only neglecting to perform the Conditions of it, but casting off their Baptismal Covenant itself by which they were obliged to perform those Conditions? What of dispossessing the Spirit of his interest in them, not only by frequent grieving and provoking him in acting contrary to his Suggestions, but also by a wilful neglect of those means which himself had appointed for continuing his possession of them? These are certainly Crimes of the highest nature, and most severely punishable by the Principles of Government. And yet of these they were certainly guilty, who, in the Apostles times, at least, deserted the external Communion of the visible Church. This will more particularly appear if we consider,  
§ XIX 4. That the whole Constitution even of the Government of the Church in that Age was Theocratical. All the Officers of the Church were invested in their Office by the Holy Ghost himself. He it was who qualified them for their Offices by his extraordinary supernatural gifts. 
Eph. iv. 11.  He gave some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors, and Teachers. And he it was who empowered them to exercise those Gifts by noting the very particular Persons, who were to be empowered, to them who had the Authority of committing that Power to them, either by giving their Ordainers the Gift of discerning Spirits, or by signifying his pleasure to them, either by appointments, as when he was consulted by Lots; or without appointment, by some sensible appearance relating to them, as he did also afterwards in the Cases of Alexander Bishop of Jerusalem, and Fabian of Rome. It was he therefore that made the Bishops of the Church. And so for all the Ecclesiastical Offices, they were then generally performed by peculiar Inspirations, 
1 Cor. 14.  their Praying, their Prophesying, their celebrating the office of the Eucharist, their Spiritual Songs and Hymns, their very Interpretation of what had been by others delivered in strange tongues. In the very Prudential management of their affairs they had also particular directions from the Spirit. 
Act. xiii. 2.4. viij. 29. x. 19. xi. 28, 29. xuj. 6, 7, 10. xviii. 9. nineteen. 21. xx. 23. xxi. 4, 11. xxvii. 22, 24.  He usually told them where they should Preach, and where they should not; who were particularly to be chosen out for the employment he had for them, and what should be the success of their undertaking. And if, in this regard, it had been a fight 
* Act. v. 38.  against God for even the pharisees themselves to venture to oppose themselves to the Apostles; how could it have been less than a rebelling against the same God, the Spirit, for their own followers to have deserted them? This I take notice of that none may think that the Author to the Hebrews should speak so severely against the desertors of their public Assemblies. And though indeed the extraordinary manifestations of the Spirit be now ceased; nay, and several also of those extraordinary qualifications which were necessary for that Age peculiarly, and could not then be gotten by the Persons who wanted them for the discharge of their Office in the use of ordinary means; yet as long as the Holy Ghost is the Governor of the Church, that is, indeed as long as Christ himself is so who governs by the Holy Ghost as the Shechinah of his Throne of Glory, by which he is pleased to presentiate himself; so long even the subordinate Governors must be presumed to be Authorized by him. For it is an inseparable Royalty of the supreme Governor to have the nomination of subordinate Governors, either by himself, or by his Laws. And where the nomination is made of the Persons by the Laws it is always to be presumed as much the Act of the supreme Governor, as if it had been performed by him in his own Person, and will as strictly oblige Subjects to Obedience to them; and will make their resistance as properly a disowning of the supreme Authority. The King does not concern himself in Person in the nomination of every inferior Officer, nay, many times knows not what is done by others in his name. Yet the resisting of such Persons who are Legally invested in their Office, the Law looks on as a resistance to the Royal Authority itself. And though it may be lawful in some instances to deny them active Obedience, when they require it in Cases wherein the Law who gave them their Power, gave them no power to require it; yet, even in those Cases, to gather Parties against them, and to disown dependence on them, and to separate from them, would also be taken for a Rebellion against the supreme Authority wherever it is. Passive Obedience must be paid to them where Active cannot, and upon no pretence of recourse to the supreme Prince can be denied them without a violation of the Authority of that Prince to whom they pretend to have recourse. Nor is this only necessary by the Principles of secular Government, much less of that only which is proper to our Kingdom. It is absolutely necessary by the Principles of Government as it, relates to a visible Society, without this no external Society can be maintained. And even in the reason of the thing, what a man does by his substitute is the same thing in Law as if it had been done by his own Person. If therefore the supreme Authority delegate his Power by Legal Rules settled by him, as such a Delegation is properly his Act, and therefore properly obliges him; so the Power so delegated is his also, and the resistance made against it does properly affront him in his own Authority. This I note to show that our Adversaries present opposition to Persons Legally Authorized by the Holy Ghost, according to the Rules settled by him for maintaining a Succession must be a Rebellion against the Holy Ghost himself, though such subordinate Governors should prove mistaken, and though they received no other gifts by their Ordination for the discharge of their Office, but their bare Office alone. And yet the Church has always thought that even such Gifts were given them at their Ordination. But that not being necessary for my present design, I shall not now enlarge on it.  
§ XX IN all these instances it appears that all sins against the Gospel-Dispensation are very properly sins against the Holy Ghost. If were easy now to show further that a separation from the Canonical Assemblies of the Church is a sin against the Gospel-Dispensation. I say, against the Dispensation itself, and not only against particular Provisions of it. It is an interpretative disowning Christ for our Master, when we leave his School and his Chair. It is a disowning his Royal Authority, when we resist his subordinate Governors who have succeeded Canonically according to the Rules by him established for Succession. It is a violation of that Peace which it was the great design of his Death to settle among us; and of that Unity of the Spirit, which I have shown to be necessary for deriving the influences of the Spirit to particular Members. It is a violation of our Baptismal Promise and Covenant, when we cut ourselves off from being Members of that Society of which we professed ourselves Members in our Baptism. Most of these Arguments I have shown to have been made use of by the Apostles themselves. And undoubtedly the charges, if true, will strike at the Gospel-Dispensation.  
§ XXI AND for the Punishment assigned by the sacred Writers for this great sin. And the way of reasoning used by them in applying the instances of the Old Testament to this purpose; I consider that the Authors who were then for the Mystical Expositions of the Old Testament (as we have seen that the Christians both by their Genius and their interest were for these Mystical Expositions) those Authors, I say, supposed that even the Historical parts of it were not delivered by the sacred Writers purely for the sake of the Histories themselves, but with relation to future Ages wherein they might be useful, and yet more especially, with relation to the times of the Messiah. Now on this supposition, it was not proper for them to mention any Histories but such as were designed for Precedents▪ even to Posterity when Circumstances should prove exactly the same. Nor was this only supposed to have been designed by the sacred Writers themselves, but also by the Holy Ghost by whom they were inspired; nay, by him rather than by the Writers, and these Mystical secondary applications were thought more principally disigned by him than the concernment of the Original History as to the Persons who were at first concerned in it. So that on this supposition it was as rational even to ground Arguments for present Expectations on those past Histories, how Personal soever they might otherwise seem in their Original design, as no man doubts but it is rational to plead Precedents in our ordinary Courts, because they were at first designed for that very purpose. But more especially this was rational in the ●imes of the Messiah, because the whole Old Testament was thought to have a pecular regard to those times. Thus it was as rational for the Author to the Hebrews to apply the Promise made to Joshua, 
Heb. xiii. 5.  I will never leave thee nor forsake thee, to the Christian Hebrews to whom he wrote, as it was for Jushua to whom it was made to apply if to himself, because, according to this supposition, it was more principally designed by God himself for them than for him, and indeed for him no otherwise than as his was to be a leading Case. And this will give an account of the reasonableness and Prudence of many of the like reasonings from the Histories of the Old Testament thus applied in the New, And that they did really proceed on this supposition St. Paul himself assures us, when after he had reckoned up several of the Judgements that befell Apostates in those times, he tells us, 
1 Cor. x. 11.  All these things happened to them as examples, and were written for our instruction upon whom the ends of the Worlds are come. And though all the New Testament Writers use this way of reasoning, yet none more frequently than St. Paul.  
§ XXII And as this Observation clears the reason and the Prudence of such reasonings, at lest ad homines, in regard of the Persons for whose conviction they were designed, so the Authority of the sacred Writers themselves who used them are sufficient to assure us that the applications are really true and solid. And this will assure us of the Truth of all those things which are necessary for the Parity of the Case: for on this depends the application of this kind of Argument, that the consequent of the Old Testament Instance may then be expected when that instance is a Precedent, that is, when the Case to be ruled by it is exactly like it. And therefore, 1. This must plainly suppose that the sin against which the Apostle writes, is exactly of the same nature and the same degree of Gild with those produced by them from the Old Testament. And therefore the sin of Apostates from the Christian Religion, must, in this regard, be supposed as criminal as that of the Angels, and the old World, and the Sodomites, and the Israelites in the Wilderness: so that if one be against the Holy Ghost, the other must be so too. And therefore the same proofs which prove the Old Testament-sins to have been against the Holy Ghost, must prove the New Testament-sins too have been so too, and on the contrary whatever proves the New Testament-sins to have been against the Holy Ghost, must also prove that the Old Testament-sins were so also: so that, on this supposal, each of them will afford the other a mutual confirmation. And, 2. As the sins are supposed equally grievous, so the Punishments must be supposed too. For indeed the very design of this Argument in the New Testament is from the equal Gild of the sins to infer an equal grievousness of the Punishments to be inflicted for those sins. And therefore the Punishment to be feared by Apostates from the Gospel-Dispensation must, in this way of reasoning, be supposed to be as grievous as any of the instances now mentioned. And they are certainly of the highest kind. And, 3. I can hardly think but that what the Apostles, on occasion of their mentioning the Old Testament-instances, are pleased peculiarly to remark, that they meant to note as an instance wherein they thought them Parallel. And therefore in Esau's Case it being peculiarly noted that he found no place for Repentance though he sought it carefully and with tears, 
Heb. xii. 17.  I suppose the Author meant that they who should desert the Christian Religion, as he did, our Worldly considerations should expect to find the same difficulty of being admitted, even upon Repentance, as he did. And 4. That this Mystical way of Arguing requires something suitable in the other World to what the Old Testament sinners suffered in this, which will beget a further dreadful aggravation of their Case who sin against the Gospel-Dispensation, if the Punishment of these must be as grievous in the other World proportionably as the Punishment of those was in this, that is, if it must be in the most afflictive part and degree of Hell itself. And, 5. That what is spoken primarily of Nations and public Bodies, are yet not confined to them, but applicable also to particular Persons. For indeed the Apostles design in these Discourses is leveled also against particular Persons. 
Heb. xii. 15, 16, 17. iii.12.  Now for the National sentence concerning the whole generation which was to perish in the Wilderness, except Caleb and Joshua, it was punctually executed, though several of the Persons might probably have repent. And God having sworn their destruction, it is not probable that the sentence had been reversible as to particular Persons, even upon their Repentance. Moses and Aaron themselves found it not so, though, no doubt, they were sorry for the sins which excluded them from the promised Land. And the sin of the Jews against the Holy Ghost, of which our Saviour speaks, as it was punished in this World and in the other, in the sense already explained; so there are no hopes that those Punishments should ever be reversed though they should repent. That is, there are no hopes that upon their Repentance, either their Nation, or their Religion as appropriated to their Nation, should ever be restored to them. But if they be saved, it must be by their coming over to Christianity. And if the Case of Persons now lapsing from the Communion of the Church be only such a one as may shorten their Personal day of Grace; if this sin more than any other tend to the shortening of it; if when it is, at last, finished, God's Decree concerning it be as irrevocable as it was in these National Punishments; if it may provoke him now again to swear, as he did then, that they shall never enter into his rest, as the Author to the Hebrews plainly supposes it may; these are Considerations sufficiently disheartening any from depending on any hopes of a recovery. And this sin of separating, at least, of setting up opposite Societies, being a sin of so very heinous a nature, and so very hardly remissible, none of the sins they supposed they should be guilty of by continuing in the Communion of the Church, or at least, by not dividing from it, can be comparable to it. And therefore, by the forementioned Rule of Prudence, it will be much safer for them to avoid this than any other sin they can suspect by continuing in the Canonical Communion.   

CHAP. XV. Salvation is not ordinarily to be expected without Baptism.  
THE CONTENTS.  
2. Directly, That Salvation is not ordinarily to be expected without Sacraments. §. I. This proved, 1. Concerning Baptism. 1. By those Texts which imply the dependence of our Salvation on Baptism. 1. Such as speak of the Graces of Baptism. §. II. 1. The Spirit of God is said to be given in Baptism, and so given at that he who is not Baptised cannot be supposed to have it. §. III. The Spirit itself is absolutely necessary to Salvation, as to his actual influences. §. iv As to his constant presence as a living and abiding Principle. §. V That the Spirit is first given in Baptism. This proved from our new Birth's being ascribed to our Baptism. §. VI It is safe to argue from Metaphorical Expressions in a matter of this Nature, St. Joh. 3.5. considered. §. VII. Water to be understood in this place Literally. §. VIII. These words might relate to our Saviour's Baptism. §. IX. The Objection concerning the supposed parallel place of Baptising with the Holy Ghost and with Fire. §. X. The Fire here spoken of a material fire, and contradistinct to the Holy Ghost. §. XI. Our Saviour's baptising with the Holy Ghost and with Fire, as well applicable to our Saviour's ordinary Baptism, as to that of the Apostles at Pentecost. §. XII. The true reason why this descent of the Holy Ghost in Pentecost, is called a Baptism, was, because it was a consummation of their former Baptism by Water, §. XIII. The reason why this part of their Baptism was deferred so long. §. XIV. Other instances wherein the Holy Ghost was given distinctly from the Baptism by Water. §. XV, XVI, XVII. Our Saviour alluded herein to the Jewish Notions concerning Baptismal Regeneration. §. XVIII. What the Rabbinical Notions are. §. XIX. How agreeable to the Doctrine of the New Testament. §. XX. The Notions of the Hellenistical Jews, and of the Philosophers. §. XXI, XXII, XXIII. How imitated by our Saviour. §. XXIV. An Objection. §. XXV. Answered. §. XXVI, XXVII, 2. Grace of Baptism, Forgiveness of sins. §. XXVIII, XXIX, XXX. That unbaptized Persons cannot be supposed to have received the benefits of the washing of the blood of Christ, or of the Mystical Baptism, proved from two things. 1. That all who would be christian's are obliged to receive the Baptism by Water. §. XXXI. 2. That every one who comes to Baptism is supposed to continue till then under the guilt of his sins. §. XXXII, XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV. (2.) The same dependence of Salvation on Baptism proved from those Texts which speak of the Privileges of Baptism. §. XXXVI. The same thing proved, (2.) From those Texts which expressly ascribe our Salvation to our Baptism. §. XXXVII A sum of the Argument from 1 Pet. three 21. §. XXXVIII. From other Texts. §. XXXIX. The Application. §. XL.  
§ I I Have hitherto proved Exclusively, that the Grace conferred in the Sacraments is not to be had otherwise than by the Sacraments, particularly not by those two Popular Means by which Ordinary Persons think to obtain it, that is, not by Preaching of the Word and Prayer. I now proceed, 2. To prove directly, that the Grace conferred in the Sacraments is such as does suppose the Persons to whom it is not giust in an Vnsalvable Condition. Which will prove that the Grace here given is really necessary to Salvation. Both which put together will fully amount to the thing which I design to prove under this Head, That Salvation is not ordinarily to be expected without an external participation of the Sacraments,  
§ TWO THIS I shall endeavour to prove distinctly concerning both the Sacraments: 1. Concerning Baptism; and, 2. Concerning the Lord's Supper. 1. Concerning Baptism. And this two ways: 1. By those Texts which imply the dependence of our Salvation on our Baptism; and 2. By those which expressly ascribe Salvation to it. The former I shall again consider in two regards: in regard of the Graces, and in regard of the Privileges of Baptism. He that wants either of these cannot be supposed to be in a salvable Condition. 1. Not he who wants the Graces. Those are two: the Spirit of God, and Forgiveness of sins. And without either of these the Gospel assures no man of Salvation.  
§ III 1. Then, the Spirit of God is said to be given in Baptism, and so given, as that he who is not Baptised cannot be supposed to have it. 
Tit. iii. 5.  This appears in that Baptism is called the laver of Regeneration, and of the renewing of the Holy Ghost; that our Saviour himself tells Nicodemus, 
Joh. iii. 5.  That except a man be born of Water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God; that it is made the Property of our Saviour's Baptism, that whereas St. John baptised with Water only, 
Matt. iii. 11. Mark i 8. Luk. iii. 16. Joh. i. 33. Act. 1. 5.xi.16 Act. two. 38.  (and then much more reason we have to believe that that was the only effect of the Pharisees Baptism), our Saviour was also to baptise with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. And therefore St. Peter exhorts his Auditors to Repent, but not only so, but also to be baptised for the Remission of sins that they might receive the Holy Ghost. And when St. Paul would give the Holy Ghost to them, 
Act. nineteen. 5, 6.  who had before been baptised with St. John's Baptism, he does it by first baptising them in the name of Jesus; and than it follows, that when he had laid his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came upon them. And that appeared by this sensible sign, which then usually accompanied it, that they spoke with tongues, and prophesied.  
§ IV NOW that the Spirit is absolutely necessary to Salvation. I suppose our Adversaries themselves will not think it necessary that I bestow much time in proving without this that Grace cannot be had, which is absolutely necessary both to prevent sin, and perform any thing which may be acceptable to God for our Salvation. Without this they cannot make those Prayers which may be grateful to him. The supplication of the Spirit, the Praying in the Holy Ghost is that alone which can hope for success. It is he who helps our infirmities. For, 
Judas 20.  as the Apostle tells us, We know not what to pray for as we ought, 
Rom. viij. 26, 27.  but it is the Spirit who intercedes for us with groans which cannot be uttered. And he who searches the hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, who intercedes with God for the Saints. And he who has not the Spirit of Christ is none of his, and every one has the Spirit who is not a Roprobate, whence it plainly follows, that whoever wants it is a Reprobate, at least so long as he wants it. But thus much I suppose our dissenting Brethren themselves will not deny.  
§ V I add therefore further, that not only these actual influences of the Spirit which are common to wicked men as well as good, are necessary to Salvation, but also his constant presence in us as a living and abiding Principle. This alone is that presence of the Spirit which can only sanctify us. Neither Nabuchadnezzar, nor Pharaoh, nor Caiaphas, were the holier for the good motions they received, but rather the unholier for having resisted them. Nay, these actual motions are communicable to Heathens themselves who are not capable of so much as a Federal Holiness. 
Heb. xii. 14.  And yet without Holiness no man shall see the Lord. This only is that presence of the Spirit which makes Christ himself present in us, as I have elsewhere shown; and they who have not Christ form and born in them, cannot be said to be in Christ, and consequently can have no Legal Actual Title to all that Christ has done and suffered for them. This is only that presence of the Spirit which communicates to us the influences of the Divine Life, that is, to the Mystical Body of Christ, as the Animal and vital influences are to the Natural Body, to derive all those influences from the Head which are necessary for enlivening the particular Members. And therefore they who have not the Spirit in this sense, cannot have the Son of God who is our Life, cannot partake of any vital influences from him. And they who do not, are certainly in a state of Spiritual Death. This also I suppose our Brethren will not deny when they are thus warned of it, and shall impartially consider it. If therefore this presence of the Spirit be first given in Baptism, so that they who have it not given them here must be supposed not to have it at all; this will be sufficient to show that this Sacrament is ordinarily necessary to Salvation.  
§ VI AND that this is so appears plainly from the expressions used concerning it. That we are here said to be born again plainly implies that we here begin our Spiritual Life as we began our Natural Life at our first Birth. For it is only the first beginning of Life that is called a Birth. We cannot say that Lazarus was born again when he was restored to the Life which he formerly had. Much less can we say that they are born again who are only recovered from a swooning fit. And accordingly no recovery of the Spirit, after it had been once had before, can be properly called a Regeneration, though it had been as totally extinguished as all influences of the Natural Life were in Lazarus.  
§ VII AND let not any one think strange that I argue from Metaphorical expressions in a matter of this nature. They are indeed the most proper and suitable for a Mystical style as that is also most proper for Sacraments which are Mysteries. If there be no arguing from these Metaphorical expressions there can be none from those which are most natural. And certainly the reasonings must prove yet weaker which are inferred from those which are less natural; so that if these inferences be not allowed, none can be so. And indeed the very design of this Mystical language is to express something Spiritual, which cannot be so well understood, yet answerable to the sensible thing primarily imported, which is better understood. But then especially this reasoning is safest when the similitude is most obvious, and most naturally suitable to the Allegory, as this of Birth is to the Divine Life so often spoken of, and this of the beginning of Life is most natural to the Notion of a Birth. And certainly when he who is not thus born again of water and the Spirit is supposed uncapable of entering into the Kingdom of God, he must necessarily be supposed destitute of the Spirit before he is thus born to it. Besides, when St. John Baptist makes it proper to our Saviour to baptise with the Holy Ghost, what ordinary way could there be supposed how any should come by the Holy Ghost but by our Saviour's Baptism? And that our Saviour's Baptism employed the Baptism of Water as well as of the Spirit, and that his Baptism with the Spirit was not ordinarily separable from his Baptism with Water, appears plainly from St. John, 
Joh. iii. 5.  where it is as plainly said of him who is not born again of Water that he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, as it is said of him who is not born again of the Spirit.  
§ VIII THIS Text is so plain as that our Adversaries are forced to fly to a Mystical sense of the Water here mentioned. But it is a certain Rule of St. Augustine, 
L. iii. de Doctr. Chr. c. 16.  that the literal sense is never to be forsaken unless it imply some evident inconvenience. Nay, this Rule has always been so sacredly observed by prudent Mystical Expositors themselves, a● that it is their general custom to confute the literal sense before they offer at any Mystical. But what absurdity can our Adversaries pretend in our present Case? Can they say that our sense is not more obvious, and natural, and of a more primary signification than theirs? was it not the design of the imposers of this term that Baptism should signify the Baptism of Water only? And did it not from hence come to signify the Baptism of the Spirit only, as that came to be thought consequent to the other? was not this the sense commonly understood and practised by the Jews when they baptised their Proselytes? when did they ever think only of giving the Spirit alone as to his cleansing virtue without the Baptism of Water? And how was it therefore likely that they should ever understand our Saviour in such a sense as this is? or that he would mean it in such a sense as he knew them never likely to understand him in? If he had, why should he wonder so that Nicodemus a Master in Israel should not understand him when he spoke in a language so unusual in Israel?  
§ IX DO they think these words could not relate to our Saviour's own Baptism, because it was not yet instituted? If this were so, then there was much greater reason that his words should have been understood in the ordinary sense when even himself had not as yet instituted a Precedent of an extraordinary. They had then no other Water-Baptisms to which they could suppose him to allude, but their own and St. John Baptists. And they were both with material Water. But how do they know that our Saviour's Baptism was not then instituted? The words of St. Matt. xxviii. 19. were certainly no new institution of this Sacrament, but only an enlargement of his former commission, that they should not henceforward confine their Baptism, only to Jerusalem and Judea, but extend it to all Nations, and that they should not observe it as a temporary Sanction proper to that Age, but should continue it for ever. 
Joh. 4.1, 2. & 3.22.  Otherwise we know that before that our Saviour did by his Disciples baptise Proselytes in great numbers, even in greater than St. John Baptist himself. But neither is this former mention of it intimated to have been his first beginning of that Practice. Nay, he is rather said by this time to have grown famous for it, which could hardly have been if it had not been taken up some considerable time before. And yet even this was before St. John's imprisonment which fell out in the first year of our Saviour's Preaching, 
Act. i. 22.x.37.  which is still noted to have begun with his Baptism by St. John. And therefore in all likelihood he must have begun this Practice of baptising Disciples very early, and early enough for this speech of his to Nicodemus. And why not as soon as he began to gather Disciples in his own name? seeing this was the form of making Disciples then in use, and therefore unless he had used it, they would not so probably have understood it to have been his design to gather any Disciples at all.  
§ X THE only Precedent that is pretended for this unnatural Mystical sense of Water is that of baptising with the Holy Ghost and with fire. 
Matt. iii. 11.  Where they suppose the fire must be Mystically understood for the like cleansing virtue of fire signified to be in the Spirit, whereby it cleanses us from our corruptions as fire does metals from their dross. 
Mal. iii. 2.  Which is also a Metaphor used frequently concerning God in the Old Testament. Now that this mention of fire must be meant Mystically, may therefore be conceived, both because there was then no practice of baptising with material fire, to which our Saviour could be supposed to allude (for I do not know whether the modern Abissine Practice be worth taking notice of,) and because it is by our Saviour himself expounded of his sending the Holy Ghost on his Disciples on Pentecost, 
Act. i. 5.  where at least the descent of the Holy Ghost upon them is called a Baptism, though it was without material Water.  
§ XI THIS I take to be the uttermost that can be said for this Exposition. And yet how little is this uttermost? I confess the name of fire may be given to the Holy Ghost both for the reason here mentioned, and for others which I have mentioned elsewhere. 
Joh. iii. 5.  But why must it be meant of the Holy Ghost here, where it is expressly joined with him by a Copulative as a thing distinct from him? Is it because the substantive joined with a Copulative may be resolved, by an Hendiadis, into an Adjective, as pateris libamus & auro in Virgil, for pateris aureis. This will indeed show it possible that the words may bear such a sense where the connexion requires that they should do so. But how does that prove that that is their sense here? It is certainly no very natural sense to understand them in; and there should be the same exigency proved from the coherence, as there in Virgil, before Virgil's instance can be made a Precedent. But they will appear plainly distinct if we refer them to our Saviour's own exposition of them in the Acts. 
Act. i. 5.  There we plainly find the Fire mentioned to have been distinct from the Holy Ghost, and to have been no Mystical, but a material one, 
2.3, 4.  such as spectators were able to discern. And why then should not the Water which is here joined with the Holy Ghost, be material too? And what other material Water is there of which we can so conveniently understand it as of that of which we are now discoursing?  
§ XII BUT if their meaning be to confine our Saviour's meaning only to the descent of the Holy Ghost in Pentecost in opposition to his ordinary descent in the ordinary administration of Baptism with material Water, that is certainly a confinement very far from our Saviour's mind. 
Act. nineteen. 2, 3, 4, 5.  St. Paul who undoubtedly knew his mind incomparably better than we do, does plainly expound these words of St. John the Baptist of the Holy Ghost, which was to be expected in our Saviour's ordinary Baptism. And the same way St. Peter understood them in the Case of Cornelius, 
Act. x. 44, 45, 46, 47.  when from their having the Baptism of the Holy Ghost he presently infers their Title to our Saviour's ordinary Baptism by material Water. And in this latter Case they of the Circumcision were amazed to see the Holy Ghost poured out upon them before their Baptism by material Water, 
Ver. 45.  a sign that it was a very rare Case, and such as had never been observed in all the Baptisms they had hitherto been acquainted with, and yet those had been at several times, and of several Thousands. And I am apt to think that their ordinary Baptisms were as much by Fire as the Holy Ghost, in regard to the lightsome Shechinah which overshadowed the Persons then baptised, as that was of the Apostles themselves at Pentecost. My reasons I have else where mentioned, and shall not now repeat them.  
§ XIII BUT what if this very instance of their Baptism by the Holy Ghost on Pentecost be therefore only called a Baptism, because it was only a consummation of that Baptism which they had formerly received at their first admission into their Discipleship to our Saviour by material Water? Then certainly the consequence will not hold, either that the infusion of the Holy Ghost is alone called Baptism, but only to imply that it had relation to the water Baptism formerly received by them; and much less that it is called water, in regard of that Mystical Analogy which it has to water. And that this was really the Case it is very reasonable to believe. wherever the Water Baptism is mentioned elsewhere in conjunction with the Spirit, it is never so mentioned as to exclude material water, but plainly to include it, and that even where this Mystical quality itself is also mentioned. So in the Epistle to the Hebrew, 
Heb. x. 22, 23.  Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil Conscience, and our Bodies washed with clean water. So in St. Peter, 
1 Pet. three 21.  The like figure whereunto Baptism also now saveth us, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God. So in the Epistle to the Ephesians, 
Eph. v. 26.  That he might sanctify it [the Church] purifying it with the washing of water in the word.  
§ XIV AND there was a particular reason why this part of the Apostles Baptism should be deferred to this Assembly of theirs on Pentecost, because the Holy Ghost was not to be given till our Saviour's Resurrection. So our Saviour himself expressly tells us, It is expedient for you that I go away. If I go not away the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I go away, 
Joh. xuj. 7.  I will send him unto you. And when he had elsewhere said, 
Joh. seven. 38.  He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. The Evangelist does thereupon remark, This spoke he of the Spirit, which they that believe should receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, 
v. 39.  because Jesus was not glorified. Possibly the reason why he was deferred till then might be, because the Spirit was to succeed Christ in his Office of a Master, (as I have elsewhere discoursed) which could not so properly be done according to the Laws of Succession in Schools then obtaining, till the Chair was empty by the removal or decease of the former Master. And if the Holy Ghost was not given them on their believing before, than their having it at Pentecost was absolutely necessary for completing their Baptism, according to the Notion of our Saviour's Baptism, whose Property it was to give the Holy Ghost. And then even that Baptism itself adequately taken did include the Baptism with material water, if not when the Holy Ghost was given, yet before, which amounts to the same purpose.  
§ XV AND that this maybe thought the less strange, it is very observable, that not only in this Case, which did particularly require it for the reason now mentioned, but also in several others, the Holy Ghost itself was given at some distance after Baptism. 
Act. viij. 12.  So in the conversion of the Samaritans by St. Philip, he himself baptised them who had converted them. But St. Peter and St. John were afterwards sent to them to pray for them, 
v. 14, 15, 16, 17.  and to lay their hands upon them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. And the reason is expressly given, 
Ver. 16.  That as yet he was fallen upon none of them, but that they had only been baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. So also in the now mentioned case of the Ephesians who had already been baptised with St. John's Baptism, St Paul again baptised them in the name of the Lord Jesus. 
Act. nineteen. 5, 6.  But yet they received not the Holy Ghost, till he had also laid his hands upon them. I know indeed in both instances, the effects of the Holy Ghost's coming upon them were extraordinary. But it is not thence to be concluded that this giving of the Holy Ghost was only with relation to an extraordinary sort of influence. For these extraordinary manifestations did in those times so ordinarily accompany his presence on any account, as I have elsewhere observed, as that it was ordinary for them to argue not only positively that he was indeed given where he appeared to be so by those extraordinary manifestations; but also that he was not given where no such manifestations appeared. For that seems to have been the reason why they inferred that he had not fallen on the Samaritans upon their Baptism by St. Philip.  
§ XVI I NEED not to this purpose amass all that has been produced from those times by a learned Person to prove Confirmation to have been only a Supplement of Baptism. 
Mr. Daille.  Whether it was taken only for a Supplement of it, or not; yet certainly in doubtful Cases it was taken for a Supplement. The Author's observation in the Case now mentioned of the Samaritans, that the Holy Ghost had not as yet fallen on any of them, but that they had been only baptised, seems, methinks, to imply that it was ordinarily expected that in Baptism he should fall upon them without any further office of the Ministry. And so it should seem that then they had recourse to the Apostles and Apostolical Persons to whom our Saviour himself had given the power of giving the Holy Ghost by the imposition of their hands in a way of Human Ministry, when they found that he did not descend immediately upon Baptism, and concluded that he did not descend on them because he did not manifest his presence by any sensible appearance.  
§ XVII AND this was more certainly performable in those earlier times when these manifestations were ordinarily expected. They could then more certainly know when he was given and when he was not given. And therefore they needed not to have recourse to the ordinary Ministry of giving him but only in such Cases wherein they knew he had not descended of himself. But afterwards when these manifestations failed, they then used this ordinary Ministry of giving the Spirit as often as they suspected any failure in the Baptism which might make it less effectual for the end designed. And that the rather because they thought this iterable, but they were unwilling to hazard the iteration of a Baptism which might prove valid for aught they knew. However the federal Right to the Holy Ghost being given in Baptism, and the Holy Ghost itself being ordinarily given together with the Right to him without any further office of the ordinary Ministry, and the signification of the new birth and illumination being represented in Baptism; and it being agreeable to the nature of a Sacrament to confer the Grace signified in it; and the office of imposition of hands generally going along with it where it was thought necessary; and usually being reckoned as a part of it rather than as a distinct office; it cannot be admired that Baptism should be supposed to confer the Holy Ghost, though he were not immediately conferred upon that part of the office of Baptism by water always. Which will be a clear account how the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles in Pentecost might be called a Baptism as indeed a part and consummation of their former water-Baptism. So far it will be, on this supposition, from excluding even material water from the very Notion of Baptism in which it is called Baptism. Though for my present purpose I am not so much concerned whether Baptism do immediately confer the Holy Ghost, as whether unbaptized Persons be by any means capable of receiving him. But they can have no relief by this supposition of his being conferred by this imposition of hands, because they are not capable of that Imposition itself till they be baptised.  
§ XVIII AND that this is the true meaning of this place may further appear from hence that our Saviour in this place does plainly allude to that Notion of Baptismal Regeneration which prevailed among the Jews from whom our Saviour borrowed the very custom of Baptism. This appears from our Saviour's admiring that Nicodemus being a Master in Israel should not understand his Discourse upon this Subject. This could not be in regard of the clearness of what he had said on that occasion. He could not on that account upbraid him with any dullness of apprehension for not knowing his meaning. For he had only mentioned the thing without the addition of any thing that might look like an explication of it. And therefore certainly he must have supposed it to have been a term familiar among them; and upon this account might very justly admire that he being a Master in Israel, whose office it was to instruct others concerning it, should be so backward in understanding it himself. And the rather so, because this was not a Doctrine reserved for Persons of greater proficiency and maturer understandings, 
Heb. vi. 2.  but belonged to the Doctrine of Baptisms mentioned also as it should seem in allusion to the Hebrew Notions by the Author of the Epistle to them, which accordingly he there also calls the first principles of the Oracles of God. And therefore it seems to have been one of those first Instructions which were at first communicated to their Catechumen before their admission to Baptism. And then it was very justly admirable that he should have been ignorant of such a Doctrine. If this were the true state of the Case, it will then follow that they were the Jewish Notions of Baptismal Regeneration to which our Saviour here alluded.  
§ XIX AND if the modern Rabbins deserve herein to be credited in delivering the sense of their Predecessors, as I confess I am not very confident of them in many other things, than it will be plain that this Baptismal Regeneration is really such as does not agree to Persons unbaptised, and which withal will suppose such Persons to whom it does not agree uncapable of an interest in the future World, which is the very term by which they express that which our Saviour here calls the Kingdom of Heaven. These two things put together will fully amount to that sense of our Saviour's words for which I am at present concerned. And that this is plainly their sense will appear from their whole Hypothesis, which is certainly a much surer way of knowing the sense of any party than that, which is commonly used, of particular testimonies. Now as they suppose themselves alone to have an interest in the other World, so the reason why they suppose it, is, because they pretend alone to have another Soul distinct from others, which, being naturally immortal, makes them thereby capable of such an interest. 
Vid. Selden. de Success. in bon. des. cap. 26.  And this they suppose infused into their Proselytes of Justice immediately upon their Baptism, by which they are admitted to this Proselytism. And, that the change made hereupon may not be only taken for a change of qualities, they plainly say that they are not afterwards the same Persons they were before; and therefore, that, if before they were related to any, henceforward that relation ceases, and that they may thereupon marry with them, though within prohibited degrees, if there remain no other impediment on account of their difference in Religion. And upon this same account they say that if a Proselyte die before he has begotten an Israelite, he has no heir at all, because all his former Relations cease, even those of his natural Sons which were begotten before his Proselytism. Now by this Hypothesis it is plainly supposed that before his Proselytism he wanted this new Soul; because so long they acknowledge his natural Relations to hold, which all fail as soon as this new Soul is infused into him. I know the Jews do, on other occasions, call new moral dispositions by the name of a new Soul, 
Buxtorf. Synag. Jud.  as when they tell us of the Sabatical Soul, which they make necessary for the observation of their Sabbath. But the effects now mentioned in Law concerning Marriages and Inheritances, and their conceiving that it is this new Soul alone which is immortal, and entitles them to an interest in the other World, do sure in this Case argue that they think the change Substantial.  
§ XX I MIGHT have shown how very agreeable this Hypothesis is to the Doctrine of the New Testament, 
1 Thes. v. 23.  that this does also plainly distinguish the Notions of Soul and Spirit: that it makes the Soul derived from the first Adam, 
1 Cor. xv. 45.49.  and accounts us to bear the image of the first Adam by the Soul which we receive from him, and accordingly to bear the image also of the second Adam by the Spirit which we receive from him: that the Soul we receive from the first Adam is only a living Soul, but the Spirit which we receive from the second Adam only is a quickening Spirit: that as we are in Adam, 
Ver. 22.  that is, as we bear his image by the Soul received from him, we all die (that is, at least, as to the death of the Body of which he was there discoursing) so as we are in the second Adam we shall all be made alive, that is, also as to the Resurrection of the Body, of which he was there discoursing, that is, at least, with such a Resurrection as can make us capable of inheriting eternal Life, as it is usual in the Scripture to speak of that 
a 1 Cor. xv. 42, 43, 44. St. Joh. vi. 39, 40, 44, 54.  Resurrection as if it were indeed the only Resurrection (so that by these degrees if we cannot have eternal Life without such a Resurrection as this is, nor such a Resurrection without the Spirit, nor the Spirit without Baptism; it plainly follows that we cannot have eternal Life without Baptism) that this Spirit is the seed 
b 1 Pet. i 23. 1 Joh. three 9.  of God, and a 
c 2 Pet. i 4.  Divine nature, which are also expressions intimating a more than moral change. I might also have shown how very agreeable this same Hypothesis was to the sentiments of the Primitive Writers, and of how very great use it might prove for giving an intelligible account of some of the most difficult Controversies which have perplexed Christendom. And indeed it was very likely that if this were a Privilege then challenged by the Jews to the carnal Israel, it would be challenged by Christians to themselves as being the Spiritual Israel, as I have already observed. And that even the modern Jews have not innovated in these Notions, as certainly they have in others, from the sense of their Predecessors, I am therefore the more inclinable to believe: because they could have so little ground for them from the Peripatetic Philosophy as explained by the Arabians, which we may plainly perceive to have been that from whence they derived most of their Innovations.  
§ XXI HOWEVER, because, I confess, I am much more confident that the Notions of the Hellenistical Philosophy were generally received by the Jews of that Age, and withal were more likely to be alluded to by our Saviour, whose design it was to gain the Heathens, whose Philosophy that was as well as the Jews; I think it will be the most likely way for discovering the sense of this and the like Scriptures, to show the meaning of them by the Principles of that Philosophy, especially as it is explained in terms of that Philosophy, and in some things received by the Jews themselves. 
Paemandr. c. 3.17.  The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is a term expressly used by the Author who goes under the name of Trismegistus, who, if he were really a Christian, as I believe really he was, yet seems, at least, to have personated the Person whose name he was pleased to assume, and consequently in him to have personated the Egyptian Philosophy, as I am apt to think many others did for the same purpose, when I consider the great number of Books pretended in Jamblichus to have been written under the name of Hermes. 
de Myster. Aegyptior.  And accordingly this Practice was imitated by those other Sects of the Philosophers who were Travellers, and who took up their Notions rather from Tradition than from their own Discourse. So Plato, when he would give an account of the Principles of Socrates or Timaeus brings them in discoursing in their own words. And though Pythagoras himself is said to have written nothing, yet the Golden Verses, and other things, quoted by the Ancients, bear his name. And very probably the same account may serve for the Orphaicks, that they were also designed by the several Authors to express the sense of Orpheus, and the Principles of the Religion introduced by him. And I believe several of those Ancient works which at present bear false Titles, were first inscribed with those Titles by the Authors for this very reason without any design of imposing on the World. As therefore, on these accounts, it will appear probable, that the Author intended to deliver the Principles of the Egyptian Philosophy, which pretended to Hermes as its first Author; so it is very probable also that he meant that Scheme of it which prevailed in his own time at Alexandria, which was the Elective made up of the several Sects that agreed in opposition to the Sceptics and Atheists. And I need not warn how much that School influenced the World in that age, and how very likely it was therefore to be alluded to in the New Testament which supposed its Readers imbued with those Principles.  
§ XXII ACCORDING therefore to this Philosophy the return of the Soul to heaven from whence it came is called a new Birth. So Porphyry tells us that the descent of the Soul into this World is represented by the Bees and Honey in Homer's description of the Antrum Nympharum, as emblems of the first generation; 
de Antr. Nymph. p. 259, 260.  and yet withal that the Nectar, the drink of the gods was made of honey to show that this same resemblance very well fitted the return or second birth of the Soul also. And in all likelihood it was from this signification of honey with the Mystical Philosophers, that it was given by the Christians to new baptised Persons, and that so early as that this Practice is mentioned in that very ancient Epistle which is ascribed to Barnabas. 
Vid Voss. Not. in Barnab.  Milk and Honey were both of them used to infants in their first birth, and so were very fit according to the Mystical Philosophy, which was of great use then for bringing many over to Christianity, and so must needs have been supposed true by them who on this account received it where it was not corrected by express Revelation. And by this passage of Porphiry it appears that these same Philosophers took it for a fit Symbol of the second birth also. Nor did the Egyptians only express this Notion of the Souls return to Heaven by the name of a second birth. Tertullian uses also the word Regeneration concerning them, and the worshippers of Mithras, a Religion that then very much prevailed among the Mystical Philosophers, 
Tertull. de Baptism. c. 5. vid. etiam. c. 40.  and other celebrated Mysteries. Viduis aquis sibi mentiuntur. Name & sacris quibusdam per lavacrum initiantur, Isidis alicujus aut Mithrae. Ipsos etiam Deos suos Lavationibus efferunt. Ceterùm villas, domos, templa, totásque urbes aspergine circumlatae aquae expiant passim. Certè Ludis Apollinaribus & Eleusiniis [so Rigaltius for Pelusis in other Editions, and certainly much better] tinguntur, Idque se in Regenerationem & impunitatem perjuriorum suorum agere praesumunt. Where it is very remarkable that this Regeneration is ascribed to their very washing, very agreeably to what Numenius 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Antr Nimph. p. 256. Which is the more remarkable, because several of the Fathers apply this passage in Genesis to the Spirit received in Baptism. Tertul. de Baptism. c. 4. Whence it seems very probable that Numenius, as well as they, had this Exposition from the Jewish Hellenistical Expositors.  tells us from Gen. i. 3. that the Spirit (from which this new Life is derived) is seated on the Waters. And the same thing is said more particularly concerning the Egyptian Mysteries by Apuleius. 
Metam. xi. p. 267.  Name & inferûm claustra, & salutis tutelam in manu Deae positam, ipsámque traditionem ad instar voluntariae mortis [this answers our dying in Baptism] & precariae salutis celebrari; quip cum transactis vitae temporibus, jam in ipso vitae limine constitutos, quîs tamen tu●ò possint magna Religionis committi silentia, 
1 Cor. iv. 15.  numen Deae soleat eligere, & suâ Providentiâ quodammodo renatos ad novae reponere rursus salutis curricula. So Apuleius. Accordingly he calls Mithras the Priest who had initiated him his Parent. Complexus Mithram Sacerdotem & meum jam Parentem, p. 279. as St. Paul does for the same reason call himself the Father of those who had been converted by him. And it was very agreeable for them to speak thus. For as the Scripture speaks of the Life after conversion as a new Life, so it does therein only allude to the style of the Philosophers who make the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the 
a 2 Pet. i. ●.  escaping from the corruption of the World, to be a recovery of a new Life So Plato himself 
b Et Porph. Antr. Nymph. p. 256, 257.  applies the passage of Heraclitus, that we live the death of those who are in the other world, and die their Life. And Hierocles 
c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hierocl. in Aur. Carm. p. 13, 4.  makes the Souls of men to be mortal gods, in opposition to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, mentioned in the Golden Verses, for this very reason, because they sometimes die that blessed Divine Life by falling away from God, as they recover that Life again by returning back to him. And Porphyry 
d de Antr. Nymph. p. 264.  speaking of Souls from the Slavery of their first Nativity, says that they do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And it might have been shown that they also make the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be that winging of their minds, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they call it in opposition to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by which they are made capable of ascending upwards, and consequently of escaping the load of their grosser vehicles and so of recovering this Divine Life. And accordingly the very name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is ascribed to him by Simplicius 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Simpl. in sin. Com. in Epic●et.  in that excellent Prayer of his with which he concludes his Commentary on Epictetus, which is worth the Readers perusal for this purpose. And that it is by the Spirit that this Government is administered, appears from 
f Spiritu verò agitantur sive gubernantur omnes in mundo species, unaquaeque secundùm naturam suam à Deo distributam sibi. Trisn. Asclep. ex interp. Apul.  Apuleius.  
§ XXIII NOW then if we put the Principles of this Hypothesis together, they will fully amount to the account the Scripture gives of Christ as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so much of it at least as we are at present concerned for. 1. The new Life will consist in conjunction with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to whom they also ascribe it as the Scripture does; 2. This 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 exerts his enlivening power in us by the Spirit, as the Scripture tells us Christ does, so that they who have not this Spirit cannot partake of this Life; 3. The first infusion of the Spirit is that which first enables us to ascend, and so to exercise any act of this new Life, and therefore is most properly called the new birth; and therefore they who have not yet received the Spirit as a principle of Regeneration cannot be supposed to have received it at all, and therefore must be supposed destitute of it; and by these Principles cannot be supposed capable of ascending into Heaven, because this is the wing by which they are enabled to ascend thither. 4. This infusion of the Spirit as a Principle of Regeneration was expected in those Baptisms▪ which were then received in the commonly received Mysteries of that Age, and accordingly the partaking in those Mysteries was particularly recommended by Pythagoras, for this purpose of Philosophy. And, 5. That we may not admire that Baptism which was only a Ceremony of admitting Disciples should also be made a Mystery, and as such a one made use of for communicating those spiritual influences which were usually expected in Mysteries; this was also frequent among the Philosophers of those times, especially the Pythagoraeans, from whom the Essenes' seem to have borrowed many things, as the Christians did from the Essenes', to suit the way of instructing their Scholars to the customs of their usual Mysteries. Therefore Pythagoras 
a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Jamblich. vit. Pyth. c. 17. vid. etiam c. 23.  had his Acroamaticks as well as his exoterics; which were only communicated to those of maturer understandings. Therefore he concealed the secrets of his Philosophy in Symbols, which was also a sacred term proper to the Mysteries. Therefore he tried his Disciples with an exercise of silence, as they did those who were to be admitted to the greater Mysteries, and allotted the same time, that is, five years for that trial, which was the time ordinarily prefixed for the Mysteries.  
§ XXV I NEED not mention how much of this method was observed by our Saviour himself, who had his Mysteries which they who were without the exoterics were by no means to know, and such also which were not to be communicated to his own Disciples 
b Matt. xiii. 11. Mark iv. 11. Luke viij. 10.  till they had arrived to a considerable degree of improvement, and that he calls these the Mysteries 
c Mark iv. 33. Joh. xuj. 12.  of the Kingdom; nor how the Author to the Hebrews 
d Heb. v. 11.12, 13, 14.  seems also to allude to the same Practice. And if those teachers had had the same power of the Spirit as our Saviour had, and as those Gods were conceived to have, in honour of whom those Mysteries were instituted; no doubt they would have made their own admission of Disciples like the public Mysteries in that very regard of the Spiritual benefits to be communicated by them. These things must, at least, show how the converts of that Age were likely to understand our Saviour's design in this particular, by allusion to their own customs, to which they must, on these Principles, be supposed likely to believe that he did intent really to allude. And if our Saviour must have meant them in the sense they were, on these terms, likely to understand him in, as I have elsewhere proved it most probable that he must; then this must have been our Saviour's meaning also. And if so, than it will appear plainly that this Spiritual Life cannot be supposed in any who are not thus regenerated; and that this Regeneration is the first participation of the Spiritual Life, as those Baptisms from which the pattern of our Christian Baptism was taken, were the first initiations into the School of a Master, or into the familiarity of the gods to whose Mysteries they were supposed to belong.  
§ XXVI THE principal Objection that I can foresee against this Doctrine is that by these Principles the Apostles themselves were not regenerated, at least as long as our Saviour was pleased to continue his bodily presence among them, if the Spirit which they received at Pentecost was that which they were to expect in our Saviour's Baptism as it was his peculiar privilege to baptise with the Holy Ghost. For if the Holy Ghost given by virtue of Baptism be a Principle of Regeneration, and if they who have not received this Principle of Regeneration, cannot be supposed capable of the benefit of Regeneration by any other means; nay, if Regeneration imply the first participation of this Principle; than it will follow that they were not regenerate till Pentecost, and therefore that till than they had not the Holy Ghost given them as a Principle of Life; and consequently were so long in a state of Death, and in an unsalvable condition, if the actual participation of the Spirit be absolutely necessary to Salvation as I have proved it to be.  
§ XXVI TO this Objection it will not be very difficult to answer as far as I am concerned in it. It is abundantly sufficient for my purpose that Baptism be now the ordinary means of Salvation, whether it were so then or no. Several of the things by which it comes to be an ordinary means of Salvation are such as depend upon Christ's arbitrary pleasure, as both that the Spirit should be given them in Baptism, and that the Spirit there given should be a principle of Regeneration, and that they who had not this Spirit as a regenerating Principle should not be taken for his. And therefore he might very well decipher his own Baptism to Nicodemus, as to the effects which should ordinarily belong to it, when it should attain its full force, and might at present signify that without such a Baptism as his own was, in opposition to that which was used among the Jews, (which should really give that Spirit which they only pretended to give) they should not be capable of an interest in the Kingdom of God, that is, in their apprehensions in the Kingdom of the Messiah so much expected by them as Israelites, which would be a very rational inducement, to him even at present to partake of that Baptism, and by it to inlist himself in the number of our Saviour's Disciples, when he should by that means best secure his interest in that Kingdom. For this it was sufficient that it was not to be expected by Circumcision, nor by any other Baptism that might stand in competition with the Baptism of our Saviour, that from them alone it could not be expected, either at present, or for the future; but that from his own they might expect it for the future as soon as it should prove necessary. But considering that these were things depending on his own pleasure, he might give and confine these benefits to his own Baptism at what time himself should please.  
§ XXVII AND in the mean time there were many ways how he might supply this want of the Spirit. Either he, who was himself the Life, might communicate his own influences by ways best known to himself without the Spirit, (and indeed this seems to have been much of their Case when he implies the presence of the Spirit not to be necessary whilst himself was among them, as it should be afterwards) or he might supply the want of the Spirit as a constant vital Principle by frequent actual influences; or if he had not thought fit to give it to them during their lives, if any of them should not have lived to Pentecost, he might then have given them it when it should prove necessary for their entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven, without any breach of his general resolution of not sending the Spirit till Pentecost, though his Providence so contrived the matter that none of them were driven to this exigence. Only Judas died within that period; and he had forfeited the interest which his Baptism by water had given him in this Promise of his Spirit by his misdemeanours after his Baptism. However the matter was, it is certain that their Case was not so advantageous to them then as it was after they had received the Spirit, when our Saviour tells them that it was expedient for them that he should go away from them, 
St. Joh. xuj. 7.  thereby implying plainly how more advantageous the Spirit should be which they were to receive upon his departure, than his own presence itself; and besides was singular, and such as cannot be made a Precedent by our present Brethren. They cannot pretend any such resolution of our Saviour not to give the Spirit constantly with his Baptism, which might oblige him to make other provisions for those who receive his Baptism when their failing of it is not imputable to any neglect on their part, but to his own resolution. Nor can they pretend any such supplement of it as the presence of our Saviour was, which when it was withdrawn, our Saviour himself than thought it necessary immediately to fulfil the Promise he had made to them offending the Spirit to them. Our Brethren live at present under actual and settled establishments, and where they can come by them by any diligence or unsinful condescensions on their own part▪ they have reason to expect either to stand or fall by them.  
§ XXVIII THE second Grace of our Saviour's Baptism is forgiveness of sins. And this is also frequently ascribed to it in the Scripture. So Annanias to St. Paul: Arise and be baptised, 
Act. xxii. 16.  and wash away thy sins. 
1 Cor. vi. 11.  So St. Paul himself to the Corinthians after having mentioned several sins, he adds, Such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified. So St. Peter, Repent, 
Act. two. 38.  and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, 
Ver. 37.  of that sin particularly for which they had been pricked to the heart, 
Ver. 23, 36. Eph. v. 26, 27.  their crucifying of our Saviour. So Christ is said to sanctify and cleanse his Church with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing: but that it should be holy and without blemish. So in the forementioned passage to the Hebrews both those effects of Baptism are joined together, 
Heb. x. 22.  the sprinkling of our hearts from an evil conscience, that is, from a consciousness of sin, as well as that of washing our bodies with pure water.  
§ XXIX NOW for applying this Argument I suppose it will not be doubted but that he who lies under the guilt of his sins is in an unsalvable condition, and therefore that this Grace is such as is absolutely necessary for Salvation, and consequently that all those means must be also necessary without which this Grace cannot be obtained. For the Scripture plainly supposes that all have sinned, 
Rom. iii. 23.iu.6, 7.  and fallen short of the glory of God. And therefore there can be no hopes, at present, of recovering that glory by innocence, but by forgiveness of those sins of which the Scripture supposes us all guilty. If therefore it may appear that all Persons unbaptised are under the guilt of sin till they be baptised, it will plainly follow that they are relievable from that guilt by any other means but Baptism. For if there were any other means antecedent to Baptism whereby sin might be remitted; then such Persons as might make use of those means might be freed from their sins antecedently to Baptism, and so could not, when they come to be baptised, be supposed under any such guilt. This will bring the proof home to the Negative, for which I am, at present principally concerned. For my design at present is not hereby to prove that Baptism is a means of obtaining forgiveness of sins, but that it is the only ordinary means of obtaining that forgiveness. For from hence alone it will clearly follow that it will be necessary for every one to be baptised who desires that forgiveness.  
§ XXX AND this will also prevent those Objections which our dissenting Brethren are apt to make from those Scriptures which ascribe our washing from our sins either to the blood of Christ, or to the Spiritual Mystical part of the Sacrament. I do not at present doubt but that it is the blood of Jesus which cleanses us from all sins, 
1 Joh. i 7. 1 Pet. three 21.  and that it is not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience which saves us. Our present concernment is only to know whether the merit of this blood be not applied by Baptism, or whether this Mystical influence of Baptism on the Spirit be not ordinarily confined to this external Baptism by water? If this be the truth in both Cases, than it will plainly follow that he who continues unbaptised, cannot, whilst he continues so, expect any relief either from the blood of Christ, or from this Spiritual Mystical part of Baptism, that may encourage them to defer this Baptism by water. Though indeed the ill consequence of the contrary suppositions, to the destroying all rational obligation to Baptism, were enough to convince our Brethren who would throughly and impartially consider it, of the falsehood of these Suppositions. For if, on the only moral Duties of faith and repentance, the blood of Christ might be expected to wash us from our sins, what need could there be of Baptism? For with these they suppose the blood of Christ will do it alone without Baptism. And without them Baptism itself will never do it, And the same consequence will follow from the other supposition. For who would ever desire the Baptism of water, if, without it he might be secured of this Mystical Baptism of the Spirit?  
§ XXXI NOW that this is so, that is, that unbaptised Persons cannot be supposed to have received the benefit of this washing of the blood of Christ, or of this Mystical Baptism, will appear from these two Considerations: that all who would be christian's are obliged to receive even the Baptism of water; and that all who come to this Baptism are supposed under the guilt of sin. From both these put together it will plainly appear that no unbaptized Persons can be supposed to have had their sins remitted to them by any other provision antecedent to Baptism. That all that would be christian's are obliged to receive this Baptism even by water, may appear from hence, that it is indeed by this that they are made Christians, as the name Christian signifies any thing of privilege; that it is by this that they are admitted to the Covenant of Christ, that it is by this they become Disciples of Christ, and are admitted into his School, according to the Practice of Baptism in that Age when it was first introduced into Christianity, that this is, at least, the Legal Solemnity of making a Christian, and that none can be a Christian in such a sense as to have a Title to the Legal Privileges of that name without a participation of the Legal Solemnities of becoming one. Unless therefore we can suppose any to be Christians, in the sense now explained, who are neither in Covenant with Christ, nor are Disciples of his School, we cannot suppose them capable of becoming such without Baptism. And if this were the ordinary way of admitting and making Christians, in this sense, in the first Age of Christianity, we cannot be satisfied that they can be made so now, otherwise, unless God have either instituted another way, or expressly declared his relaxation of this. But neither of these are so much as pretended by our Adversaries. As for the reasons of the thing, not to take notice of the particular weakness of that which is capable of being produced for them, this great exception lies against this whole way of arguing, that it is very incompetent in matters of this nature that depend on God's arbitrary pleasure.  
§ XXXII AND that every one who comes to Baptism is supposed to continue under the guilt of his sins, appears plainly from the Texts now mentioned. It was one of the principal things required to be professed by them, 
St. Cyprian. Ep.  Credis Remissam Peccatorum: That was the Language of the Africans. And that it was not the forgiveness of sin in general, but as it related to the particular sins of the Persons to be baptised, that was thus professed by them, appears also from the customs of the Baptisms of that Age. 
Matt. iii. 6. Mark i 5.  In St. John's Baptism they confessed their sins. And these lesser Mysteries by Water among the Heathens, to which I have already observed that Baptism was answerable among the Christians, were principally designed rather for the Purgative and expiatory part, as the greater were for the Perfective part, of these Divine communications. Therefore it is that Repentance is still joined with Baptism. 
Acts two. 38. Heb. vi. 1, 2.  Repent and be baptised every one of you. And so the Doctrine of Repentance from dead works is joined with the Doctrine of Baptisms, and accordingly reckoned with them among the Principles of the Christian Religion. And therefore baptised Persons are said to wash away their sins in the places now produced. But why should they repent who have all those sins already forgiven them for which they should repent? Why should they come to the Sacrament of expiation who are under no guilt that can need expiation? Why should they wash who are already clean?  
§ XXXIII IF I had thought it prudent to have urged Authorities against those Adversaries with whom I am at present dealing, I might have shown that not only the African Fathers, but the whole Church which condemned the Pelagians proceeded on this Principle, that it was impossible that any unbaptized Person could be innocent, or have his guilt remitted to him, when they proved the sinfulness and dangerous estate of Infants from their need of Baptism. Which must by so much proceed more forcibly in the Case of Adults by how much the confession of sins required from them is more express than that which is required from Infants. But none can doubt that those Fathers and Councils, who appeared in that Controversy had dreadful apprehensions concerning the danger of unbaptized Persons, so that it is hard to expect that our Brethren would submit to be tried by them. And yet methinks those of Mr. Calvin's persuasion should not altogether slight these Authorities which on other occasions they are so apt to magnify, and in those very same Disputes wherein they magnify them. I confess where a thing may be useful for many ends, they who need it not for one subordinate end may still be obliged to make use of it, if the principal end do still continue necessary. But in our present Case it is very observable that this expiation of sin is the principal thing represented, and therefore the principal benefit to be expected in this Sacrament. The washing of the Body with water seems plainly chosen for the very purpose of signifying the Mystical washing of the Soul. And this being the nature of Mysteries to perform that Mystical benefit to the Soul which they represent to the eyes of the Body, this expiation of sin must be the Spiritual benefit for which it was principally instituted. And therefore they who need it not for this end must be supposed not to need it for the end for which it was principally instituted. And it is hard to conceive how they who want it not for its principal end can notwithstanding be obliged to receive it for a subordinate one.  
§ XXXIV BESIDES they who should receive it without any need of its expiatory virtue must needs be guilty of a false signification in doing so. They must at least signify themselves to be unclean, though they be not so, if they desire this Mystical washing. And can God oblige them to such an untrue signification by their Actions any more than he can to falsehood in words? We see how the false signification of Circumcision obliged Christians to forbear the use of it, when it was taken for an obligation to the whole Law. And yet the Mystical Circumcision which was immediately signified by it was still as suitable to the state of Christianity as it had been to the state of the Jews, seeing these challenged the name of Israel, and of the true seed of Abraham in the Mystical sense, which was also supposed to be a sense more principally designed by God than the Literal itself was. And how can it then be lawful for such Persons to be baptised, who can with so very little veracity comply with the natural and immediate signification of Baptism.  
§ XXXV I KNOW our Saviour was circumcised by the Jews, and baptised by St. John the Baptist without any Mystical Uncircumcision or sins that might be repent of. But the plain reason was because the Jews had as yet no conviction of the singularity of his Case, and it was not as yet seasonable for him to plead it, in which regards he might as well in this Case, as he did in others, comply with their misunderstandings, for a time. But if there were any other means provided by which Persons might obtain forgiveness of their sins antecedently to Baptism; Nay, if there were means whereby particular Persons might be assured that they had received it; how could it be either expected by Governors, or submitted to by such Persons who are already expiated, and knew themselves to be so, and could make this appear to the satisfaction of others with as great evidence as Baptism itself could have been able to afford them? I say, how could it be expected that such Persons as these should signify a falsehood so disparaging the means by which they had been expiated, if there had been any such? And either of these sufficiently serves my purpose, either that there are no other means of applying this washing of the blood of Christ, or of this Mystical Baptism of the Soul antecedently to the Baptism by Water, or that at least there are no means whereby Persons concerned may be so well assured of this application as they can by Water-baptism. This later, if granted, will make the Sacrament, even the external Symbol of it, as necessary to them as I am concerned it should be. So much for the Graces of Baptism.  
§ XXXVI BUT besides these, the privileges of Baptism are also such as must needs suppose the Person who wants them in an unsalvable Condition. 
Gal. iii. 27.  As many as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ. Where we plainly see that Baptism is the means of putting on Christ, and of being in him. Which is very different from the Notions commonly received among our Nonconforming Brethren. 
vid. 1 Cor. vi. 3.  And by the expression of being baptised into Christ, it seems plainly to be employed that by Baptism we come to belong to Christ as they who were baptised into Moses were by being so made Disciples of Moses, 
1 Cor. x. 2.  and got an interest in the Polity established by him. So also by one Spirit we are all baptised into one Body. 
1 Cor. xii. 13.  It is the Body of Christ he had been discoursing of: And here he tells us that it is by partaking in one Spirit that we come to be reputed one body, as we count all those members to belong to one natural body which all communicate in the same vital influences; and that it is by that Spirit which we receive in our Baptism that we come to communicate in one Spirit. For, as I said before, this Mystical Baptism being only called Baptism in a secondary regard, as it has relation to the Baptism of Water, no other reception of the Spirit can be so properly called a Baptism as this which accompanies the Baptism of Water. The same Spirit, when it is signified in relation to another way of receiving it, is spoken of in the same Allegory to which it alludes. As we are said to drink of it when it is spoken of as received in the Lord's Supper, where we drink the Element by which it is communicated to us, as it follows immediately in the same verse. So we are said to be buried and raised, 
Rom. vi. 4. Col. two. 12.  and quickened with him in Baptism, according to the nature of Mysteries which are supposed really to confer those Spiritual benefits which are signified by them. And therefore as we do here signify the Death and Resurrection of Christ; so we are, by this way of arguing, made partakers also of the merits of his Death and Resurrection. And if these be privileges of Baptism, I believe our dissenting Brethren themselves will not doubt but they are absolutely necessary to Salvation, and that they who want them must also want necessaries for Salvation. For they will not pretend that they who are not in Christ, who have not put him on, who are not of his Body, nor partake of the influences of his Spirit, who have not the merit of his Death and Resurrection, are in a secure or comfortable condition. And yet this is supposed to be the condition of unbaptized Persons, when they are supposed to be first changed into a contrary condition by their Baptism. Even this external Right which this external participation of the Water, if it were not a means of conveying the blessings signified by it (as certainly it is, if the Sacrament be complete according to the design of a Sacrament) yet it is at least a means without which we cannot be so well assured of our Right.  
§ XXXVII TO these other Topics may be also added those other passages of Scripture wherein our Salvation itself is expressly ascribed to our Baptism. So St. Peter, The like figure whereunto Baptism also now saveth us, 
1 Pet. three 21.  not the putting off the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience as to God, by the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. So I think the Text may be translated more agreeably to the sense of the Original than as we have it in our common Translation. By the examination of a good Conscience, I only mean the solemn stipulation of Baptism. Which, as other stipulations also were in those times, was transacted by way of Question and Answer, and the great efficacy of Baptism was conceived to depend on the sincerity of the Answer made to the Ministers Interrogatories, that is, in their meaning hearty as they pretended. 
Cyrill. Hieros'. Catech.  Now the comparison between Noah's being saved by the Ark and our being saved by Baptism, seems to consist in this, that as they who were in the Ark escaped out of the water by which all the rest perished who were not in it (that Notion will very well agree to the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the like Phrase of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used in St. Paul, 1 Cor. three 15.) so in Baptism when we rise out of the Water we escape out of that Mystical destruction which we suppose to have befallen the Enemies of our Salvation when we descended under it. And this Salvation of Baptism is very properly ascribed to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. For as our going under the Water represents the Death and Burial of Christ, and does not only represent it, but apply it to us as if it were our own, and as if we made one Person with him, and by applying it to us, produces in us a like Mystical Death to the Worldly Life, (as in this Mystical way of arguing from Archetypal to Ectypal Being's so frequently used in the Scripture in allusion to the Platonic Notions then received among the Hellenists, the Archetypes are supposed to be not only like Copies in imitation whereof the resemblances in the Ectypa were made, but as Seals to produce their own similitudes, as Seals do by application to the wax, in regard whereof we are said in Baptism to be dead with Christ, and to be buried with him, and to be planted with him, 
Rom. vi. 4, 5.  to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in the likeness of his Death;) So, I say, by the same way of arguing, our rising out of the water represents the Resurrection of Christ, and does not only represent, but apply the merits and efficacy of his Resurrection to us, so that it must produce in us a like signature, (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the Platonical term,) first of a Mystical Resurrection from sin and a worldly Life, and then of our corporal Resurrection from the grave. And this consequence holds so firmly, that if Christ himself be risen, it is absolutely necessary that they rise also to whom the Power of his Resurrection is thus Mystically applied, as appears from the Apostles reasoning in 1 Cor. xv.  
§ XXXVIII TO sum up therefore this Argument more closely, it hence appears, 1. That the Salvation here spoken of consists in our Participation of the first and second Resurrection. And that is a Notion as high as our Brethren themselves can desire to see proved, that it is confined to Baptism; And, 2. That all our hopes of Salvation in this sense, that is, all our hopes of an interest in the first or second Resurrection, depend on the Resurrection of Christ, and our interest in it; 3. That our whole interest in Christ's Resurrection is derived from our Baptism. And this in two regards, 1. As our Title to rising with him is grounded on our being first like him in his Death and Burial. So the Apostle argues, If we be planted with him in the likeness of his Death, 
Rom. vi. 5.  we shall be also in the likeness of his Resurrection. And, If we die with Christ, we believe that we shall also reign with him. 
Ver. 8. 2 Tim. two. 11.  But it is in Baptism that the same Apostle in the same place tells us, that we die with him. Therefore it is in Baptism also that we receive our Title to his Resurrection. For this also answers the Type, that as Christ was first to suffer before he was to enter into his glory, so we must not fail of being like him in the one, 
Luk. xxiv. 26.  if we desire to be like him in the other. And, 2. As the Resurrection of Christ is itself immediately applied to us in Baptism. (1.) Christ's Resurrection does not influence us, so as to cause a like Resurrection in us but as it is Mystically applied to us. (2.) It is not Mystically applied to us, but by a sensible representation of it. 3. This sensible representation itself cannot apply it unless it be by virtue of signs of Gods own institution. For it is he alone who can make the application effectual as to the influence required from the Archetype for impressing its own likeness. And that he will make the application effectual cannot be expected from him by any other means than those of his own institution. And, 4. Baptism is the only sensible representative appointed by God for this purpose. I know Persons already baptised are also said to die with Christ when they suffer for him: But this is never spoken of Persons unbaptised. And if we speak of Christ's Death, not as only represented, but as applied with its influences, that can only be assured to us by express Promises which may assure us of his actual pleasure: And those can only be expected with signs with his own institution. But when men are at first engrafted into Christ by these means of his own appointment, it cannot then be thought strange, that, by virtue of that, all their other likenesses to Christ should be reckoned for the performances of Christ himself.  
§ XXXIX BUT besides this place there are others also wherein Salvation is ascribed to Baptism. So in the forementioned passage, Tit. iii. 5. According to his mercy he hath SAVED us by the washing of Regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. And when St. Peter had advised his Auditors, to SAVE themselves from that untoward generation, 
Act. two. 40.  the event shows by what means it was that he intended that they should be saved. For so it follows, Then they that received his word, gladly, (particularly this last word) were BAPTISED. 
Ver. 41.  So in the ultimate institution of this Sacrament, He that believeth and is BAPTISED shall be SAVED, 
Mark xuj. 16.  but he that believeth not shall be damned. Where our Brethren do strangely misunderstand the omission of Baptism in the latter part of the sentence, as if the meaning were to imply that only want of belief, not want of Baptism, should be charged on any for their damnation. But there is not the least reason for this consequence. For though Baptism had been as necessary to Salvation as we conceive it to be, yet there had been no need of mentioning it here, seeing he who does not believe cannot be capable of Baptism, and therefore must be responsible as well for want of Baptism as of faith, and therefore the desert of the sentence of Damnation may be grounded on both, yet so as that there is no need of mentioning any more than the want of belief, because the whole guilt of the want of Baptism in that Case is to be charged on the want of faith as the cause of it. But whatever may be thought of the actual damnation of Persons who inevitably want it, yet when our Saviour reckons it among the requisites of Salvation; certainly the least he could mean by it, is, that he would not encourage any to be confident of his Salvation on his belief alone, if he wanted Baptism. Which will at least make Baptism necessary as an ordinary means of assurance of Salvation, if not as a means of Salvation itself. And this necessity of it for our assurance of Salvation is alone sufficient for my purpose. I might also reduce to this Topick the passage of St. John. But because I have already prevented myself concerning it, 
Joh. iii. 5.  I say no more of it at present.  
§ XL AND if Baptism be thus necessary to Salvation, thus much, at least, will follow, that they who want the benefit of Baptism must want the benefit of Salvation, unless this want be supplied by other means as available for this purpose as Baptism itself. But that there are no such other means ordinarily to be expected antecedently to Baptism, appears from hence, that it is reckoned as the ordinary effect of Baptism, and men are then said to be saved when they are baptised, which must certainly suppose them before Baptism out of the ordinary way of Salvation. And this is the rather credible, because it is not spoken of Particular Persons as considered in particular circumstances, but generally as the benefit presumed to be needed by all that come to it.   

CHAP. XVI. Salvation not ordinarily to be expected without external Communicating in the Lord's Supper.  
THE CONTENTS.  
§ I Things to be Premised. §. I. 1. That this dependence on the Episcopal Communion for a valid Baptism will alone suffice, so far, for my purpose, as to discourage the perpetuating any opposite Communion. §. TWO, III, IV. Inference 1. That, if this were granted, even the abstaining of Pious Persons from the Lawful Communion would be very rare. §. V Inf. 2. That even those few Pious Persons, who, after all diligence used to inform themselves, and all lawful Condescensions, could not submit to the terms of the lawful Communion, would yet never perpetuate so much as their Non-Communion. §. VI, VII. 2. Premisal, That it cannot be expected that this Sacrament of the Lords Supper should be as necessary as that of Baptism. §. VIII. The necessity of the Lord's Supper to Salvation proved from the Mystical style by which this whole matter is expressed in the Scripture. And that by these degrees: 1. The Life of particular Members of the Mystical Body of Christ is in the Scripture supposed to depend on a constant repetition of influences from the common vital Principle, as the Life of particular Members in the Body Natural does. §. IX. 2. The Scripture also supposes the Life of particular Members to depend as much on their conjunction with the whole Mystical Body, in order to their receiving these repeated Influences, as the Life of particular Members in the Natural Body depends on their conjunction with the whole natural Body. §. X. 3. The Church, with which it was supposed so necessary for particular Members to be united in order to their participation of this Spiritual Life, is plainly supposed to be the Church in this World, and that visible Society of them which joined in the same public exercises of Religion in that Age when these things were written. §. XI, XII. 4. The Reasons used by the Sacred Writers for this purpose are such as concern the Church as a Church, and so as suitable to the latter Ages of the Church as those earlier ones wherein they were first used. §. XIII. 5. In order to this Mystical Union with the Church it is absolutely necessary, as far as an ordinary means can be so, that we partake of the Lords Supper. This proved from 1 Cor. x. 17. §. XIV. The same thing proved from the true design of the Eucharist rightly explained. This done by these degrees. 1. The design of our Saviour seems to have been the Mystical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so much spoken of in the Philosophy then received as the peculiar Office of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 2. In this Union the reason of our being in Christ is his being in us. 3. Two things, according to the Scripture, to be distinguished in Christ, his Flesh and Spirit, and in both regards we are concerned that he be united to us. §. XV. 4. There are very material reasons why our Saviour should require this Bodily Union in contradidistinction to the Spiritual, viz. The benefits which our Bodies in contradistinction to our Spirits may receive by it. 1. That by this Corporal Union with Christ we may be made sensible of the Interest he has in our Bodies, and of our obligation to serve him with our Bodies, and to abstain from those sins which are seated in the Body. The great necessity of this in that Age. §. XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX. 2. That by this means they might be assured of the Resurrection of their Bodies. §. XXI. 5. Therefore, according to the Practices and Conceptions then prevailing, the Eucharist was the most proper means whereby this Bodily Union with Christ could have been contrived, whether it be considered, 1. As a Sacrifice. And that either as an ordinary Sacrifice. §. XXII, XXIII, XXIV. Or as a Federal Sacrifice. §. XXV. Or, 2. As a Mystery, and this of the greatest sort. The likeness between the design of the Heathen Mysteries and of the Blessed Sacrament. The Mysteries were Commemorative, and that generally of the sufferings of their Gods. §. XXVI. They were performed by external Symbols. Particularly Bread was a Sacred Symbol of Unity. Observed in the Rites of Mithras, among the Pythagoraeans. §. XXVII, XXVIII. In the ancient way of Marriage by Confarreation, and in Truces. §. XXIX. And among the Jews. §. XXX. The Mysteries designed particularly for the good of the Soul, and that in the state of Separation. §. XXXI. In the Mysteries they were obliged to Confession of sins, and to undertake new Rules of living well. §. XXXII. In the Mysteries it was usual to change the names of the things used in them without any thought of a change of Nature. §. XXXIII. 6. Upon these Principles, and according to the nature of these Mystical contrivances, this Bodily Union may very well be supposed to be made by our Saviour's changing the name of Bread into that of his own Body. §. XXXIV, XXXV, XXXVI.  
I HAVE hitherto shown that the Grace conveyed in Baptism is necessary to Salvation, and that it is confined to the external Sacrament of Baptism as the only ordinary means appointed whereby we may receive it. I now proceed to prove the same thing concerning the other Sacrament, that of the Lords Supper. But before I set upon this, it will be convenient to promise two things.  
§ TWO 1. THAT this dependence on the Episcopal Communion for a valid Baptism will alone suffice, so far, for my purpose, as to discourage the perpetuating any opposite Communion. All those Arguments which prove the Eucharist necessary will much more prove Baptism necessary, without which the Eucharist cannot be had, though, on the contrary, Baptism might be necessary if the Eucharist were not so. Besides, that our Adversaries themselves are more sensible of the necessity of Baptism than they are of the necessity of the Eucharist, if not for Salvation itself absolutely, yet at least for our comfort and assurance of it. If therefore the validity of Baptism itself depend on the Authority of him who administers it, and this Authority cannot be had without Episcopal Ordination, thus much at least will follow, that valid Baptism can only be expected in the Episcopal Communion. Whence it will follow, that the true Notion of a Church must also be confined to the Episcopal Communion. Though a multitude invisibly united in the belief of the Christian Doctrines may be called a Church in a sense wherein that word is ordinarily used by our Adversaries for the Church of the Elect, that is, of Elect also in their ordinary Notion of that word, for the Elect according to God's secret undiscernible purpose; yet understanding a Church for an external Body Politic united among themselves by a visible confederation, and as it is a privileged Society, of whose privileges we may assure ourselves by being Members of it, and of whose Membership we can best assure ourselves, and as it is the seat of visible Discipline; none can think that a Multitude of unbaptized Persons, how penitent or believing soever, can make up such a Church as this is. Yet this is the sense of the Church of which it can be any comfort to any that he is a Member of it. And this is the sense which is principally concerned in this present dispute.  
§ III THEY say indeed that God does not confine his Graces to his Sacraments. Admit it were so. But can they therefore say that whole Multitudes of Persons depending on God's extraordinary favours can make up that privileged Society which we call a Church? or can they say that such Multitudes as these may have all the ordinary means of Salvation though they want the Sacraments? If so, what obligation can there be to receive the Sacraments at all, when men may enjoy all the ordinary means of Salvation without them, and be withal assured that they do enjoy them? But indeed the Sacraments are the visible constituents of such a Society as this is. Baptism is the solemn admission of Members into the Church. And how can Multitudes make up a Church who were never admitted into it? How can they make a complete Church who have no Power of admitting new Members? At lest how can they secure succession, and continue to be a Church, without this Power of admitting new Members? The result therefore of this Discourse will be, that if these Principles hold true, that they can never so much as abstain from the Episcopal Communion for any conditions required from them which are not more intolerable than the want of all Church Society, and of the comfort of the Ordinances. And if this comfort be so great as our Adversaries themselves do usually confess it to be, there can be but few cases which can even excuse this forbearance of Communion.  
§ IV BUT in Case the Impositions should prove so unlawful as to be greater mischiefs to him who should submit to them than could be recompensed by the advantage of the Communion, yet even in this Case he ought also to abstain from all opposite Communion. For on this supposition their Baptism will be no Baptism, nor consequently can the Members admitted by their Baptism be true Church-Members, which if they be not, no number of them, how great soever, can ever make a Church. And then all they act as a Church, that is, by any Authority pretended to be derived from God, must not only prove a perfect Nullity, that is, infer no obligation on God to perform those Spiritual benefits, which, if validly administered, they would have obliged him to perform; but be also a Crime highly punishable by the Principles of Government, even the usurping an Authority which had never been Legally committed to them. And then though the supposed unlawfulness of the Imposition might excuse them, whose consciences were so persuaded that the Impositions were unlawful, from that Communion which could not be had without such Impositions; yet it could never excuse them for venturing the guilt of a sin, and especially of a sin of so heinous a nature as that is of abetting, as well as of assuming, an usurped Authority. And therefore the safest way for such Persons would be to abstain from all Communion till they may recover that by lawful compliances which had been lost by having unlawful ones expected from them, and in the mean time to observe punctually the Moral Duties, which all acknowledge eternally obligatory, of Faith and Repentance, till God shall be pleased to restore them to lawful means of enjoying the Rituals of Religion.  
§ V AND, if men might be persuaded, even thus far, two consequences would follow of very great importance for the preservation and maintenance of Catholic Peace. The first is, that even the abstaining of Pious Persons from the lawful Communion would be very rare. For nothing would oblige such to abstain, but such compliances as would be more mischievous than the lawful Communion could be beneficial. And to such Persons who had experienced and relished the comfort of the Ordinances, very few things would appear so mischievous as a deprivation of those comforts which they had enjoyed in these Ordinances. This therefore would oblige all such Persons to all sincere endeavours after such Information as might bring them to the sentiments of their Superiors; and withal would take them off from all haughtiness and wilfulness of humour, so that nothing would be able to keep off such Persons from compliance but the true importance of the Cause. And they who were willing to yield and to receive better information, nay, very hearty and sincerely desirous of it, that they might thereby obtain the comfort of Ordinances so much valued by them, could not frequently fail of so much conviction as might suffice for Peace, if it did not bring them altogether to the sense of their superiors.  
§ VI A SECOND Consequence would be, that even those few pious Persons who after all diligence used to inform themselves, and all lawful condescendence, could not submit to the terms of the lawful Communion, would yet never perpetuate so much as their Non-Communion. For as long as they form no Parties, nor joined with any which were already form, their differences must naturally extinguish with their Persons, which would, at least, secure the Church's Communion entire for the next generation. And this must also be a great comfort to such Persons that they could thus reconcile their duty to God with the Peace of the Church, and at once secure themselves from the sin of compliance, and from the great mischief, at least, if it should not prove to be a sin, of being accessary to Ecclesiastical division. This, sure, would be the Case if men were thus far convinced, and were withal as truly humble and sincere and conscientious in this matter as they pretend to be.  
§ VII THESE two things are of so great importance for the preservation of Peace and Government, as that I cannot think but God would take care to secure them if he ever intended any preservation of either of them. And in this regard this Doctrine seems rather agreeable to the mind of God, because it does so effectually secure them. This premisal may suffice to warn the Reader how sufficient this is for my purpose, that Baptism, at least, is such a means without which Salvation cannot ordinarily be expected, and that the Episcopal Communion is necessary for securing a valid Baptism. Whence it will follow that though we had not that evidence of the like necessity of the Eucharist as we have of the necessity of Baptism, yet our Cause were not like to suffer for want of it.  
§ VIII A SECOND thing to be premised is this, That it cannot be expected that this Sacrament of the Lords Supper should be as necessary as that of Baptism. I know some of the Ancients who understand the passage of St. Joh. vi. of the Lord's Supper, inferred thence that it was as necessary for the Salvation, even of Infants, as Baptism itself was. But I have not now to do with those who are of that opinion. And as I dare not undertake to defend it; so I do not conceive myself obliged to do so by any concernment of my present design. I cannot but think that the benefit conferred in Baptism, of forgiveness of former sins, and the infusion of the Holy Ghost, are sufficient for Salvation so long as Persons continue in that Spiritual strength and purity which they had in Baptism. I am sure our own Church thinks so, 
Rubr. at the end of the Office of public Baptism of Infants.  and I think it might easily have been proved that the ancienter Ages of the Primitive Church, those of them, at least, which passed before the Pelagian Controversies, were of the same mind. And if we judge of it by allusion to the customs of the Heathen Mysteries (from whence, as I said, the Copy of the Christian Sacraments seems to have been taken) they were so far from thinking the greater Mysteries absolutely necessary for him who had already been initiated in the lesser, as that they usually prescribed a certain time before he who had received the less was capable of the greater. Five years is commonly supposed to have been the Period prefixed for that purpose, at least to the making an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, for which a years space was requisite even after their receiving the greater Mysteries. And it was taken for a great irregularity in the Case of Demetrius Poliorcetes that he was permitted to partake of both Mysteries at one time. 
Plutarch. Demetr.  And the Lord's Supper, wherein Christ's suffering is so represented to our eyes, and which was professedly instituted by Christ for that purpose, that it might perform the office of the Heathen Images, as the opposers of Images argued against the Patrons of them, seems at once to exhibit all the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Christian Religion could admit of, as well as the greater Mysteries themselves. For my purpose it is sufficient that it be necessary for continuing the Salvability of Adults who have lost their Baptismal strength and Purity, if they would continue and grow strong and ripe in that new Life which they have received in their Baptism. None who survives his Baptism for any considerable while can think himself unconcerned in this Case as thus stated. And therefore if this may be proved, that it is necessary for the Salvation of such Persons as these are; this will as much oblige such Persons to receive the Lords Supper often, and consequently to submit to all unsinful Impositions that may be required from them as Conditions on which they may be admitted to receive it, as they were at first obliged to get themselves baptised, and to submit to all such unsinful conditions required by them who had alone the power of baptising them.  
§ IX THIS will appear if our Brethren will be pleased to consider the importance of that Mystical stile wherein this whole matter is expressed in the Scripture, that is, if they will be pleased to continue the Allegory of Life, and the Analogy between the natural Body and the Mystical Body of Christ, so far, at least, as the sacred Writers themselves are pleased to continue it. And sure that cannot be thought presumptuous. To this purpose, it is observable, 1. That this Analogy between the Natural Body and the Mystical Body of Christ is continued in this, that no Member in the Mystical Body can continue in that Spiritual Life of which it partakes by being a Member of that Mystical Body, without a constant repetition of those vital influences by which it was first enlivened, any more than a Member of the Natural Body can continue its Natural Life without a continual new supply of those vital influences from the head by which this Natural Life is maintained. And therefore as it is certain that that Member which wants this continuation of vital influences does certainly decay, and by degrees lose that Natural Life which is maintained by those influences, though it be impossible to determine the certain Period wherein it shall die; so it is, by the same proportion of reasoning, as certain that he who has not new influences from Christ continued to him, is in a dying condition, notwithstanding the Principle of new Life received by him in his Baptism. If therefore the Eucharist be the same way an ordinary means of continuing this new Life, as Baptism was of receiving it, that is, of communicating those new vital supplies from Christ the Head of this Mystical Body, as Baptism was of the first infusion of this vital Principle; it will be as necessary for those Adults, of whom we are speaking, who survive their Baptism, as Baptism itself was to them when they first received it.  
§ X AND, 2. The Scripture does further prosecute this likeness between the Natural Body and the Mystical Body of Christ, that as it is impossible for any particular Member in the Natural Body to derive any vital influences from the Head unless it continue in conjunction with the whole Body; so it is as impossible for any particular Member in the Mystical Body of Christ to derive the influences of Spiritual Life from Christ who is the Head of that Mystical Body any longer than it is united with the whole Mystical Body. This appears plainly from that particular of this comparison, that, as, in the Natural Body, Members have their distinct situation, some of them at a distance from the Head, and they who are so receive their vital influences, though from the Head, yet not immediately, but by the vessels through which they are communicated, and by the influence of the nearer parts, so that these vital influences are maintained and continued in the particular Members as well by their mutual influences on each other as by the common influences which they all receive from the Head; so there are also supposed the like conveyances in the Mystical Body, and the like distinction of offices in the Members of it by which they become necessary to each other, as the Head is necessary to them all. And this argument is purposely urged by the Apostle himself to let particular Christians understand their obligation to keep united with one another in order to their receiving vital influences from the Head. And by the nature of the comparison here used it is plainly supposed that the advantage which the Members may expect from the mutual intercourse of each others gifts, whilst they are united to each other in external Communion, is not only extrinsical by moving and exercising the good Principle within them, but necessary intrinsically for the preservation of that Spiritual Life which they are already supposed to enjoy, as the Members in the Natural Body do not only lose the advantage of a sprightful vigorous Life, but of Life itself, by an interruption of their communication with each other. And this is employed in the similitude of the Vine, where our Saviour expressly warns his Apostles, 
Joh. xv. 4.  that, as a branch cannot bear fruit of itself except it continue in the Vine, so neither could they except they abided in him. Where it is plain that Christ is not understood Personally but Mystically, when they are supposed capable of abiding in him. And this Mystical way of speaking is so familiar with St. John, as well as our Saviour, as that it cannot be thought strange that he should thus express himself.  
§ XI 3. THEREFORE the Church with which it was supposed so necessary for particular Members to be united in order to their participation of the influences of Spiritual Life is plainly supposed to be the Church in this World, and that visible Society of them which joined in the same public exercises of Religion in that Age when these things were written. This appears plainly from all the Apostle says concerning this Church of which he there speaks. They were plainly an organised Body, consisting of Governors as well as Governed, which were all qualified for their offices by Gifts of the Spirit, 
a 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29. Eph. iv. 11.  Apostles, Evangelists, Prophets, Pastors and Teachers, which were all only useful for the Church in this World, and only for their benefit as united in Assemblies, these Gifts being generally of that nature as that others were more concerned in them than they who had them. Their Gifts were also of the same kind, and many of them more principally designed for the edification of Believers than the conviction of Infidels. Such were the gifts of 
b 1 Cor. xiii. 2.xiu.2.  knowing Mysteries, Interpretation 
c 1 Cor. xii. 10.xiu.26.  of Tongues, of 
d 1 Cor. xi. 4, 5. xiii.9.xiu.1s, 3, 4, 5.22, 24, 31, 39 Rom. xii. 6. 1 Thes. v. 20.  Prophesying and 
e 1 Cor. xiv. 14, 15.  Praying, especially of that office of the Eucharist, 
f 1 Cor. xiv. 16.  where the Idiot had his set part assigned him, and was to answer Amen. These were the very employments of the Synaxes in that Age. And therefore certainly the Church, thus united by such Gifts and Offices of the Spirit, must needs have been that Body of them which joined in the celebration of their public Assemblies, and considered under that very Notion as they were united in those Assemblies, for which alone these Gifts and Offices were useful. And plainly the Apostles design being, as I have elsewhere observed, in all these Discourses to prevent the falling away of the Persons to whom he writes, either to Judaisme or Gentilism, or any of the Heresies which then began to appear, there could be nothing more apposite to this purpose than to persuade them to keep to this external Body as united by the celebration of the same public Assemblies whereby they were visibly and notoriously distinguished from those erroneous Societies; and nothing more disagreeable than our Adversaries Notion of a multitude, not a body of Elect, not distinguishable from others by such notorious Characters as might be prudently useful by way of Argument.  
§ XII BESIDES the similitude of a Vine used by our Saviour was the same which had been used concerning the carnal Israel in the Old Testament, 
Psal. lxxx. 8, 14, 15. Isa. v. 1, 7. xxvii.2. Jer. two. 21. Ezek. nineteen. 10. Host x. 1.  and therefore very fitly applied to the Spiritual and Mystical Israel in the New, according to that way of arguing which is so universally observed by the sacred Writers of the New Testament. And then considering that the Christians made the Spiritual Israel a Society in the same sense wherein the carnal Israel had been so before, nay, allowed of something suitable to those very means by which they were confederated into a Society. Instead of Circumcision they continued not only the Mystical Circumcision of the heart, but Baptism which had been a means taken up by the Jews before the Preaching of the Christian Religion, and which they thought more countenanced by the Prophets who had foretold the state of Christianity than Circumcision itself was, and withal thought it more agreeable to the more Spiritual nature of the Christian Religion in comparison of the Jewish. And so for Sacrifices, though they rejected the bloody ones which they also thought discountenanced by those same Prophecies which had predicted the state of Mystical Judaisme, yet they allowed a Mystical Melchisedechian Sacrifice, not only of the Morals of Religion, but also under those very Elements and Symbols which they supposed predicted and Typified in those fame Writers who had spoken so disparagingly of the bloody Sacrifices. Yet still these means of confederation, though they were indeed more agreeable to the nature of a Spiritual Religion than those among the Jews, were still external, and therefore as proper for confederating an external Society as those were in the room of which they succeeded.  
§ XIII AND, 4. It is further observable, that, though the immediate design of the Sacred Writers seems to have been to secure the Persons to whom they wrote in the external Communion of the Church in that Age wherein they wrote; yet the reasons used by them for this purpose are such as concern the Church as a Church, and so as suitable to the later Ages of the Church as those earlier ones wherein they were first used. Indeed if the Argument used to prove their obligation to continue in the external Communion of the Church had been this, that they could not otherwise partake of the miraculous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and manifestations of the Spirit; than as those Gifts and manifestations were proper to that Age, so the Argument would lose its force in succeeding Ages which could not pretend to those Gifts and manifestations. But when I consider that those Gifts and manifestations, in that Age, did generally accompany the Graces of the Spirit, and that therefore it is no good Argument to conclude, that the Spirit was only given for extraordinary purposes, because he was pleased to manifest himself by Gifts and Appearances that were indeed extraordinary: when I consider that it is the Spirit as a Principle of Spiritual Life, of which they are supposed to be deprived by falling away from that external Communion; nay, as a Principle of Spiritual Life to themselves: when I consider that the Church being called Christ, they are supposed to lose their interest in Christ and all his saving Graces by separating from the Communion of the Church, to lose their interest in his Redemption, to lose their interest in him by losing his Spirit which whosoever has not is none of his; when I consider that, by falling away from their Baptismal Obligations, they are supposed to have forfeited all the advantages of their Baptism, their illumination, their tasting of the heavenly gift, their participation of the Holy Ghost, their tasting of the good Word of God and of the Powers of the World to come, and so to have forfeited them as to need Renovation as entire as if they never had enjoyed them; nay, to have forfeited their whole interest in the New Covenant, which sure respects the Graces of the Spirit more principally than his Gifts: I say when I consider these things, I cannot but think that the Graces here spoken of on these occasions are as well the Graces properly so called as the Gifts of the Spirit, those of them which are to be ordinarily expected in all Ages, as those which were proper to that, those of them which are absolutely necessary for Salvation, as well as those which were only more convenient for the more advantageous procurement of Salvation. And sure we have reason to expect, as, that these ordinary necessary Graces of the Spirit should be continued to these later Ages wherein they are still as necessary as they were at first, so that they should be continued in the same means of conveyance by which they were communicated at first. And we have the rather reason to expect that they should be continued by the same means of conveyance, because if they be continued at all, especially if they be continued by way of a Covenant which may afford such a right as may be Legally challenged, it must be continued by virtue of those same Provisions which were then made, there being not others pretended since, nor indeed to be ever expected for the future. And therefore if, in those times, these Graces of the Spirit could not have been expected out of the external Communion of the Church, it must follow, by the same proportion of reasoning, that they are not to be expected now, nor for ever.  
§ XIV 5. THEREFORE in order to this Mystical participation of this Grace, (which is not otherwise to be expected than by these Mystical means by which God himself has designed its conveyance) it is absolutely necessary, as far as an ordinary means can be so, that we partake of the Lord's Supper. This plainly appears from the Principles now mentioned. 
1 Cor. x. 17.  For we being many are one Bread, and one Body: For we are all partakers of one Bread. Where it is plain, 1. From the coherence, that the Bread here spoken of is no other than that which we receive in the Lord's Supper. 2. That the reason why we are said to partake of one Bread, is, because it is said to be broken before we receive it, so that all are supposed to communicate of the same loaf. 3. That by our communicating in this one Bread which must therefore be broken before we can communicate in it, we are in a Mystical sense said to be one Bread, as I have observed that Mysteries, especially those of Divine appointment, do not only signify, but also cause, the things signified by them. And, 4. That because this ●read is also called the Body of Christ, therefore our partaking of this one Bread [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word properly used concerning it when it is spoken of as meat] is our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, our Communion, or rather Communication in this Body. And, 5. That it hence follows, by the same Rule of Mystical reasoning, that we are said to be one Body, because we do communicate in one Body, as we were said to be one Bread by our partaking of one Bread. This plainly shows that all the advantage which we are to expect from Christ by being Members of his Mystical Political Body the Church, is to be derived from our communicating in the Lord's Supper, because it is by this Communion that we become Members of this Mystical Political Body. But it further appears, from the reasoning of the Apostle in this place, how it is that we are hereby made one Body, which will very much conduce to the clearing of the Argument deduced from it, and for showing the necessity of our becoming Members of this Body. 6. Therefore it is also further clear that the one Body of which we are made Members by communicating in this one Bread is no other than Christ's Body. This appears from the words immediately preceding: 
1 Cor. x. 16.  The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? and besides from the reasoning as I have now explained it. For the reason why we come to be made one Body by our partaking of one Bread being plainly the words of Institution in which Christ has called that Bread of which we partake his Body, it plainly appears that the Body of which we partake by this Bread is no other than his Body, and that his Personal Natural one. This plainly appears, because the Body of which he speaks when he calls the Eucharistical Bread, his Body, is plainly that which he says was broken for us, according to St. Paul in this Epistle, and which was given for us according to St. Luke. 
1 Cor. xi. 24. Luk. xxii. 19.  But this cannot be understood of the Mystical, but only of his Personal Body. The consequence whereof will be, that the whole Church becomes one Body Mystical of Christ by this participation of his Personal and Natural Body in the Lord's Supper.  
§ XV AND because the right understanding of this will be of use, not only for my present purpose, but for preventing many popular misunderstandings in this matter, particularly that of Transubstantiation, and because the things I have to say on this Subject are such, as, at least, I have not seen observed by others, I hope it may prove not an altogether ungrateful divertisement to the Reader, to endeavour an explication of this Mysterious contrivance, which yet I intent to dispatch with as much brevity as the Argument will permit. 1. Therefore, the great design of Christ plainly appears to have been that Mystical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so much spoken of in the Mystical Philosophy of that Age, and spoken of as the peculiar office of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. This St. Paul himself speaks of elsewhere that he came to make all one. 
Eph. two. 14, 15, 16.  And our Saviour makes this the great design of his Prayer for his Disciples, That they all may be one as thou, 
Joh. xvii. 21. See Ver. 11, 22, 23. Joh. xi. 52.  Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us, that the World may believe that thou hast sent me. So St. John expresses the end of our Saviour's death to have been that he might gather together in ONE the Children of God which were scattered. 2. This Union is expressed according to the way usual in the Scriptures to express the whole by an enumeration of particulars by his being in us and our being in him, and indeed by this later only as a consequence of the former; so that the very reason why we are said to be in him, is, because he is first supposed to be in us. And the true reason of this consequence seems to be that cautious way then taken up of speaking concerning God, that they would not allow him to be in any thing for fear of the confinement which weak imaginations might fancy from such a way of speaking. To correct this error of the imagination, they invented contradictory ways of speaking concerning him. 
Porphyr. Sent. 40. ex sententiâ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  They made him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 · Every●where in regard of the dependence of things on him, and yet no where in regard of confinement. Of which kind this way of speaking also is, that he is in us in regard of his influence on us, and we in him, in regard of the independence of his influences, and the immensity of his presence. 3. Therefore the Scripture speaking of Christ, does distinguish him under two considerations, as to his flesh wherein he suffered, and as to his Spirit by which he was raised and glorified. 
Luk. xxiv. 26. Phil. two. 8, 9  And it is observable that the raising and glorifying of Christ in the Spirit are grounded on his first having suffered in the flesh. Accordingly our Union with him is expressed in both regards, not only that we are made one Spirit with him, but that we must become one Body 
a Eph. iv. 4.  with him also. And as his Body in opposition to the Spirit is called his fl●sh, 
b Col. i. 22. 1 Tim▪ iii. 16. 1 Pet. three 18. 1 Joh. iv. 2, 3. 2 Joh. 7.  so we are also said to be one 
c Eph. v. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32.  flesh with him the same way as married Persons are, on account of that institution; made one flesh, as Eve was from Adam, flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, in allusion whereunto we are also said to be Members of his Body, of his flesh, and of his bones. Which is a clear account of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ignatius, 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ignat. ad Magn. p. 10. Ed. Usser. 1646. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ib. p. 15.  the fleshly as well as the Spiritual Union with, and similitude to Christ, which hence appears to have been very agreeable to the Notions of those times. So far it is from being an Argument against the genuineness of those Epistles as blondel makes it, because he did not understand those Principles. I do not at present intent to discourse of our Union with Christ in Spirit, because I may hereafter have occasion to do it when I shall explain the true notion of our Union and Communion with him. All that I shall now observe concerning it is only this, that though our Union to Christ in Spirit be indeed the most immediately beneficial Union without which our fleshly Union could be of little or no advantage to us; yet that this fleshly Union is more immediately necessary to us, because without it we can expect no interest in his Spiritual Union. For as his own sufferings in the flesh entitled him to the glory of the Spirit, so plainly this very instance of likeness is thus applied by the Apostle, that we must first be like him in his sufferings that we may expect to be like him in the glory of his Resurrection. Besides the Allegory of this Mystical language holds exactly to my purpose, that as in the Natural Body no Member can expect to partake of the Spirits and other vital influences of the whole Body that is not first united to it carnally, so none can expect this Union with Christ in the Spirit, which is answerable to those vital influences in the Natural Body, till he be first united to him in the body and flesh.  
§ XVI BUT besides this consequential necessity of our bodily Union with him in order to our participation of Spiritual influences, it is further observable, 4. That there are very material reasons why our Saviour should require this bodily Union in contradistinction to the Union of the Spirit, I mean such reasons as concern the Body in contradistinction to the Spirit; that is the benefits which the Body in contradistinction to the Spirit, might expect by this corporal, but Mystical Union with Christ's Body. One was, that, by this Corporal Union with Christ, we may be made sensible of the interest he has in our Body as well as our Souls, and therefore of our obligation to serve him also with our Bodies, and to abstain from those carnal sins which had their seat in the Body. This was particularly necessary for the misunderstandings of that Age wherein this Sacrament was first instituted, and for whose use it was peculiarly contrived. They had been enured to believe that the Body was no part of the Man, but only a troublesome load and prison of the Soul. Whence it naturally followed, that what care was had of the Body would not be on any account of respect to the Body itself, but for the Souls sake, as far as that might suffer by the impurity of the Body. But for that they were not very solicitous. For several of those who were Philosophically disposed, especially of those with whom the Apostles had to deal, were so far from thinking that the Soul was like to suffer by any impurity of the Body, as that they rather thought that several bodily pollutions did rather contribute accidentally to the purity of the Soul, in as much as they might possess it with a greater abhorrence of the Body, and a greater inclination of leaving it, which might be increased it by the resistance it met with in it.  
§ XVII TO this they must therefore then have been the more inclinable, when they considered the obscenity of the public Mysteries which were then celebrated as most effectual means of purging the Soul, not only by the vulgar, 
Nay, it is juvenal's observation concerning all the Mysteries of those times, that they were all performed with obscenity. Quo non prostat f●mian templo? Sat. ix. 24. vid. Min. Felic. Octau. p. 237.237, 249. & Not.  but even the Philosophers themselves, those of Succoth Benoth and Thamuz or Adonis, and Baal Peor or Priapus among the Converts of Palestine, and of the Orphaick, Egyptian and Eleusinian among those of the dispersion. These were the famous Mysteries that were known to these Persons, and as long as these were supposed conducive to the purity of the Soul, they must have been encouraged to the greatest bodily impurities, as the most likely means of obtaining the greatest Spiritual purity.  
§ XVIII AND they were also the rather less inclinable to be solicitous for the Purity of the Body, because they took itself to be the greatest Principle of impurity. All pollution and filth of the Soul was supposed derived from matter, and therefore they who endeavoured to be pure endeavoured also to free themselves from all adhesions of the Body. And the contrary impure Daemon, the evil Principle, was taken for the Lord of matter, and was thought to have power over them who did partake of matter as long as they did partake of it on account of their partaking of it. So that, on this supposition, the taking any care of their Body, or showing any respect to it, was so far from the freeing themselves from impurity, as that it must have been taken for the most likely means of involving them deeper in it. 
Eunap. in vit. Porph.  Therefore it was that Porphyry, on hearing Plotinus' Lectures, grew so much out of love with his being a Man, that is, so far as a Body was necessary to the constitution of a Man, as that he thought of starving himself out of his Body. 
Porph. vit. Plotin.  Therefore also Plotinus was so ashamed of his Body, as that he would by no means endure that any Picture should be taken of it, when that favour was desired from him by his friends. Thus in Trismegistus, when the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 comes to holy minds, one effect among others is said to be that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
Poem. c. 1.  And accordingly he makes it a requisite for Baptism, where, according to him this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is received, to hate the Body. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
ib. c. 4.  And if this had been granted them, that the Body itself was such a Principle of pollution to the Spirit, how could they be solicitous for preserving it from such pollutions as were only capable of being transacted in the Body? How could they think themselves concerned to preserve that pure, which was itself supposed to be nothing but a pollution?  
§ XIX AND that these were particularly the sentiments of those Persons with whom the Apostles had to deal, plainly appears from hence that the Principles on which they depend were generally owned by the Heretics of that Age. They generally took the God of this world for a distinct coeternal contrary Principle to the God of Heaven, They also took this World for his peculiar Province, and thought themselves obnoxious to his influences as long as they were in it. They thought it also the proper employment of the Angels of this World to tie their Souls to terrestrial Bodies, and consequently that the best way of freeing themselves from subjection to them was to free themselves from that tye. They thought that their Bodies were the creatures of this contrary wicked Principle; and therefore that Marriage which was intended for the purgation of Bodies was an intention of the Devil, and accordingly that Adam was damned for introducing the first precedent of the exercise of it, though it was with his own wife. And accordingly we find these greatest pretenders to the Spirit to be withal charged with the most abominable pollutions of the flesh, 
2 Pet. two. 10. Jud. 8.  and that they accordingly performed the Christian Mysteries, as much of them as they were pleased to retain, with the same obscenity which had before been practised among the Heathens. The particulars cannot be mentioned without immodesty. On this account it is that we have so many exhortations to those whom the Apostles would secure from those seducers, that they would purify themselves in the flesh as well as the Spirit, 
2 Cor. seven. 1. Rom. xii. 1.  and that they would offer up their Bodies as well as their Souls, as a living and a reasonable Sacrifice, and that their whole Man might be kept unblamable, 
1 Thes. v. 23.  their Bodies as well as their Souls and Spirits.  
§ XX BY this it appears how very necessary it was for that great design of entire Purity and Reformation which was intended by the Christian Religion, to oblige them particularly to Purity of their Bodies in contradistinction to the purity of the Spirit, because, whilst these Principles were believed, they who were never so desirous of Spiritual Purity must have been at least negligent of this Purity of the Body, if they had not utterly given themselves up to carnal Impurities, on the account now mentioned. And considering that it was a Principle granted among them that they were obliged to purify that part which belonged to God, and their only pretence for neglecting the like Purity of the Body was that they conceived it not to belong to him, but to an adverse Being whom they were neither so obliged to please, nor, if they would please him, was it so probable that he would be pleased with Purity: what could be a properer means to convince them of their mistake in this particular, and to oblige them to Corporal Purity, than to persuade them to give up their Bodies, as well as their Souls, to Christ, and to give him an interest in them by a particular and distinct Donation? And accordingly this was the way which was observed, and this is the Argument professedly made use of by the Apostle for this purpose: 
1 Cor. vi. 15.  Know ye not that your Bodies are the Members of Christ? shall I then take the Members of Christ, and make them the Members of an harlot? 
Ver. 19, 20.  God forbidden. And, What? Know ye not that your Body is the Temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your Body and in your Spirits, which are Gods. And because it was by the filthiness of the Heathen Mysteries that their Bodies had been defiled, therefore it was very proper and agreeable to the honour of the Christian Religion that they should be obliged to this Purity of their Bodies more distinctly and particularly in the Christian Mysteries.  
§ XXI BUT there was also another reason which made it necessary that they should be united to Christ bodily as well as spiritually. That was that by this means they might be assured of the Resurrection of their Bodies. This was the Article of the Christian Religion, on which, above all others, the comfort and encouragement of new Christians principally depended, and which was indeed the principal inducement to them to undertake all the other Duties of the Christian Religion; and which notwithstanding met with the most difficult reception of all others; and wherein God was therefore pleased to give the greatest Assurance for the satisfaction of Persons concerned. And particularly the Argument used for this purpose is this, that Christ is risen. 
1 Cor. xv. 12.  Whence it is inferred as a necessary consequence that we must rise also. And this is plainly so inferred, as if it were impossible that one could be true unless the other were so too. And it is urged both ways: Negatively, 
Ver. 14, 17.  if Christ be not risen, all Preaching is in vain, our Faith is also vain, we are yet in our sins. We have only hopes in this Life, and, 
Ver. 19  in regard of the little enjoyment we can pretend to here, are become, of all men, most miserable. And if he be risen, he is risen as the first fruits, and as the Head. 
Ver. 20, 2●.  And as the whole Harvest is consecrated in the first fruits, and the whole Body is concerned in what befalls the Head; so it is supposed impossible that he can have risen, but that we must thereby gain a Title to a Resurrection. We, as Members, are said already to have risen, and to have sat down in Heavenly places, because he who is our Head has already done both. And he, as our Head, is supposed uncapable of a complete Resurrection unless we rise also who are his Members. Now this benefit being such as only properly belongs to our Body, therefore the force of this consequence must be grounded on this supposition, that our Bodies are his Members as well as our Spirits. And our Bodies must the same way be united to his Body by partaking of his Body, as we are made one Spirit with him by deriving from that fullness of the Spirit which properly agrees to him as he is our Head. And accordingly this participation of his Body in the Eucharist is urged by the Fathers as the greatest assurance of our hope, that we shall also partake with him in his Resurrection. To return therefore to my method.  
§ XXII THIS being thus supposed necessary that we receive his Body in order to our being made one Body with him, I now proceed to show how this is is performed in the Eucharist, very suitably to the common Practices and Conceptions of that Age wherein this Sacrament was first instituted. 5. Therefore, according to these Practices and Conceptions, the Eucharist was the most proper means whereby this bodily Union with Christ could have been contrived, whether we consider it as a participation of that one Sacrifice of Christ, or whether we consider it as a Mystery. If we consider it as a Sacrifice, (I mean Eucharistical) that was plainly the way then commonly in use of maintaining a Communion with their received Deities. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word made use of by the Apostle in this place, The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? 
1 Cor. x. 16.  And it afterwards came to be the term of Art by which the Christians expressed their sentiments in this matter. And it is also applied by him to express the commerce supposed to be maintained with the Deities by the Sacrifices then commonly received. So concerning the Sacrifices of the carnal Israel in stead whereof the Eucharist succeeded with the Mystical Israel, 
Ver. 18.  Behold Israel after the flesh: Are not they which eat of the Sacrifices, partakers of the Altar? And concerning the Gentile Sacrifices: 
Ver. 20.  I would not that ye should have fellowship with Devils. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is the word used in both places, in the one for partaking, in the other for having fellowship.  
§ XXIII AS for the Heathen Notions then commonly received concerning Sacrifices, 
Porph. 11. de Abst. §. 42. Jul. Firmic. Matern. de error. proph. Relig. Orig. cont. Cels. L. iii. p. 128, 133. Celsus ipse apud eund. Orig. L. viij. p. 417.  they supposed the Daemons who required Sacrifices not to be pure Spirits, but to have grosser vehicles by which they were supposed capable of receiving sensible pleasure and benefit by the Sacrifices. On this account they thought the nidor of the Sacrifices, but especially the Souls of them, so suitable to their natures, especially when themselves had the liberty of prescribing them, who best knew what was suitable to themselves, as that they could insinuate themselves into the Sacrifices by means of these subtler vehicles, and consequently convey themselves into the Bodies of their Votaries. Therefore the Christians thought all who had communicated in these Sacrifices possessed by those Devils to whom they had been offered. And as, among the Heathens themselves, they, who were haunted by the Furies, upon the commission of any piacular crime, were excluded from all their other Sacrifices to Daemons, whom they took for good ones, till they were expiated by means of Purgation allowed among them as proper for that purpose; so the Christians, who thought all the public Deities then worshipped to be ill Daemons, allowed none to partake of their own Mystical Sacrifices till they were first expiated either by Baptism or the office of Exorcizing, and that the Devils whom they supposed them to have received by their communication in those Sacrifices, had been first cast out of their former possession.  
§ XXIV AND that this seems to have been the Notion received in the Old Testament times among the Idolaters of those times, and that the Jews, were from hence inclinable to apply the same fancies to their own God, when they found that he required the same way of worship by Sacrifices as the Heathen Deities did, 
Psal. ●. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Isa. i. 13.  seems plainly to appear from God's expostulations with them in this matter, when they thought to excuse themselves for the omission of their Duty on account of the obligations they put on him by offering Sacrifices to him. And hence the Fathers conclude that the Sacrifices of the Old Testament were only of Secondary Intentions; that, because God wanted them not, he would never have required them, if he had not found them already taken up in honour of them to whom they did not so properly belong. In this regard, he could not be so properly said to institute, as to translate them to their proper object, that if men could not be broken of this way by which they had been used to express their honour to the Deity, they might, at least be induced to pay that honour, however expressed to that Deity to which the honour was properly due. And if this were his design, then certainly it was his meaning to convey the same Divine influences to the Jews by the Sacrifices used among them, as the Gentiles had been used to expect from their own Sacrifices, from which they had incomparably less appearing reason to expect them; and withal to convey the same influences to the Christians who were the Mystical Israel by their Mystical Sacrifice, which the carnal Jews expected by their bloody frequent Sacrifices. And therefore, by these Principles, whatever participation of the Deity is to be expected in the Christian Religion, is most properly to be expected in the Sacrifice allowed by it. It is very true, that, in the Eucharist, as it is the Body of Christ, and none other, which is received, so it is the Sacrifice of Christ which was Sacrificed by the breaking of that Body, and none other that is here represented; and as true that that Sacrifice is represented only, not repeated in the Eucharist. Yet this representation is supposed as really to apply the merit and virtue of the Sacrifice of Christ, as if it had been really repeated, and the Communicants had feasted on the Sacrifice itself. There is a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same nature at the Table of the Lord, 
1 Cor. x. 21.  as at the Table of Devils. And at the Table of Devils the Sacrifices themselves were really feasted on; and therefore its participation of Divine influences in the Eucharist must be supposed as real as in them.  
§ XXV BUT if the Mystical Sacrifice of the Eucharist be considered further, not barely as an ordinary Sacrifice, but as an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Federal Sacrifice, by which the New Covenant is established with every worthy Communicant, according to the custom generally observed in those times of confirming Covenants with Sacrifice, nay, according to the way observed by God himself in that Old Covenant itself in the room of which this New Covenant was substituted; 
Exod. xxiv. 8. Heb. ix. 19, 20.  there will then be greater reason to expect these Divine influences and Communications for which we are here supposed to Covenant. For in all Covenants so much is to be expected in hand immediately upon making the Covenant as is necessary for making us capable of a Title to the remainder, which we are to expect at the time appointed, and upon performance of Conditions. So the earnests are given in hand, and the obligation of Sureties is taken immediately. Now of this nature is the benefit of which I am speaking. Our bodily and Spiritual Union with Christ is that which alone gives us an interest in his Person, and it is our interest in his Person on which our Title is grounded to all the consequent advantages which we are to expect from his Person. Now there were two Sacrifices observed of this kind in the Old Covenant from whence the Pattern is taken for the New. One was that whereby the Covenant was, in general, established with his People, Exod. xxiv. 8. to which the Apostle alludes, Heb. ix. 19, 20. Another was applicatory, by which particular Persons were admitted into the Body of that People with whom God had established his Covenant. Such a Sacrifice repeated anew for every particular Person that was to be admitted to their Covenant the Jews reckon among the requisites of Proselytism. Now both these are united in this Sacrifice of the Eucharist. The Sacrifice on which the New Covenant is established is that of our Saviour on the Cross, as is largely shown by the Author to the Hebrews. 
Heb. ix.  Accordingly whereunto his Blood there shed is called the blood of the Covenant by which we are sanctified, 
Heb. x. 29.  in opposition to the blood of Bulls and Goats, by which the Old Covenant was established which could not sanctify, 
Heb. ix. 12, 13.  and the blood of the everlasting Covenant in opposition to that Covenant which was to have an end. Now this Sacrifice not being repeatable, according to the Doctrine of the same Author, because it was perfect, and yet no other Sacrifice being capable of performing the Office of it; therefore the only applicatory Sacrifice consistent with the Gospel-state can only be a repeated commemoration of that same perfect Sacrifice. Yet so that this repeated commemoration must be applicatory, that is, that it must apply the virtue of that Sacrifice as really as if it had been repeated.  
§ XXVI AND the same thing will also appear very fit to be performed at this Sacrament, if it be considered, 2. Under the Notion of a Mystery, and that of the greater sort, nay, of the highest degree, even of this sort, as it is an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which was the most intimate admission to a familiarity with the Deity in honour of whom these Mysteries are instituted. For what favour might not be expected by so familiar Favourites? And the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the favour aimed at by the Persons who were initiated, where could it be more properly and fitly performed than here where they expected it? and indeed why should we think they would have expected it, if they had not understood it to have been the design of their Gods in instituting these Mysteries? And if so, than it must have been most likely to have been also the design of our Saviour in those Rites which he instituted for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Religion introduced by him. And all things considered, there could not have been a more convenient means thought of. The Union itself is plainly called Mystical, 
Eph. v. 32.  and particularly this Union between Christ and the Church, as it holds proportion to that of married Persons, and yet more particularly as one instance of this proportion is this, that it makes Christ and the Church one flesh, as the Husband and Wife are made so by the Matrimonial. This is a great Mystery, and therefore no where more fitly transacted than in the greatest of the Christian Mysteries. And indeed there are so many things in this Sacrament suited to the then received 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that it is hard to conceive but that the Union here designed should be also made in a way suitable to them. The Mysteries were generally commemorative, and commemorative of the sufferings of their Gods. So were those of Thamuz of the death of Adonis, those of Osiris of his being torn in pieces by Typhon, those of Orpheus which were taken from Egypt, and were then in commemoration of the sufferings of the same Osiris, but which he did celebrate under another name of the Theban Bacchus, which was more likely to endear them to the Greeks, and the famous Eleusinian of the sufferings and lamentations of Ceres for the loss of Proserpina, those of the Phrygian Mother for the loss of Atys. And in this regard the Representation of Christ's sufferings in the Eucharist is much more likely to have been instituted in imitation of the Mysteries, than of any thing then received among the Jews, than of any of their commemorations in the Passeover, whether of their own hard service in Egypt, or of the kill of the Paschal. Lamb, and much more than of the Commemoration of their Postcoenium, none of which had any relation to the sufferings of the Deity itself.  
§ XXVII BESIDES these Mystical Commemorations were generally performed by external Symbols, 
Casaubon. & Salmas. in Spartiani Adrianum. c. 13. Guther. de vet. Jure Pont. L. 1. c. 25. 1 Cor. xi. 25.  the giving and receiving whereof were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the sacred language of Mysteries, which are also the very terms used by St. Paul in this matter, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as indeed the very name of Symbol is also a term of this Sacred Mystical language. And the very Symbol of Bread was, as Justin Martyr tells us, made use of in the Rites of Mithras. After mention made of the institution of the Eucharist by our Saviour, he adds, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And Tertullian, Et si adhuc memini, Mithra signat illic in frontibus milites suos, celebrat & panis oblationem, etc. And among the Pythagoraeans, who so much endeavoured to imitate the Mysteries, and who had so much condescendence shown them among the Essenes', as the Essenes' had among the Christians, this very Symbol of the loaf was made use of, as it should seem for the very same design of uniting, as it was among the Christians. The words of Laertius are very considerable to this purpose, where he reckons it among the Symbols of that great man, 
a L. viij. in vit. Pythagor. p. 222. Ed. Londin.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. I cannot but think with Giraldus, 
b In Symbol. Pythag.  that the Christians were here meant by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And I wonder that 
c Aldobr. in loc. Laertii.  Aldobrandinus should think it so strange that they should be called so. Testimonies are obvious. I shall only produce some few. This is the name by which St. John is styled by 
d Amelius apud Euseb. Pr. Eu. xi. 19. Theodoret. Therap. 11. Cyril. in Jul. L. viij.  Amelius. Thus 
e Porph. apud Eus. Hist. Eccl. vi. 19.  Porphyry concerning Origen, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by which he expresses his pretended conversion to Christianity. And I am very apt to believe that it is the Christians whom the same Porphyry means in his Books de 
f Porph. de Abstin. L. i. §. 42. p. 35. Ed. Cant.  Abstinentiâ, where he also charges some Barbarians, as he calls them, with taking a liberty of eating all sorts of meats, on this pretence, as he expresses it in the words himself had heard from them. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Wherein he afterwards intimates that they defended themselves by pretending to 
g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Liberty. These are almost the words, for certain the sense, and Arguments, used by the sacred 
h St. Matt. xv. 18. Mark seven. 18, 20.  Writers themselves in this very matter. Which I the rather mark that it may appear with what Adversaries Porphyry had to do in that undertaking. And if it were necessary to multiply testimonies to this purpose, many more might have been produced from the Adversaries and Patrons of the Christians in that Age wherein Laertius wrote, from St. Justin Martyr, Tatianus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Theophilus Antiochenus, and Celsus: from all those who writing against the Heathens, call them Greeks, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cels. apud▪ Orig. L. i p. 5.  and who defend themselves by Patronising the cause of the Barbarians, and showing that the Greeks themselves were beholden to the Barbarians for all useful kinds of knowledge. What imaginable reason is there that they should so eagerly concern themselves in this cause, if themselves had not been upbraided with this name?  
§ XXVIII AND indeed it seems to have been one of the first things that was resented by the learned Heathens to see their Greek Ancestors rob of the glory of their Antiquity and their Inventions, and to see the despised Barbarians adorned with their spoils. This seems in earnest to have been one of the greatest provocations of Plutarch against Herodotus, that Herodotus had been too ingenuous in his acknowledgements in this matter. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And possibly that great Reader might have seen the Apologies of Quadratus and Aristides to the Emperor Adrian, 
Euseb. Eccl. Hist. iv. 3.  who might very probably have insisted on this Argument which we find so very ordinary in the later Apologists, not now to mention what he might have seen upon this Subject in Josephus against Appion and others of the Hellenistical Jews. Nay, the design of Laertius himself in his Preface, seems to have been directly leveled against what the Christian Apologists had produced in this Argument. There he endeavours, though very weak 〈◊〉▪ to assert the Invention of Philosophy to the Greeks. He endeavours to weaken the challenge made for Orpheus the Thracian on acaccount of the wickedness of his Fables concerning the gods which he could not think worthy the name of Philosophy. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 2. En Pugionem verè plumbeum. Casaub. in loc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. Orat. adv. Graec. Jos. cont. Appion. In Aristotele.  And he is an instance frequently given by the Apologists. So he also magnifies the Antiquity and Philosophy of Musaeus and Linus, which are two of those who are mentioned by Tatianus as Writers among the Greeks before Homer, though it should seem that in Josephus' time Homer was thought the ancientest. Which will the rather make it suspicious that this was a pretence invented in the time of Laertius against the later Apologists of the Christians only. So that it cannot be thought strange that Laertius should call the Christians Barbarians, against whom he was so eagerly concerned in this very dispute wherein the Christians opposed the Barbarians against them. And though the Phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not prove him a Christian, yet sure it must at least prove him conversant in Hellenistical Writers, it is so peculiar an idiom of his style. And his last words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, seem to give a clear account why the Assemblies of the Primitive Christians were called Synaxes, because their meeting together in those times is usually expressed to be for the breaking of this Bread. It is certain that this was then the principal employment of those Assemblies. And it is very observable that, as it was the principal design of those sacred Assemblies to effect as well as signify this Mystical Union between the Members of their Assemblies, so this was the word by which the Greeks signified this Union. That the Pythagoraeans used it concerning their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we are here assured by Laertius. That the Jews also used it the same way, seems plain from the name of Synagogue, as their Assemblies are called by the Hellenists. And for the Christians, besides the name of Synaxes, Christ himself expresses the Union he was to make by this very word, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. St. John xi. 52.  
§ XXXIX BESIDES these there are also other instances by which it may appear how suitable a Symbol of Unity Bread was reputed among the Ancients. Particularly it is observable in the way of Marriage by Confarreation, which is the more remarkable to our purpose, because this Matrimonial Unity is by the Apostle himself compared to the Unity between Christ and his Church. 
In Fragm. Titulor. ex ejus corpore Excerptor.  Now this Marriage by Confarreation is thus described by Ulpian: Fare convenitur in manum certis verbis, & testibus decem praesentibus, & solenni sacrificio facto, in quo panis farreu● adhibetur. I do not know whether the Bridal Cake may not have risen from this very ancient custom. For that it was not observed among the Romans only we are assured from Curtius, who makes Alexander the Great observe this custom in marrying Roxana, and that patrio more, bread being reputed among the Macedonians for the sanctissimum coeuntium pignus. And as by Confarreation this Matrimonial Unity was made, 
L. iv.  so by Diffarreation it was dissolved. So we are taught by Festus: Diffarreatio genus erat Sacrificii quo inter virum & mulierem fiebat dissolutio: dicta diffarreatio quòd fieret farreo libo adhibito. And though this way of Marriage by Confarreation was by degrees growing out of use in the time of Tiberius▪ 
Tacit. L. iv.  yet it plainly appears to have been the most formal solemn way of Marriage▪ and most creditable to them who had used it. For only they were permitted to stand Candidates for the Office of the Flamen Dialis who were begotten of such Marriages. By which it appears to have been a sacred as well as a civil Symbol of Unity, which made it more suitable to the design to which it was applied in the Christian Religion. Nor was it only made use of for Marriages, but also in Leagues among Enemies, whom it was specially designed to reconcile and Unite. The mola salsa, from whence the name of Immolation, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as they were the most ancient kinds of Sacrifice, so in Homer they are particularly used in Truces. And as upon this account of uniting Enemies Bread is a very suitable Symbol for the design of the Eucharist; so among all the Sacrifices made use of for this purpose, 
Ex Theophrasto, ut videtur, Porphyr. two. de Abst. §. 6, 15, 16, 17. Hierocl. in Aur. Pythag. Carm. p. 26.  none was better thought of by the Enemies of bloody Sacrifices, which might extremely recommend it to the Primitive Converts to Christianity, who had been so much beholden to those Writers in their Disputes both against the Jews and Heathens. Which same observation might have been applied to the use of Wine which was used for the same purpose from the same Antiquity, and with the same general approbation in their Libations.  
§ XXX AND if one may believe the late Practices of the Jews to have been as ancient as they are pretended, there would be an easy account of the same use of these Elements among the Jews to which they are applied by the Christians. Besides the Postcoenium from whence many learned men conceive this Sacrament to have been borrowed; besides the meat and drink offerings exactly answerable to the mola salsa and Libations of the Heathens: I say, besides these their other usages of Bread as they are described by Buxtorf, are so like those of the Eucharistical Bread according to the design of the Christian Religion, as that, if they were ancient, one would verily think that they must needs have been regarded in the institution of the Eucharist. 
Synag. Jud. c. 12.  In him we find that, in their ordinary meals bread is the first thing with which the Table is to be furnished, and that it must receive a particular Benediction there mentioned, by which we may understand that more than a civil use of it is intended; that this Bread, (whether a whole loaf or a part only) must be taken into the hands of the Master of the Family, and that he must give it an incision, exactly answerable to that of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek Consecration: 
Gore in Miss. S. Chrysost. n. 30.  that he must not yet cut it thorough; nay, that it is a nefass to do so till the Consecration, like the custom of the Pythagoraeans and the Primitive Christians already mentioned; that after Consecration, he must first break himself the piece where he had made the Incision, and eat it in silence, otherwise the Prayer of Consecration must be repeated; (by which we see what a sacred thing they make of it.) That afterwards it is he who breaks it to the rest of the company, and lays it before them, which they are to receive with their own hands, as it was also the most ancient practice to do so in the Lord's Supper; 
Cl. Alex. Strom. i.  that the bread is consecrated by repeating a benediction over it exactly as the Evangelists and St. Paul are observed to express their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in one place by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in another. In this benediction he covers the Bread with both his hands, and they who are at the Table with him answer Amen, which are the practices observed in the Eucharist, and that anciently. And as it should seem in regard of this sacred use of the Bread, they are, even to superstition, scrupulous that no particles of the Bread be lost, and pretend that there is an Angel appointed for this purpose, whom they call Nabel, whose Office it is to make him poor who is guilty of it. I need not mention how careful our Saviour was that nothing should be lost. 
Tertull. de Coron. Mil. Orig. in Levit.  It is also certain that the Primitive Christians were very scrupulous in this particular. The like Solemnity is observed in blessing the Wine, and that both before and after meal, but especially after. This is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in St Paul. 
1 Cor. x. 16.  And to this the guests are also to answer Amen, as before. Methinks this gives an easy account why the Primitive Christians communicated every day in the ordinary Synaxes, when so much of their Original from whence they derived their observation of this Sacrament, was, among them from whom they derived it, thus constantly observed in their daily meals. But besides this observation in their daily meals, there is also much resemblance in their unleavened bread which they make against the Passeover. The Sacredness and Solemnity in making, blessing, and distributing it, 
Idem Buxtorf. ibid. c. 17, 18.  and the several Cups of Wine which are to accompany it with the same ceremoniousness, may be read in the place. I only at present observe their substituting the several parts for the several orders represented in the whole. For they make three cakes, one to represent the Chief Priest, the second the Tribe of Levi, the third the whole People of Israel. Which the several parties of Christians have seemed to imitate, the Latins dividing it into three parts, the Greeks into four, 
Goar. in Miss. S. Chrysost. n. 163.  the Muzarabes into nine, according to the several orders they were pleased to represent.  
§ XXXI BUT that which is most essential both to the Mysteries and the Sacrament, and wherein their being like is most remarkable for my purpose, is that they are both designed principally and ultimately, for the good of the Soul. That the Mysteries were so is that which possibly our Brethren may be desirous to see proved. So 
a De Mathem. Platon. c. 1. p. 18, 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  Theou Smyrnaeus, where he compares the design of the Platonic Philosophy with that of the received Mysteries, he does it in five Particulars, whereof the fifth is a familiarity with God, and happiness. So 
b In Bacchis.  Euripides: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And this it is which Apuleius 
c Apul. Met. L.xi.  calls the inexpressible pleausre which he enjoyed upon his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Paucis dehinc ibidem commoratus diebus, inexplicabili voluptate simulacri Divini fruebar irremunerabili quippe beneficio pigueratus. For undoubtedly this pleasure could not have been from the bare Statues, but from the Deities who were presentiated by them. So also 
d In Ran●s Chor.  Aristophanes expresses the happiness of initiated Persons. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And this happiness of the Soul designed in the Mysteries is yet more agreeable to that designed in the Sacrament, because they were thought most peculiarly beneficial to it in the time of Death and in the state of Separation. So it was believed among them on the credit of an 
e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Plato Phaedon.  old Tradition, that they who departed this life uninitiated, should stick in the dirt (as they expressed it) but that they who departed purged and initiated should dwell with the Gods. So 
f In Eleusin.  Aristides: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And 
g In Fragm. ap. Stob. Serm. 119.  Themistius alludes hereunto: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And 
h Decontemnenda morte.  Cydonius: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And 
i Laert. L.vi.  Diogenes, when being advised that he would be initiated before his Death: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. To the same purpose 
k Antholog. l. 28. In Panegyric. Plutarch. Laconic. Apophthegm. p. 224.  Crinagoras: 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉  
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And Isocrates concerning the Eleusinian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And this occasioned the jest of Leotychidas the Lacedaemonian. When Philip the Priest of the Orphaick Mysteries told him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, when yet himself was a very poor man; Leotychidas asked him, why he did not then die immediately that he might give over bemoaning his Infelicity and Poverty. Therefore it was that Hercules and Bacchus were so solicitous to be initiated before their descent into Hell, 
Author Axi●chi.  because of the peculiar virtue ascribed to these Mysteries in this particular. And the Mysteries themselves in Apuleius are thought equivalent to a voluntary death, 
Metam. xi.  and the inferûm claustra, and the returning from them to the World is called a new Birth, for it was still thought proper for these Mysteries as it is for the Sacrament, to effect the things they signified. Accordingly they allotted the most honourable places in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to such as were initiated. So the Scholiast of Aristophanes: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Laertius: 
in Ran.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 
in Diogen.  And the Author of Axiochus: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
§ XXXII And, as in partaking of the Lord's Supper we are first to examine our selves before we presume to eat of that Bread and drink of that Cup; so there was also a confession of sins required from Persons at their initiation, especially of the greatest of them. So in the Samothracian Mysteries, the Question was asked of Antalcidas, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; of Lysander, 
Plutarch. Lacon. Apop●●▪ p. 217. p. 229. p. 236.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; of another, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The like we find also in some modern accounts both of the East and the West-Indies. Accordingly in some of them there were significations from the Gods whether they had dealt ingenuously in their Confessions, as in those now-mentioned of the Indians, and in others in Porphyry from Bardesanes, and in the Antrum Tropbonii. 
In lib. de Styge.  Exactly as God was also pleased to discover the truth of those Eucharistical Examinations in those primitive times, by inflicting Death or Diseases on such as presumed to venture on the Christian Mysteries with impure Consciences, And though the Gods did not always discover their displeasure against offenders in this way, yet they were always under such apprehensions of their doing so, as that it was thought to require great purity of Conscience from them who might venture on them, and to argue great innocency in them who did so. Therefore so many trials and preparations before to discourage all who were not extremely confident. Therefore so many and so importunate dissuasions not to run the hazard, as we find in the Case of Apuleius. 
Metam. xi.  Therefore it was taken for such an Argument of innocency in the Person that he durst venture on such a trial wherein the Gods themselves were to give testimony of his innocence, as we find it used in the Case of M. Antoninus. 
Capitolin. in Anton.  Nor were they only here to purge themselves of their former guilt, but they were also to undertake new obligations of better behaviour for the future. They seem to have been called initia for that very reason, because they were indeed to be the beginnings of a new Life. 
De. Legib. lib. two.  Tully's words seems to imply so: Initiaque ut appellantur, ita reverà Principia vitae cognovimus; neque solùm cum laetitia vivendi rationem accepimus, & etiam cum spe meliore moriendi. The same thing also appears from other testimonies produced for this purpose by Meursius. 
Eleusin. c. 17.  So that in all regards the design of the Mysteries is extremely like that of the Blessed Sacrament.  
§ XXXIII BESIDES it was further usual in these Mysteries to change the names of those ordinary things which were made use of by them, without the least thinking of any change of nature, only that they might speaking of holy things in a peculiar and holy style, 
* Concerning Pythagoras, 
Porphyrius vit. Pythag. p. 199. qui alia habet exempla. De Abstinent. L.iu. §. 16. p. 165.  Aristotle. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Porphyry assures us of the like custom o● the change of names in the Rites of Mithras. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [nisi potius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cùm Kirchero 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. In the same Rites the Adytum was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as witness the same 
(a) Porphyr. de Aniro Nymph. p. 254, 263.  Porphyry, and 
(b) Dialog. cum Tryph. 296. B. 304. A.  Justin Martyr. So in the same honey 
(c) Porphy. Ant. Nymph. p. 260.  was given instead of water, and a 
(d) ib. p. 261.  Crater instead of a fountain. So in the Eleusinian the Priestesses of Ceres were called 
(e) ib. p. 261. vid. Meurs.  Melissa or Bees, the Hierophanta 
(f) Elcusin. c. 16.  Demiurgus, or the Maker of the World. And the Gods themselves had such names given them as none can think were given them for any other than Mystical reasons. 
(g) Porph. de Abst. L.iu. §. 16.  Diana was called a Lioness, the Sun a Bull, a Lion, a Dragon, a Hawk, Hecate a Horse, a Bull, a Lioness and a Bitch. If any would have more instances he may find great plenty in the elaborate Collections of Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. v.  and thereby put themselves in mind of another more solemn behaviour to them then than when they were considered as devested of those advantages they had for challenging reverence on account of their Consecration. On which supposition it will appear how rational it was for our Saviour to change the name of Bread into that of his Body though he had no more thoughts of changing the nature of Bread than they had who used the like changes of names in those Mysteries from whence he was pleased to take his pattern. And I do not know whether St. Paul might not have had this in his mind when he blames the unworthy Communicants among the Corinthians, that they did not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 distinguish the Bread which they received in the Eucharist from common Bread, when they were so sufficiently warned of it by the sacred name by which it was called, that is, by the name of Christ's Body. And lastly these sacred words were thought operative, I do not mean, nor did they mean, for the change of the nature, but for performing the Benefit Mystically signified under those Representations. This was the Doctrine of the Platonists, 
Plato in Cra●ylo. Orig. cont. Cels. L.1. p. 18, 19, 20.  and generally of those who dealt in these Mysteries, that words signified by nature, which they especially thought true of those words which were introduced by their Gods who were acquainted with the natures of things, and conveyed by Tradition from those who were the Sons of the Gods, as they called those who lived in the first Ages. And of this sort was all the sacred language which was used in their Mysteries. 
Plato in Tim.  Now the very design of this opinion seems to have been purposely to assert the Magical force of those words in their Mysteries, which were generally Magical. And they accordingly thought this efficacy so peculiar to those words, 
Ita Origen. ib. & alii. Selden. in Eutych. Not.  that they would lose their virtue if they were translated into another language. If the modern Jews were to be heeded for the sense of their Ancestors, they also were against translating any of the forms prescribed by the Law, excepting those forms which were absolutely necessary to be understood by the Persons concerned in them. Nor is it to be thought strange that our Saviour should make use of the same means for conveying the good Spirit which they had also designed for good Spirits, though, through their mistakes it so fell out that only evil Spirits insinuated themselves by them. Especially considering that this efficacy was not asserted on those dishonourable Principles to the nature of good Spirits, as it was among the Heathens: Not on account of any natural influence the pronunciation of such words might have on the things signified by them, but purely in regard of his own institution. It is certain that he did actually comply in things of as great consequence as this can be of, when it is thus explained.  
§ XXXIV THIS therefore being thus supposed, I add, 6. That, upon these Principles, and according to the nature of these Mystical contrivances, this Bodily Union may very well be supposed to be made by our Saviour's changing the name of Bread into that of his own Body. For this change of the name is enough to make our participation of the Bread the same thing, in a Legal sense, with a participation of his Body. This Legal sense is perfectly sufficient for a Legal conveyance, both to give him an interest in our Bodies, and to derive a title from him for the Resurrection of our Bodies, if his Body be raised. This substitution of names is on other accounts obligatory in Law, but, as it has appeared, it is peculiarly the proper way of obligation in Mysteries. But that it does not require any change in the nature of the Elements appears plainly from hence, that the change of the Bread into Christ's Body is clearly designed to make a like change in our Bodies, that they may also, by partaking of the Bread, become Christ's Body. And therefore there can be no necessity that the Bread should be Christ's Body in a higher sense than our Bodies are made to be so by our participation of the Bread. If therefore our Bodies may be made Christ's Body, as to all material purposes for which we are concerned that our Bodies should be his Body; if they be made his Body in such a sense as to challenge all the privileges of his natural Body, so that whatever befalls our Body may be said to agree to his, and, on the contrary, that what agrees to him cannot be said to agree to his Body completely, unless our Bodies do also partake of it; if we may have this intimate identical participation of that very individual Body of his that suffered on the Cross, without any Transubstantiation of our Bodies into the Body of Christ; I do not see why the Bread may not be also called Christ's Body, to as real purposes of making our Bodies to become Christ's Body, without Transubstantiation. For it is to be considered, that this change of our Bodies is not only the end of the change of the Bread, by which it must therefore be most rational to judge of this change which is made in the Bread, but indeed the only thing that can be beneficial to us. If our Bodies be not made Christ's Body in the sense now explained, what are we the better that the Bread is made so? And if our Bodies may be made Christ's Body in the sense we are concerned it should be so, that we may challenge the Privileges now mentioned, whether the nature of the Bread be changed or no, I cannot understand how we are concerned that it should be changed in it● nature.  
§ XXXV AND as this change of the name of Bread is sufficient to make it Christ's Body, as to all real intents and purposes of the Sacrament; so by our partaking of this one Bread we first become one Bread, certainly not by being Transubstantiated into the Bread, much less by being all of us Transubstantiated into the nature of that individual loaf from whence we all communicate; but by this Legal way of judging of which I have been speaking. And thence follows the second Consequence, That as by partaking of one Bread in the natural sense we are all made one Bread, so, by partaking of the same Bread, as the name of Christ's individual natural Body is ascribed to it, we all are made one Body, that is, that individual natural Body of Christ, which cannot be understood in any other sense than as by partaking of one Bread we are all made one Bread, that is, in the same sense of Legal estimation. However, to return to my first design, it appears plainly from this whole Hypothesis, that our being made one Bread is the ordinary means, at least, whereby we are made one Body. Whence it will follow that they who fail of their being made one Bread, after their Baptism, do, according to the same proportion wherein they fail of it, fail also of their interest in that one Body. If they separate themselves entirely from the means of obtaining it, they must, by the same Legal way of estimation, be supposed to discontinue their Membership of that one Body as they were made one Body by partaking of it. If they discontinue their receiving that Bread where they have means of obtaining it, this very discontinuing is a proportionable losing their interest in the Body. As a branch of a tree, if it receive not constant supplies of sap from the root, must gradually die and cease at length to be a branch, though it can no more be told punctually in what moment the vegetative Life ceases in such a branch, than it can be told precisely how long a time of abstinence from the Sacraments does deprive the Person guilty of that abstinence of his Spiritual Life. And that the loss of this Spiritual Life wherein none can have an interest without an interest in the Mystical Body which is enlivened by it, and the loss of this title to this blessed Resurrection of our Bodies themselves, are losses of things necessary to Salvation, will not, I believe, be denied by our Adversaries themselves.  
§ XXXVI AND this is the rather signified in our Saviour's contrivance of this matter, according to that way of signification which is proper and natural to Mysteries, because he has given us his Body under such Elements as are to be taken by us by way of nourishment. Certainly his meaning must have been that those Elements should, in a Mystical way, serve for the same purpose for preserving our interest in the Body Mystical as our natural nourishment does preserve our natural Bodies. And therefore as our natural Bodies cannot be preserved long without natural nourishment, because they are supposed to be in such a constant course of decay as must in a short time destroy them, if their decay be not repaired by the new supplies which they receive by their nourishment; so neither is it ordinarily to be expected that our interest in the Mystical Body of Christ can long continue without new supplies of Mystical nourishment. If Mystical nourishment were not as ordinarily necessary for preserving our interest in this Body-Mystical, as natural nourishment is for preserving our natural Bodies, I do not understand why our Saviour would have been so solicitous for providing means of Mystical nourishment, and that under the very Notion of nourishment. And if it be, then certainly it must be as impossible long to preserve our interest in the Mystical Body without this Mystical nourishment; as it is to preserve our natural Bodies without perpetual new supplies of natural nourishment.   

CHAP. XVII. The necessity of the Lord's Supper for Salvation proved from St. Joh. VI  
THE CONTENTS.  
§ I It is probable that our Saviour spoke these words with relation to the Sacrament which he was to institute. §. I. It is probable that St. John also understood and designed them so. §. II. Being so understood they agree very well with the account of the design of this Sacrament already given. §. III. The meaning of the signs expected from Prophets. §. IV Manna the sign of Moses, which our Saviour designed to imitate in giving the Bread here spoken of. §. V An account from the Hellenistical Philosophy of those times how the Bread given by our Saviour is called the true Bread. §. VI, VII. Mystical Manna understood by Philo of the ΛΘΓΟΣ. §. VIII. The Bread given by our Saviour bodily as well as Mystical. §. IX. The way of reasoning in the New Testament from Mystical Expositions of the Old. §. X. The Prudence of this way of reasoning. §. XI. The course this way of reasoning obliged them to in proving the Christian Sacraments. §. XII, XIII. The Ideal Manna communicated to us by the Eucharistical Bread. §. XIV. The consequent danger of wanting this Eucharistical Bread. §. XV. The Usefulness of the method here proposed for understanding this, and many like, places in the New Testament. Submission to Superiors. §. XVI.  
AND though I know that the Eucharist was not yet instituted when our Saviour had that Mystical discourse in St. John VI yet withal I cannot but think that our Saviour intended even then to warn them of the necessity of a Corporal as well as Spiritual Union with himself, and to give them such an account of it, as, though they did not understand it at present, yet they should when they should be fitted for understanding it, and when it should be fulfilled. I know it was usual among the wisemen of those parts in their Mystical Discourses to represent wisdom under the Metaphor of meat. But to represent it under the Metaphor of man's flesh, nay, of his own flesh who was then discoursing with them, sounded so unusual and harsh to his Auditors, who understood him literally, as that we find they were not able to bear it. And certainly he would not have used so offensive an Allegory, if he had not designed a greater advantage by it afterwards than he enjoyed by it at present. And though he usually explained to his Disciples in private what he discoursed in Parables to the Multitude, yet that was as they were able to bear it; 
Mark iv. 33.  and with some things he did not think it fit to acquaint them during his Corporal presence among them. Particularly we find him cautious in acquainting them with his Death, and the ignominious circumstances of it, which was a thing so contrary to their received Notions concerning the Messiah, as that it would have weakened his general Authority among them, on which the credit of the particulars proposed by him did all depend, if they had been acquainted with them before they had first been prepared by exercise to endure the scandal of a suffering Messiah. Yet this had been necessary to have been known by them before they could throughly understand his design in these words, supposing they were meant with relation to the Eucharist; which may serve for a just account why he did not speak more plainly concerning it than he did then, even to his own Disciples. Besides we have elsewhere examples where it is expressly noted that his Discourses had express relation to things to be fulfilled afterwards, 
St. Joh. two. 22. Luk. xxiv. 8.  and to be understood by his Disciples when they were fulfilled, and not before, that we may not admire at his doing so in this matter.  
§ TWO AND as it is probable that our Saviour did hereby prepare them that they might, by degrees, understand their obligation to a Corporal Union with him, and of partaking of that Bread which he should afterwards appoint as an ordinary means of effecting that Union; so it is also very probable that the Apostle did also design it for the use of the separaters of that Age wherein he wrote his Gospel, to let them also understand their obligation to keep that Communion, 
Ep. ad Eph. p. 3.  wherein this Bread of God, as Ignatius soon after tells us, is only to be had, concerning which our Saviour had spoken so great things before his institution of it. Any one who considerately reads his whole Gospel may observe, that those things which were added by him above what had been written by the other Gospels, especially the Doctrinal part of them, are generally such things whereby his Readers might be convinced of their obligation to adhere to him in opposition to the Antichrists which then appeared, that is, certainly, to that Society which was visibly united in an external profession of adherence to him, in opposition to those many other visible Societies which were also visibly united in an external profession of adherence to his Rivals and Adversaries. And many of the same things produced in this case are also insisted on in his Epistle which was professedly written on this Subject, and with more particular regard to this very case. Nor certainly could he have chosen a more apposite Argument for this purpose than this was, what our Saviour's design was in instituting the Eucharist.  
§ III AND this supposition, that this place is to be understood concerning the Eucharist, agrees exactly well with the account I have now been giving concerning it from other Scriptures. I said that the great use of this fleshly Union with Christ was principally to secure us of the Resurrection of our Bodies. Accordingly he frequently mentions the Resurrection here, 
Joh. vi. 39, 40, 44. u.58.  and that as a particular benefit of this eating the Eucharistical Bread. So he tells them, This is the Bread which descended from Heaven; not as your Fathers did eat the Manna and are dead, he that eateth this Bread shall live for ever. Where by living for ever must certainly be meant the life of the Body when it is opposed to that bodily death which befell their Fathers after their eating the Manna in the Wilderness. I said that our title to the Resurrection of our Bodies was immediately grounded on our partaking of his flesh. This is also our Saviour's doctrine in this place. 
Ver. 54.  He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal Life, and I will raise him up at the last day. And to this purpose he calls his flesh meat indeed and his blood drink indeed, 
Ver. 55.  because it does perform the office of meat and drink to more effectual purpose than any worldly meat and drink does. The office of meat and drink is to preserve Life which the worldly meat and drink do only for a time, but these for ever. I said that this partaking of his flesh united us to him; And so says also our Saviour himself, He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, 
Ver. 56.  abides in me, and I in him. This mutual abiding in each other are the terms whereby this Apostle usually explains their being one with each other, and that in the Person of our Saviour himself. And I have given them the glory which thou gavest me, 
Joh. xvii. 22, 23.  that they may be One as we are One, I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in One. I said that by this participation of Bread we partake also of his flesh. 
Joh. vi. 51.  So also says our Saviour, The Bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the Life of the world. And it is very observable that when he speaks of the Bread which himself was to give, he still speaks in the future, which will make it much more likely that he should mean it of the Sacrament which he had not as yet instituted, than of his Doctrine which he was delivering to them at that present.  
§ IV BESIDES his giving them this Bread is plainly spoken of in this whole Chapter with allusion to the Manna given by Moses. For when our Saviour had told them that this was the work of God, 
Ver. 29.  that they should believe on him whom he had sent, the Jews answer him again, What sign dost thou that we may see it and believe thee? What dost thou do? For thus it had been the custom of Prophets, 
Exod. iv. 1.8, 9  to confirm their Mission by some extraordinary sign. So Moses had two signs given him to convince the Israelites that God had indeed appeared to him. So the Prophet who cried against the Altar of Jeroboam, 
1 King. xiii. 3, 5.  gave a sign the same day, saying, This is the sign which the Lord hath spoken, Behold, the Altar shall be rend, and the ashes that are upon it shall be poured out. So in the contests between Jeremiah and the false Prophets that were his rivals, 
Jer. xx. 6.xxviii.15, 16, 17. xxix.21s, 22, 31, 32.  he confirms the truth of his own Mission, and the falsehood of theirs, by predictions of judgements which should befall the false Prophets; and by the course prescribed for knowing a false Prophet by the events not answering his Prediction, 
Deut. xviii. 21, 22. xiii.1s, 2, 3.  or however that he should not be believed though it should have proved answerable, if he endeavoured to seduce them to Idolatry; it plainly appears, both that signs were the usual means for distinguishing true Prophets from false ones, and that these signs were generally predictions, by which it will be easy to understand the reason of that which has puzzled so many Expositors, why the Jews, when they had seen so many miracles performed by our Saviour, should yet demand a sign from him, because no miracles were counted signs, but such as were done purposely in proof of his Mission, and vouched by him for such before their performance, and which afterwards in the events punctually answered their Predictions.  
§ V NOW the signs themselves alleged in proof of Moses' Mission was that of his foretelling the descent of the Manna, 
Joh. vi. 31. Exod. xuj. 4, 15.  which is called Bread from Heaven, and Bread which God had given them. And therefore our Saviour immediately lays hold on this very instance for proof of his own Mission, and accordingly promises that he also would give them Bread, and such Bread as had descended from Heaven as the Manna had done. But with this advantage, 
Joh. vi. 32, 33.  that the Bread which he would give them the future (else it had not been a Prediction, and consequently not a sign, at least not like that of Moses who foretold the descent of the Manna before it came to pass) should be his own flesh, which he would give for the life of the World. 
Exod. xuj. 4. Joh. vi. 51. St. Matt. xxvi. 26. Mark xiv. 22. Luk. xxii. 19. 1 Cor. xi. 23, 24.  And where can we find this Prediction so probably fulfilled as it is in the Eucharist, where there is also Bread given us which is called his Body, and that Body which was broken for us? And what reason is there so likely why this Apostle should speak so little of this Sacrament afterwards, in the place which had been so proper for it, at the time of its institution, as because he had discoursed so largely concerning it here?  
§ VI I DARE not say that our Saviour did herein allude to the Israelites murmuring after flesh, after they had their wills in the Manna. So they complained then: 
Numb. xi. 6.  And now our Soul is dried away: there is nothing at all besides this Manna before our eyes. So that our Saviour's allusion might be that the Bread which he would give them should be by so much more satisfactory than Manna, by how much it should prevent their murmuring for flesh, which Manna did not, that is, that it should serve for flesh as well as Bread. I rather think that his design was to show how it should come to pass that the Bread which he would give them should come by that advantage above Manna, that the Life maintained by it should be immortal, not mortal only, as that was which was maintained by the Manna; that is, that by this Bread our Bodies should become his, and consequently that it should be as impossible that our Bodies should be detained by the chains of Death, 
Act. two. 24.  as St. Peter tells us that it was impossible that the Body of our Saviour could be so detained. And when he therefore calls this Bread the true Bread from Heaven in opposition to the Bread of Moses, I am apt to think that it was meant according to the usual meaning of this Mystical way of arguing. It is sufficiently clear from Philo, that the Platonical Ideas were received by the Hellenistical Jews, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 3, 4, 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 169. Philo. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 5. ex Numino, Didymo, Philone, Clement Alexandrino, Euseb. Pr. Eu. xi. 22, 23, 24, 25.  especially by those of them who were for expounding the Scripture Mystically, and that these Ideas were by them, as well as the Platonists, placed in Heaven, and particularly in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and that those Ideas were the only Truth, and that all other resemblances of them were only 
* Vid. Viger. not. ad Euseb. Praep. p. 528. D. 845. D.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 derived from them only as impressions from the Seal, and therefore were not the true things themselves, but only the appearances of them.  
§ VII HENCE it came to be the design of the Primitive Christians in the great use they made of Mystical Judaisme for their purpose, to show that all the externals of the Law were only Ectypal resemblances of those original Archetypal Ideas which were reserved in Christ as being that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom the Platonists and the Mysticizing Jews themselves placed their Ideas, and that they were reserved with him in Heaven before his descent on earth. So the Priests of the Law are said to have served 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Heb. viij. 5.  to the example and shadow of heavenly things. Which is proved from that same place from whence Philo also proves these Heavenly Exemplars, and from whence Justin Martyr supposes Plato himself to have borrowed them. 
Justin. Paraenet. p. 28, 29. Exod. xxv. 40. Heb. ix. 1. Ver. 9 Heb. ix. 23, 24.  For see that thou make all things according to the pattern shown thee in the mount. So the worldly Sanctuary (in opposition to the heavenly) which was only a figure for the time present. So the holy places made with hands are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the patterns of things in the Heavens, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the figures of the true, to which are opposed the heavenly things and Heaven itself. So the Law is said to have had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Heb. x. 1.  a shadow of good things to come, but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not the very image of the things. 
Heb. viij. 2.  So in opposition to the earthly Tabernacle there is the heavenly, which is called the true Tabernacle. And Christ, as he is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so, he is said to be the truth very frequently, 
Joh. xiv. 1.  especially by St John, who of all the New Testament Writers seems to have been most punctually observant of this Mystical style; and whoever would know the Truth indeed must know it as it is in Jesus. 
Eph. iv. 21.   
§ VIII THIS therefore being supposed, there will also be reason to suppose that Manna must also have been understood Mystically; and the rather so, 
Psal. lxxviii. 26.  because the Psalmist calls it the Bread of Angels, who could not, according to the Hellenistical Hypothesis of Philosophy then received, be supposed capable of partaking of material Bread. And accordingly our Saviour when he would prove himself to be no Spirit, he does it by eating: 
S. Luk. xxiv. 41, 42, 43.  and the Apostles, who were witnesses of his Resurrection, when they would urge their own Testimony more unexceptionably in that matter, this is the most convictive evidence on which they insist, that, even after his Resurrection, they had eaten and drunk with him, 
Act. x. 41.  a plain sign that they took it for a Principle granted them by those against whom they reasoned, that Spirits could not eat and drink. And this is the reason why Philo, who takes up Mystical senses many times upon less considerable exceptions against the Letter than this is, does grant a 
* Philo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 176. E. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And else where, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (he speaks concerning the Manna)— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 470. And elsewhere he again makes it come from Heaven. p. 449.  Mystical Manna, and places it in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which comes exactly home to our Saviour's reasoning; and shows the prudence and cogency of it, at least as to this part of his Discourse, that he was the true Bread of which the Corporal Manna, which had been eaten by their Fathers in the Wilderness, was only a Type and resemblance. For supposing the Adversaries with whom he had then to deal to have been of Philo's mind (as plainly Philo, in most of his Allegories, does not pretend himself to be an inventor, but a deliverer of the Traditions of those who had studied Allegories; and whoever compares his not only with Clemens and Origen, who succeeded him in the School of Alexandria, and in the way of Allegorising, but also with the Scripture itself, will find that they did not take that liberty that some may conceive, but kept constant to one way of Allegory, though, I confess, they sometimes give several Allegorical Expositions of the same Scriptures) I say, supposing that they granted that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Archetypal Manna, he had nothing more to convince them of in order to the proving that he was the true Bread, but only that he was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which was to appear from those many Credentials which he afterwards produced of his being so.  
§ IX THIS was very apposite to our Saviour's purpose, and might very probably have been part of his design; but I cannot think that it was the whole of it. For the benefit here spoken of is plainly corporal, and not such as could agree to the Angels, viz. the intitling their Bodies to a Resurrection unto bliss, as I have already observed. If it had been otherwise, the reason given by him, why this Bread should make their Bodies immortal, had been very improper. For what relation had flesh to the food of Angels? How could they receive nourishment from it, or be made immortal by it? Nay indeed what need was there of proving that the Archetypal Manna should make its receivers immortal, seeing that, by the Hypothesis then received, all Archetypal being's were supposed to be immortal? Or, if he would be pleased needlessly to put himself to that trouble, yet why should he make use of so unlikely an Argument for proving it? They know not of any flesh that was to be immortal. At least they were much better assured that all Archetypal Being's were immortal than that any flesh was so. And therefore how could the immortality of his own flesh pass with them for an Argument of the immortality of this Archetypal Bread? I cannot therefore but think that the Bread here spoken of immediately was material Bread and food for their Bodies, as Manna had been to their Fathers, and therefore the immortality and a Title to a Resurrection, could not be so confidently presumed to be an effect of it but that it would need proof. And for this the immortality of Christ's Body, whose name was by himself given to the Eucharistical Bread, was indeed a most proper proof, and that which was accordingly taken up by the Christians themselves. Only I confess it was an Argument supposing the Truth of the Christian Religion, Mystery of the Kingdom, as our Saviour elsewhere speaks, 
Matt. xiii. 13.  and therefore, according to the method then observed in Mysteries, unfit to be communicated to Enemies, nay, even not to the Sons of the Kingdom themselves, 
Matt. viij. 12.xiii.38.  till they had first attained to a sufficient degree of Purity and maturity of judgement for understanding them, which was timely enough when he should afterwards institute this Sacrament. They might then remember that he had spoken to this purpose, and they would be better prepared to receive the harsh and unexpected unwelcome news of his Death with the less danger of being scandalised at it, when they received it by degrees. And it is observable that, at this time, the principal part of his Authority were his own Disciples. For that was the event of this Mystical discourse, 
Joh. vi. 66.  that many of his Disciples went back, and walked no more with him: That we may not admire that he should on such an occasion make use of such Arguments as presupposed the Truth of the Christian Religion.  
§ X BUT for understanding more fully the force of this reasoning even with Christians themselves, and the connexion it had with the Notions then received; it is further observable, that besides these Mystical Expositions of the Old Testament, which were then received by the Jews, concerning such things in the Christian Religion which they were capable of foreseeing by those Notions of the New Covenant, and the state of things under the Messiah, which then prevailed even among them, there were also others relating to the positive and arbitrary Revelations of the Gospel, of which they could have no distinct knowledge before those Revelations. For the great design of the Primitive Christians being to show that their Religion was indeed no real innovation from Judaisme, but only that Mystical state of it which was described in those writings which were received by the Jews themselves, and which was also allowed by them to have Mystical senses besides the Literal, and such Mystical senses as could not, in strict reasoning, be necessary Arguments of the Writers mind to a pertinacious Adversary, but might serve for prudent intimations for a mind prepared and willing to receive conviction, which is the disposition the Christians also do always require in a person qualified to judge of their Religion; they accordingly show that even such things as these which might seem to have the least foundation in the Letter of the Law, were yet designed by it, according to this way of expounding it Mystically. Thus, as the land of Canaan was a type of Heaven, so they supposed that the changing of the name of him who was to bring them into Canaan from Oshea to Jesus was not done without very particular design. And indeed these Mysticizing Jews had already granted them that the change of names was indeed made generally with Mysterious designs. 
Philo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  And very many of their Allegories are grounded on those names, and the Criticisms of them. And this so exactly fitting the name of our Saviour, it is no wonder that it was produced by the 
a Justin. M. Dial. cum Tryph. p. 300, 328, 340. Tertull. c. Jud. c. 9 p. 219. c. Marc. iii. 16.iu.7, 13. Cl. Al. Protr. & Paed. l. 7. Eus. Pr. Eu. iv. 17.  Primitive Christians as a proof that his very name was expressly foretold under that dispensation. Very many of the like instances might have been produced from the primitive Writers concerning the particulars of our Saviour's History which they thus shown to have been thus prefigured in the Old Testament, though not expressly mentioned in it. Thus the veil over Moses' face proves that the Jews should not understand the Gospel when it should be preached to them. And Ishmael's mocking Isaac proved that the Jews who were born after the flesh should persecute the Christians who were born after the Spirit. And the Israelites cloud prefigured the Christian Baptism. So the Author to the Hebrews, who from the burning of the carcases of the Sacrifices without the camp concludes that therefore our Saviour was also to suffer without the gate of Jerusalem. 
Heb. xiii. 11, 12.   
§ XI NOR was this way of arguing so precarious as some may conceive, especially considering the times whereof I am now discoursing, as certainly they ought to be considered by him who would judge prudently and solidly in a matter of this nature. 
Strom. v.  Clemens Alexandrinus has at large proved that this Mystical way of shadowing things by things and obscure intimations of words, were generally allowed of by all the Religions and Mysteries and Philosophy then extant, and especially by the Eastern wisdom, as the most proper way for the Gods to converse with men by. And there can be no greater ambiguity charged on this way than what is also common, not only to the Heathen Oracles, but even to the Symbolical representations which were in ordinary use among the Jewish Prophets themselves. Besides the reason of these concealments held here as well as in other Cases, that none but Persons not curious nor litigious, nor indisposed with worldly Passions and prejudices might understand them, but that others might fall into the snares which they justly deserved to fall into in regard of the misdemeanours they were guilty of which deserved Punishment, and the little diligence used by them to avoid it. This is the reason our Saviour himself gives of his using Parables to the Multitude. And indeed this way of Parables must needs be granted to be as uncertain to those who had them not particularly expounded to them, as this way of Mystical reasoning. But particularly Historical matters had a reason why they should not be too expressly and particularly foretold, both that the Prediction might not hinder the Persons concerned from engaging on the event, and that after it was come to pass it might then be understood the rather to proceed from God, by how much it was the less foreseen by second Causes. And none doubted but that many Prophecies might be certainly understood when they were fulfilled, which were not understood before. Besides in general they had certain Arguments of Miracles and such extrinsic evidence to assure them that the state of Christianity was that state of Mystical Judaisme so generally spoken of by the ancient Prophets, besides the certainer accommodation of some of the clearest Predictions which might assure them of thus much, that this was the time when the less clear ones were to be fulfilled also. So that thus much being granted that all the Predictions of God whether by words or shadows were then to be fulfilled, it followed thence, that where the accommodation between the Prediction and the event was clear, that was the very sense which God intended should come to pass.  
§ XII HOWEVER it is certain that the Primitive Christians did actually use this way of reasoning, and that the multitude of such accommodations whereby it appeared that every thing which then befell the Novel Converts to Christianity was either predicted or prefigured in the Old Testament, was not only a very great inducement with many of them to receive the Christian Religion, but the only Apology they had to vindicate that Religion from the charge of innovation with which it was aspersed by the Jews: And particularly the Sacraments were of that consequence as indeed would need a particular proof. For if Mystical Judaisme required no external Solemnities of worship, we must suppose them ready to inquire why these externals were required. If by our Saviour's Authority alone, than it would not look like a part of Mystical Judaisme when no part of the Jewish Scriptures could be alleged in favour of it. But if Mystical Judaisme did indeed require these Solemnities, than they would object against the abrogation of Circumcision and Sacrifices which had formerly been so expressly required by the Law, as an abrogation of Judaisme, not as an introducing a more Spiritual Notion of it.  
§ XIII In answer hereunto the Christians did both show that literal Circumcision and Sacrifices had been disapproved in the Old Testament itself, and that their own Rituals had been predicted or prefigured as proper to that state of Mystical Judaisme which they endeavoured to introduce. Particularly as to prefiguration, Baptism they supposed to have been prefigured in the cloud of the Israelites, in which they are said to have been baptised into Moses, that is, were made Disciples unto Moses, as by Christ's Baptism men are admitted to be Disciples to Christ, 
1 Cor. x. 2.  and in the water of the deluge by which those who were in the Ark were saved, 
1 Pet. three 21. 1 Cor. x. 4. That of Melchizedec. Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. prope fin. Cyprian. Ep. 62. ad Caecilium. Euseb. Dem. Eu. v. 3.  to which our Baptism is expressly called an Antitype. And the rock which followed them, the Bread of Melchizedeck whom they took for a Type of Christ, and this Manna in the Wilderness were taken for prefigurations of the Eucharist, and these later two, even as to the Element of Bread, that even in that Christ might appear to have innovated nothing, but to have done that which God had long before designed that it should be done by him. And considering how necessary these things were for that great design of the Apostles, we have reason to look on them not barely as Arguments ad bomines, but as real Truths requisite for the satisfaction of the Christians themselves, as well as for the conviction of their Adversaries. And considering withal their close connection with this great design of the Apostles in their Controversies with the Jews, we have reason to suppose that these were the sense of the Apostles themselves, in whose times principally it was that these Controversies with the Jews were debated, and in whose times the ordinary Converts from Judaisme were most likely to desire satisfaction in those particulars. Which will make these Mystical Expositions of the most ancient Fathers much more considerable than they are commonly esteemed, if not for the solidity of the Expositions themselves, yet at least for the credit of the first conversion to Christianity, and of the Apostles, who, for the propagation of the Christian Religion, thought it so necessary to insist on these Expositions. And this prefiguration of the Eucharist by the Manna, being so necessary for the Apostles design to defend the institution of the Eucharist from the charge of innovation, and so early insisted on by the Primitive Christians, we have very just reason to suppose that it came from the Apostles, though we could not trace it in their writings. At least we have reason to believe that it was the meaning of our Saviour and the Apostle in this place, where on other accounts it appears so likely to have been so.  
§ XIV THIS therefore being thus supposed, it will plainly follow that by the Eucharistical Bread the Ideal Manna is communicated to us. And as all particular derivations from the Ideas can perform nothing but by virtue of the impressions which they are supposed to receive from the Ideas themselves, but it is impossible that any derivation can be as efficacious as the Original; so it will be also, on the same Principles, ordinarily impossible that the want of this Ideal Manna thus communicated to us by the Eucharist can be any other way supplied. And as immortality, (that is, a happy immortality to which the Scripture does frequently appropriate the name of immortality,) does, on the same Hypothesis, only agree to these Ideal Prototypes themselves, not to any resemblances derived from them; so this immortality of our Body, and our consequent Title to the Resurrection of our Body resulting from it, can only be expected from our participation of the Eucharistical Bread, if that be the only ordinary means appointed for our participation of this Archetypal Manna.  
§ XV AND supposing that this whole Discourse of St. Joh. VI has relation to the Eucharist at least, as it was to be instituted by him for the future, nothing can be more plain than that which I am at present concerned for, the great mischief men have ordinarily reason to fear when they are deprived of the Eucharist. So our Saviour tells them, Verily, verily, 
Joh. vi. 53.  I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. And the flesh here spoken of was immediately before made the Bread, that Archetypal Manna which he was to give them, The Bread which I will give is my flesh. 
Ver. 51.  Which two attributes of Bread and Flesh ascribed to the same thing are not so naturally capable of being ascribed to any thing else as they are to this Eucharistical Bread of which I am now speaking. God grant that our dissenting Brethren may be as sensible of the consequence of this Discourse as they are concerned in it.  
§ XVI I AM very unwilling to lay any stress of the Principles of my present Discourse on any thing that might look like a Paradox, especially in my expositions of the Scripture. But as I have already prevented this Exception by warning how sufficient the necessity of valid Baptism as an ordinary means for Salvation is to my design; 
Chap. 15.  so really I conceive the things here delivered of that very great importance for preventing and correcting Popular errors in a Subject of this nature, and so very necessary for assuring any of the sense of Mystical Scriptures, as that I could not be confident even of commonly- received Expositions of Scripture, till I had examined them by this Method of enquiring into the nature of Mysteries, as they were then received, and the Peculiarities of speech that were used in them. As for the common way of explaining them (either by the Literal signification of the words where the absurdities following thereon are tolerable, and sometimes where they are not; or where the absurdities are so sensibly intolerable as to force them from a Literal Exposition, yet still not to consider them as terms of Art, but only to take the most obvious Metaphorical signification that may suit the design of the Context, whereas some peculiar Metaphorical signification is proper to them when they are considered as terms of Art) though the Propositions be true by which they express their Expositions, yet the means they use for deducing those Propositions from such Texts are so uncertain, as that I can by no means believe them true as Expositions; and therefore cannot assure myself of the Truth of such Propositions when their Truth depended on their being true Expositions of those places from whence they had been deduced. And therefore I conceived myself obliged to make use of the now-mentioned Method as well to assure myself of some Popular Truths, as for the conviction of popular mistakes. For certainly whoever would use the Popular way of expounding any Book whatsoever consisting of terms of Art without regard to the Art to which those terms belonged, could expect no other than frequent mistakes; nay, it would be a rare accident, if he ever hit on the true sense of the Author, and must rather be imputable to the luckiness of the event than any wise contrivance of his own design. But much more it must be so when the design of the Art itself is to use terms in significations as remote as may be from the commonly- received ones, purposely that none but worthy and industrious Persons might understand them. This was the case of Mysteries. And therefore certainly the surest account of such Mystical Scriptures is to be had by enquiring into the nature of the Mysteries then received, and the peculiarity of style that was used in them, especially when withal the Subject spoken of was also Mystical, which is the Case of the Sacraments. However I do most hearty submit what I have written, that may look like a Paradox, either on this or any other Subject, to the judgement, not only of my Superiors in the first place, but also of any other truly pious, judicious and candid Readers. And I am the rather timorous of being very positive in matters of this nature, because they▪ are many of them so now to the Age we live in.   

CHAP. XVIII. The validity of the Sacraments depends on the Authority of the Persons by whom they are administered.  
THE CONTENTS.  
2. THE validity of the Sacraments depends on the Authority of the Persons by whom they are administered. This Assertion explained. §. I, TWO, III, iv Proved by these degrees. 1. The Spiritual Advantages of the Sacraments are not immediately conveyed in the external participation of them. §. V, VI 2. The reason of this holds not only in Acts of Authority, that no Authority can be derived from God, unless the Persons pretending in his Name to give it be Authorized by him to give it, but also in deeds of Gift. §. VII. 3. There is much less reason to expect that God should perform what is done in his Name by such Unauthorised Persons than to expect it from the Ordinary Governors. §. VIII. 4. The Case we are now speaking of is such as where it does not oblige him to performance, will oblige God to punish such Usurpers of his Authority. §. IX. It will oblige him as a private Person. §. X. It will oblige him as a Governor. §. XI. The heinousness of sins against Authority. §. XII. An inference by way of Application. §. XIII. 5. All these Reasons will particularly hold in those places where these Usurpations are in danger of proving injurious to the Rights, even of Subordinate Governors, that is, in a place already possessed. §. XIV. How God as Supreme Governor is concerned for the honour of the Supreme visible Governors. §. XV, XVI. This honour due to inferior Governors impossible to be preserved if Subjects be allowed the liberty of setting up opposite Societies, as often as they are of another mind, and of perpetuating such disorders by the validity of what they do in such their Usurpations. §. XVII, XVIII. It is inconsistent with Government that Subjects should be allowed to refuse their Duty in Case of inevidence against a Presumptive Title. This proved in two Particulars: §. XIX. 1. It is necessary for the security of visible Government, as such, that a Presumptive Title be not rejected but on very evident proofs to the contrary, §. XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV. 2. The failures of this Presumptive Title in those who were at present possessed of the Government cannot justify the like Usurpation in them who should discover it. §. XXVI. It cannot secure their do from a Nullity. §. XXVII. It cannot secure their Persons from a Crime which may oblige God to take the uttermost advantage which the Legal Invalidity of their proceed might afford him. §. XXVIII. The Case proposed concerning the assuming an Authority to administer the Sacraments in a desolate Island. How impertinent this is to our Adversaries Case, and therefore how little temptation we have to be partial in answering it. §. XXIX. Answer. §. XXX. Their Persons could not be excused from Presumption. §. XXXI. Their proceed could not be secured from Nullity. §. XXXII.  
§ I I NOW proceed therefore, 2. To show that the validity of the Sacraments depends on the Authority of the Persons by whom they are administered. I mean, that the benefit of such Sacraments cannot be expected even by Communicants, in other regards, worthy, in respect of the moral Dispositions, for unworthy Communicants cannot expect it even then when they are administered validly. None doubts of this, and I am not at present concerned for it.  
§ TWO BY valid Administration, I do not mean an accurately justifiable Administration in regard of all Circumstances attending it. It is not every little Circumstance, that, if it fail, does disannul a proceeding, otherwise Legal, but only a substantial defect in point of Power. He who wants this Power acts invalidly, so as to oblige to nothing, how punctual soever he may have been in the observation of all Legal Circumstances. The receiver is not the better for what is given him by such a Person, and the Law will not secure him any Right in such a Donative. But he who has the power, if he fail in a Circumstance not essential to the thing, may himself be to blame for his failure, nay, may be obnoxious to the Laws for it. But he who receives from him what he had power to give him is not responsible for his Personal faults, but has a just Title to the thing conferred by him, and such as will be secured to him by the Law by which he is impowered to give it to him.  
§ III AND therefore by an invalid Administration I mean such a one only as is performed by him who has no Legal Power of administering the Sacraments. From such a one the Communicant now described may indeed receive the external Symbols, but God is not obliged by any act of his to confer the Spiritual benefits signified and intended to be Legally conveyed by those Symbols. And it is from God that these Spiritual benefits are to be received, if they be received at all.  
§ IV AND further yet by this validity I mean such a one as may be known and judged of by the Communicant. That he who receives the Symbols from him whom he knows to have no Legal power of administering them, or whom he might know not to have that power by such Rules as all Societies take care of for deriving Power to Succession, and which withal they all take care that they should be notorious to all, even the meanest capacities who use their diligence to know them, (as all are certainly obliged to do when their Practice is concerned in knowing them,) for the preventing Usurpations of Power, and all the consequent mischiefs which Societies must suffer from such Usurpations; I mean, that such a Communicant, who (by these means as they are contrived for the settlement of Christian Societies as Christians) can know that he from whom he receives these Symbols, was never Legally invested with a Power of administering them, can never rationally expect that God should second such a Ministry by making good the Spiritual benefits which are Symbolically conveyed by this Ministry: And that he who knows this, or may know it, by the means now mentioned, cannot rationally look on it otherwise than as a perfect Nullity, obliging God to nothing, and therefore cannot enjoy any rational solid comfort from such Ordinances. This I may therefore dispatch the more briefly now, because several of the Principles requisite for proving it have been already discoursed on other occasions. Such as those are I shall only lay together for clearing the present Consequence.  
§ V 1. THEREFORE the Spiritual advantages of the Sacraments are not immediately conveyed in the external participation of them. And all Laws make a real difference between these two sorts of conveyances, when the thing itself is immediately conveyed, and when only a Right to it is conveyed by which the Receiver may recover it from him who has it in possession. For example, he who is actually put in possession of a piece of Land by him who has no Authority to give him possession, does however continue in possession till he be again Legally dispossessed. And the Nullity of such a Givers act does not appear in the immediate effect, but only in this, that, because he can confer no Legal Right, therefore he cannot secure the Possession he has given whenever the Law shall take notice of what he has done. But he who has the same Land conveyed to him only by promises before witnesses, or by Instruments, or even by earnest, is not as yet put in Possession of the Land itself, but is still left to the Law to recover the possession of the Land so conveyed, from him who is as yet possessed of it. And if the Promise, or Instrument, or Earnest be given by such a Person who has no Legal Power to give them, the Nullity of such a grant is such as will never be likely so much as to gain him an actual Possession.  
§ VI THIS is exactly the Case of the Sacraments. The Act of the Minister does not give possession of the Spiritual benefits of them; but the giving of the Symbols by the Minister confers a Legal Right, and obliges God to put well-disposed Communicants in actual possession of those Spiritual Graces, where the Symbols themselves are validly administered, that is, where the Person who administers has received a Power from God of acting in his name in their administration. But on the contrary, where the Person who gives the Symbols is not empowered by God to act in his Name in giving them, as they cannot convey the thing itself, so neither can they any Right to it from God. They cannot oblige God to perform what is further to be done by him but by Acting in his Name; nor can any Acting in his Name oblige him, but that which is by his own appointment. So that such a Gift as this is can have no effect in Law, seeing it confers neither the Right nor the Possession of the thing designed by it. Which is that I mean by a perfect Nullity.  
§ VII AND it is observable further, 2. That the reason of this does hold not only in Acts of Authority, that no Authority can be derived from God unless the Persons pretending in his name to give it be Authorized by him to give it, 〈◊〉 but also in Deeds of Gifts. None can oblige God in a Legal way to give that which it is only in his Power to give, without Power received from him to Act in his Name, in obliging him to such a Gift, so that their Gift may, in a Legal way of estimation, be counted his, and as his oblige him to performance: This is no more in God's Case than what is thought just and reasonable in the Gifts of the meanest private Persons. Even such are not obliged by the Acts of others, unless they have first Authorized them to Act in their name by express Procuration. This I note that our Adversaries may see that our present reason will hold whether we do as yet suppose the Church to be a Body Politic, or not; and therefore, though we should not suppose that God acted herein by way of Authority, nor that the Persons empowered by him received any more Jurisdiction over the Church as a Society than those private Persons do receive when they are Authorized also by private Persons to make Legal conveyances and to undertake Legal obligations in their behalf; and withal to let them see that though as yet they granted no more Authority in the Administrators of the Sacraments than what is necessary for a Legal conveyance of a Gift, yet that will oblige others to depend on them in order to the obtaining of that Gift, which will easily infer an Authority of Jurisdiction.  
§ VIII AND, 3. There is much less reason to expect that God should perform what is done in his Name by such unauthorised Persons, than to expect it from ordinary Governors. Ordinary Governors may be imposed on either to think they have made Promises where they have not, or may be overswayed with kindness to the Usurpers Persons, or to the Persons to whom the conveyance was made, or by the exigency of their affairs, or by some other unaccountable mistake or humour. But God cannot be obliged by any thing but certain reason, nor be mistaken in judging any thing reasonable when it is not, nor swayed by any partial affection to do what he does not judge reasonable. And therefore we cannot hope that God will ever think himself obliged by that which is not really sufficient to infer a Legal obligation. Nor can we expect from him that he should be acted by fondness or any other unaccountable unreasonable affection, to do what he is not obliged to do.  
§ IX ESPECIALLY considering, 4. That the Case, of which I am now speaking, is such as, where it does not oblige him to performance, will oblige him to punish such Usurpers of his Authority. This it will do in several regards: whether we consider it as an Act of private injury to God himself, as far as he is capable of receiving such a private injury; or whether we consider it as an injury to his Government, and as a mischievous Precedent for the Society for which he is concerned as a Governor.  
§ X IF we consider it on a private account, as far as it is possible for us by consideration to divest God of the public Person he bears in this matter; yet even so it must be a great injury to him, as it would be to any other private Person for any to presume to Act in his Name, and to engage his Credit for performance of their Actings in his Name without his Authority. Though the thing were never so agreeable to his will, yet even private Persons would think themselves obliged in Prudence, not only to revenge themselves of such Usurpers where no Law obliged them to the contrary, (which is God's Case) but also to refuse to stand to such Obligations purposely that they might discountenance the Usurpation. And it is to be remembered that what were only injurious, though in a very high degree, when considered with regard to a private Person, does, when it is considered with relation to God, put on an aggravation of a higher nature, of being also impious and sacrilegious.  
§ XI BUT when God is considered thus as a private Person, he is in reason to be supposed more at liberty to forgive what is injurious to him only on such a private account, than when he is considered as a Governor. Though every one be at liberty to forgive injuries against himself, yet he is not in reason supposed to be at the same liberty to forgive injuries and mischiefs against others, whom he is, by his Office, obliged to secure from injuries. If we therefore consider God as a Governor, so the whole Society for which he is concerned must suffer by such Usurpations of his Authority. This will leave it at the liberty of every bold pretender, to impose what burdens and commands he pleases on the Subjects if he may be allowed to pretend to the Supreme Authority without any dreadful apprehensions of being severely accountable for doing so. This must needs overthrow all the Authority of inferior Subordinate Governors, when they may be controlled by pretended countermands from the Supreme, and countermands derived by such undiscernible evidences as that they never can distinguish between real countermands and such as are only pretended. For by this means they may be resisted as often as their Subjects are pleased to pretend a countermand, which may be as often as they are unwilling to observe their Duty. And considering that the practicableness of the Supreme Government itself depends on the Authority of Subordinate Governors, who are peculiarly entrusted with the execution of the Injunctions of the Supreme, so that the Supreme never executes any thing but by them, this will oblige the Supreme Government in interest to look on the ordinary contempt of inferior Governors as tending to the dissolution of its own Authority. Besides even personal injuries to Magistrates are always taken for affronts to the whole Societies, when they relate to them as invested with Majesty, as certainly this does for any to usurp an Authority as from God, which has not been entrusted to him.  
§ XII THESE injuries to Authority, (whatever men may think of them who are concerned to disparage them for the alleviation of their own guilt) are of much more heinous consequence than the violation of any particular Laws, because indeed they reach that from whence the obligation of all particular Laws is derived; and which, if once destroyed, will bring in an impunity for the violation of all particular Laws, at least such an impunity in this World as is all which wicked men regard. And as on this account all Societies whatsoever have agreed in making the Crimes against Majesty most heinous and unpardonable by the Fundamental Principles of Societies (as they have also agreed in making this particular offence of pretending falsely to the Authority of the Supreme Magistrate to be a crime against Majesty) so it must receive its degrees of aggravation from the greatness of the Majesty against whom the crime is committed, and the greatness of the Society for which he is concerned. In the Roman Empire Treason against the Emperor had been much more heinous than Treason against Herod, or any of those inferior Kings who were Subject to the Emperor, and of whose Empire Herod's Kingdom was a less considerable part. By which rules of aggravation no offence can exceed this which is committed against God, not only in regard of his office of governing the World, but in regard of this part of his office which he values as the dearest, that is, the Government of Souls.  
§ XIII THE inference which I would draw from the greatness of this crime is, not only to show what obligations do thence follow for God, not only not to pardon, but to punish it in those who are really guilty of it; but also to let them who are concerned see, upon how difficult terms they must expect to be cleared of this guilt, and secured from the actual infliction of that Punishment to which they have rendered themselves obnoxious by it. For it is to be expected that where the mischief following on a mistake is greater, there the evidence which may encourage any to the Practice of what is like to prove so dangerous, if he should prove mistaken, aught also to be very great proportionably. So that our Adversaries cannot expect that even their good meaning should go so far to excuse them here as they might where the mistake were of less dangerous consequence. For where the the mistake is dangerous, it is very just and necessary for the good of the public, that Persons be obliged to consider the Security as well as the Truth of such Propositions in order to their Practice; and where the danger is not only of a Temporal mischief, but of a mischief in point of Conscience, there it is fit that such a mischief should be taken as a motive of Conscience, as well as the Truth or Falsehood of the Propositions themselves, so that he be more severely accountable, who, on insufficient inducements, ventures to practise a Proposition which is not only false but mischievous, than he, who, on the same inducements, should venture to practise one which were only false. And according as this mischief is greater, so the contrary evidence ought to be greater too, that it may countervail this mischief, when this mischief is considered in Conscience, as a reason of such Practice. And as it is fit that the Practiser of such dangerous Propositions should be obliged to take in the reasons which may prove them dangerous, as well as those which may prove them true; so it is fit that he be also obliged to the utmost diligence in procuring Information, and the utmost sincerity in following conviction, before he venture on such a Practice. This is also as necessary for the public as the other. But it cannot so conveniently be done as by making him afterwards more severely responsible for his failings in either regard here, than he should have been in matter of lesser concernment.  
§ XIV AND, 5. All these Reasons will particularly hold in those places where these Usurpations are in danger of proving injurious to the Rights, even of Subordinate Governors, that is, where this Liberty is taken in a place already settled under Ecclesiastical Government; especially where the Persons pretending to the Possession of that Government have those Presumptions in favour of their Possession, which ought not to be rejected without very solid proofs to the contrary.  
§ XV I HAVE already noted how the Supreme Government is in interest obliged to maintain the honour of Subordinate Governors, as it tenders the execution of its Laws in this Life, which is peculiarly the office of Subordinate Governors. And this obligation increases according as the Subordinate Governors approach nearer to the Supreme. Even among Subordinate Governors themselves, the Supreme is more concerned for the Superior than for the Inferior; not only as that distance is necessary for preserving the Sacredness of the Supreme, but also because its own Authority is in the most ample manner communicated to the Superior among Subordinate Governors. And ordinary experience shows that they who have already despised so many degrees of distance, as to resist the Supreme among the Subordinates', cannot be thought scrupulous of one degree more, from resisting him to proceed further to the resistance of the Supreme of all.  
§ XVI BUT even among Subordinates' themselves it is the interest of Government that the Presumption lie on the side of Governors, especially then when even such Subordinate Governors profess themselves dissatisfied with the pretence, and recourse cannot be had to the Supreme Governor to know his mind in the Case. The concealments which have been used by some Princes to conciliate a greater veneration to their Majesty, has been so far from diminishing as that it has always made the Authority of their appearing Officers more absolute and arbitrary. And accordingly the Authority of Governors of Provinces is always allowed greater than that of those where the access is easier to the Prince's Person. But where the recourse is not to be had at all, where the falsehood of such Pretenders cannot be discovered in this Life, (as that is the Church's Case) there it must follow, that the allowing such Precedents must overthrow the possibility of all visible Government in this Life. And therefore God will be so far concerned to see that no resistance be made against the Supreme visible Governors of his Church in this Life, on such pretences as these, as he is concerned that any Government be at all practised in this Life.  
§ XVII BUT it is not possible to preserve this honour which is due to inferior Governors, if Subjects be allowed a Liberty, as often as they are of another mind, to set up another Society in opposition to them, and to be able to perpetuate such their disorders by the validity of what they do in such their Usurpations. Nor can it be fit that Subjects be allowed to judge in doubtful Cases of their Governors failings and acting against the design of the Supreme Governor, especially where recourse cannot be had to the Supreme Governor himself for determining their difference. It is certainly inconsistent with the safety of Societies in general, to have any differences that shall not be capable of a decision in this Life. They may indeed judge with a Judgement of private discretion, and for the security of their own Souls, even from what they think sinful. But to allow them a Liberty in such Cases, to set up opposite Societies, is certainly destructive to all Government.  
§ XVIII AND what should be the reason that God should give Governors, who have truly a title to govern, a power of admitting Members into their respective Societies, or of ejecting them out of them, but purposely to make them hereby responsible for all the Members of their Societies, when none could be so without their consent? How could the Angels, in the Revelations, have been otherwise charged with the misdemeanours of particular Members of their Churches, unless it had been in their power either to have reform them, or to have cut them off from being Members? But this will be impossible if unauthorised Persons may be allowed, in matters so disputable as not to be capable of a Decision in this Life, to set up opposite Societies, and to admit Members into them within the Jurisdiction of their Subordinate Governor, yet without their Governors' consent; and if withal God should so far second their Usurpations as to account their Churches valid Churches, and their Members valid Members, and well entitled to the Legal privileges of such Societies; and to oblige the Church Governors, within whose Jurisdiction, and without whose consent, they had been made Members, to account them so too. When they would thus have Members obtruded on them without their own consent, and when their own rebellious Members might upon their departure or exclusion from them be allowed to erect themselves into a Society independent on them, it were very hard that they should be made responsible for either of them.  
§ XIX NOR is it only thus inconsistent with Government that Subjects should be allowed this Liberty of erecting opposite Societies to their Subordinate Governors, on their own judgements in matters disputable; but also that, upon their own unsatisfiedness with their title to govern them, they should be allowed to refuse the payment of their Duty to them, especially when they have on their side all the presumptions of an actual possession, and so far to refuse it as to erect or abete a Government opposite to them. There are two things in this Case wherein God will, in reason, be obliged for the security of visible Government, to discountenance and invalidate such proceed. 1. That it is for the necessary security of visible Government that a presumptive title be not rejected but on very evident proofs to the contrary. 2. That in case this presumptive title should fail in the present possessors of the power of Government, yet that would give no title to the discoverers of that failure, and therefore cannot justify their proceed on presumption of such a title from Usurpation; and that, even in this Case, there is no reason to expect that God should supply in equity what they cannot justify by a Legal claim.  
§ XX 1. THAN, It is necessary for the security of visible Government, as such, that a presumptive title be not rejected but on very evident proofs to the contrary. By a presumptive title I mean such a one as the first Innovators found settled when they began their Innovations; especially if they themselves had formerly submitted to it, and found all who might pretend competition with it, submitting to it also; nay, if they found it unanimously received without any accountable appearance of force or fraud in the first Originals of it. This was plainly the Case of our Dissenters in relation to Episcopal Government, from which they made their Separation. They cannot so much as pretend any other place where any other form of Government had been derived in a Succession from the Apostles to those times. They can mention no place where the Bishops were not actually possessed of their § V Power with the consent and submission of the Presbyters themselves; nay, and the people also, and indeed of all those who may be pretended to have been injured by them, and who had therefore been concerned to interrupt the peaceableness of the prescription, which might, in time, go far to legitimate their enjoyments, before so long a time might pass them as might serve for a prescription. All Laws of all Societies do presume in favour of such a title.  
§ XXI AND allowing it no more than the force of a presumption, yet so itself, it is the interest of all Government, that want of evidence of its original Right be not allowed alone for a sufficient reason for any to call the Justice of it in Question, at least not so far to question it as to venture to oppose it in practice. It is otherwise Morally impossible that any Government should pass unquestionable to many successions, and by how much the more men usually think it better grounded by its long continuance, it must indeed be more liable to exception, if the inevidence of its original Right be allowed to be a just exception against it. Length of time will either obliterate the original Records, or make them accidentally obscure in things wherein they were very clear when they were first written, by making alterations in the Tongue and Customs and Opinions of the Age then alluded to. Which changes, though they be insensible in the particular degrees by which they were made, yet it cannot be expected otherwise but that they must grow extremely considerable in the process of a long time. In this regard it is for the interest of all Societies whatsoever, that want of evidence be not allowed for sufficient to question any part of the challenge of the present supreme visible Governors of the Societies, without very evident proof to the contrary.  
§ XXII AND it cannot be supposed agreeable to Gods will, that when God was founding a Society which was to continue through all ages of the World, he should make the conveyance of Authority in it to depend on such means as should be Morally impossible to be so conveyed; or that the right of Government should in course grow more questionable in those times, which should need its being more unquestionable, when both Subjects would grow more unruly, and a coercive power should be therefore more necessary than it was at first when they were of themselves more dutifully disposed; and when withal, the ordinary Governors should want those extraordinary Credentials which recommended the Authority of the Apostles and Apostolical Ages. Yet this very presumption, if it hold, will overthrow all that our Adversaries can say to clear themselves from the guilt of Schism. They cannot say that the Scripture forbade them the use of their Authority in things indifferent, but only that it does not appear to them, that it allowed them to use it.  
§ XXIII BUT though this inevidence be not allowable, by the fundamental principles of Government, to question any part of the Authority in those who are truly invested with it; yet why, will they say, may not the inevidence of particular Persons, being lawfully invested in the right of Government, excuse us from duty to such Persons concerning whom it does not appear that they are our lawful Governors? This will serve their purpose. For they need not be solicitous concerning their Duty to Government, if they may be excused from Duty to all Persons pretending to a right to govern them; and there will be no Persons to whom they will be obliged to pay any Duty, if this inevidence of the Legal manner of their coming by their Office, may be allowed as sufficient to excuse them from their Duty. For this the Scripture will not do, but it will be further necessary to be acquainted with the History of every particular Persons Ordination, and not only of all in this Age, but of all in all the Ages which might have passed between this and that of the Apostles, especially of all those Persons in each of them from whom our present Orders are derived. But this is a thing which no Records are kept of; nor if any had been kept, are we secure of their conveyance to us at such a distance in an ordinary way; or do we think Providence obliged to secure them to us by an extraordinary one. It must therefore be granted further, by those Principles whereby the conveyance of any Government to Posterity is secured, that no inevidence of this kind can excuse Subjects from their Duty, even to present Governors; especially when it is otherwise known in general, that if the Canons and Constitutions of the Church were observed, the Persons ordained, according to such Canons, must have been validly ordained; and that all the Ordained, as well as the Ordainers, were obliged in interest to have the Canons observed, without which they must have weakened their title to the benefits and Privileges of their Orders so uncanonically received.  
§ XXIV THESE are such presumptions on which the Successions of all Government, and all the Authority of future Governors in the several Ages of Succession do subsist, and which no Society allows to be questionable in the Case of any particular Governor without particular express proof of a failure in his particular Case. 
Mat. xxiii. 2, 3.  And certainly the Scribes and Pharisees, who, in our Saviour's time, sat in Moses' Chair, and are therefore supposed by him to have the Authority of Moses, could not possibly make out their Succession, at that distance, and after so many revolutions of their state, and so great miscarriage both of their Discipline and Records which must needs have been occasioned by those Revolutions, by greater assurances than these are.  
§ XXV I CONFESS when all diligence is used in this way of securing Succession, there may yet be real failures in it. But as God only can know them, so I cannot but think him obliged both by his Covenant for the Graces conveyed in the Sacraments, and by his design of establishing Government through all Ages of Succession, to supply those failures. For I have shown that in Covenanting he is in reason obliged to condescend to such Rules as may be equal between him and them with whom he is pleased to enter into Covenant. But it is not equal that he should be disobliged, when, by all ways of trial of which the Creatures are capable, they have reason to think him obliged. And besides the Person guilty of such a mistake as this, is not guilty of any thing which it is the interest of Government in general that it should be punished. He neither has any reason to make him suspect that he arrogates to himself any Power in God's name, which he has not reason to believe was given him by them who were by God himself entrusted to give it to him. Nor in case he should prove mistaken, can his mistake prove injurious to any other, who cannot be supposed to be possessed of any other, and therefore not of a better title than himself. So that God cannot be obliged, by the Principles of Government in general, to vacate what he does in favour of a better title. But, where, on the contrary, the mistake must prove injurious to those who are at present possessed of the right of Government, if they should prove mistaken (which is plainly the Case of our Adversaries who separate Congregations in places which they found at first possessed by Episcopal Jurisdiction) God is not only not obliged to ratify what they do in his Name without Authority derived from him; but he is also obliged, by the fundamental Principles of Government, to disannul it in favour to those who have really received Authority from him, how good soever their meaning may have been, and how far soever that may go to the excusing of their Persons.  
§ XXVI BUT supposing this want of evidence might go further than I have proved it can, to the excusing of their Subjects from their Duty to them; yet it had been well our Adversaries would have considered, 2. How far this can go to excuse their own Sacrilege in usurping that Authority, which, on this account, they have denied to their Superiors. What if their Superiors had no just ●itle to it? This might indeed excuse them from Subjection, but certainly can never excuse them, if they prove guilty of the same Usurpation for which they blamed their present Superiors. It might excuse them for separating, but never could for erecting opposite Societies and for presuming to exercise a sacred Authority in them which never was given them. It could neither secure such do from a Nullity, nor excuse their Persons from a very great Crime. And the former consideration will free God from all obligation to second them; but the later will oblige him to punish them, and, at least, to disannul such proceed.  
§ XXVII IT cannot secure their do from a Nullity. For what if their Superiors have no title? Must it therefore follow that they have one? What can they pretend to overthrow the Authority of their Superiors but will proceed more forcibly to overthrow their own? Can they say, they are not satisfied of the several stages by which Authority has been derived to their Superiors from those who were at first possessed of it? And can they give others any better satisfaction concerning their own title to Authority? Is a presumptive title fallible, at last, when it is to be conveyed through so many Ages before it can come at us? And must not their title be much more unsatisfactory, which as it must be derived through as many Ages as ours, and is every way as liable to miscarriage, so withal it wants this presumption in favour of it, which I have shown how obligatory it is to God himself to second it on the general Principles of Government? And indeed, on these Principles, how can they derive any Divine Authority but from men whose title to give it them was justly questionable? And if they thought these exceptions so considerable as to excuse themselves from Duty to their own Superiors, why should they not be as considerable to excuse their own Subjects from Duty to themselves? If to avoid this they pretend an immediate call from God: the Question will not be whether such a Call might empower them; but whether by the Principles of Government it be not absolutely necessary for them to produce their Credentials before others can, in reason, think themselves obliged in Conscience to submit to them, or can have any reason to hope for any validity in what they do on pretence of that Authority. And where are those Credentials? They do not pretend to extraordinary ones. And for ordinary ones to be derived by the Ministry of men and through many Successions, they neither can show them, nor do they admit them to be satisfactory. And it were then very fit to be considered, whether pretending to be sent without Credentials, where God is so obliged, by the Principles of Government, to give Credentials to those who are really sent by him, it be not a very just and prudent suspicion that their pretence to a Mission is really false, when it does not come confirmed with such Credentials?  
§ XXVIII BUT neither can this pretence excuse their Persons from a crime, which may justly provoke God to take the uttermost advantage which the Legal invalidity of their proceed might afford him, nay, such a crime as will oblige him, by the Principles of Government, actually to take that advantage. As upon these Principles they overthrew all possibility of deriving a Legal title to themselves as well as others; so for them to assume a title, when they have no right to it, is a crime punishable in the highest degree, by the Principles of Government And yet there are peculiar aggravations in the Case of such Persons which must make them less excusable than others. They are the introducers of a bad title; and it is much harder for such to be mistaken than for them who only abet a bad title when it is introduced. It is hardly possible for such to be ignorant of the means by which they come by it, or of the insufficiency of those means for deriving it to them. They make disorders and confound Discipline by the ways they use to set up their own ways, which must needs make them the more responsible, if they should prove mistaken. Nay, the sinfulness of usurping an Authority is a crime they charge others with, and that upon such Principles as must not only overthrow their own Authority, but let them see the Nullity of it, if they did but act with that equity and impartiality which they pretend to. And it was a particular aggravation of the sentence pronounced against the Servant in the Gospel, that he was condemned out of his own mouth. And yet the Case, of which I am speaking, is such as needs not this way of defence. Where only the offending Person is concerned in the Consequence of his offence, God may be as indulgent as he pleases in yielding of his own right to punish him: But where others also are wronged by it, and especially his subordinate Governors, though he may still pardon them the guilt, yet to confirm their proceed as valid would be injurious to those on whose Authority they have encroached, and therefore is not fit to be granted them, on any account, by the Principles of Government.  
§ XXIX THIS will, at least, concern that assuming of Authority to administer the Sacraments which is practised in places which are already under a settled Jurisdiction. If it be demanded further, what is to be thought concerning the like assuming of Authority to administer Sacraments in places destitute of Government; I must first warn our Brethren that this is none of their Case, nor can it in the least contribute to excuse them; that, if in the Case itself they may think me severe, they may yet see how little I am obliged to be so by any exigence of my Cause. No doubt in a desolate Island men that were cast upon it might unite into a Body Politic, and choose their form of Government and their Governors, because there is none who can pretend a present right over them, none whom they may be in danger of injuring, if they should prove mistaken. But no pretence either of maladministration, or of a suspicious title, where there were no visible Competitor who could pretend a better, could excuse the same Persons, if returning to a place already possessed, they should attempt the same thing, where it could not be attempted without certain disturbance, and without danger of injuring others. Nor would it be an irregularity only, but a Nullity also, if they should there presume it, where, though it were uncertain whose right it were to Govern, yet withal this were certain that it was none of theirs. And as in Seculars, so in the Sacraments, it might be also very possible that administrations of them might be valid there, though they should prove perfect Nullities in the places where our dissenting Brethren are concerned for them.  
§ XXX TO speak therefore to the Case, wherein it has thus appeared, how little the interest of my Cause obliges me to be partial, I confess I do not see, how, even in this Case, they could excuse themselves from Usurpation, who should presume to administer the Sacraments without a lawful Call to administer them. I do not think they would be guilty of any injury to men who had the lawful power of calling them; nor do I think their Precedent in such a Case of any ill consequence to Government, especially not to any visible Governor, if it were only practised in such a Case as that were, and were not persisted in when they might have opportunity of obtaining a lawful Call from them who had a lawful power to call them; nor consequently do I think God under the obligation now mentioned, either to disannul their do, or to punish them for them, for establishment of the Authority of any Superiors which had been invaded by them. But in reference to God, I do not really understand how to excuse their Persons from presumption, or to secure their proceed from a Legal Nullity.  
§ XXXI I DO not know how to excuse their Persons from presumption, in presuming to act in his Name without any power received from him to do so, to make Promises, and enter into obligations wherein they will concern him as a Party, and to think to oblige him without any leave received from him. Nor can they really pretend themselves forced to use such means by any necessity whatsoever. They may indeed be reduced to a necessity of wanting the Ordinances, and they have reason to believe themselves actually reduced to that necessity, when they cannot have them without the sin of Usurpation. But no necessity can oblige them to venture on the guilt of that, or any other sin that they may obtain them. And though such a necessity as this is, when they cannot procure the Sacraments by any compliances whatsoever, much less by unsinful ones, may make their Case in equity relievable without the Sacraments, if they do observe the moral Duties of Religion; yet the presuming to assume an Authority without leave to do so, is so far from gaining them the Legal advantage of Sacraments so administered, as that it is the most likely way to forfeit their title to the equity of it, when they use sinful means of coming by it. I have elsewhere observed the example of Saul to this purpose, who had certainly fared better, if, in the absence of Samuel, he had only made use of those Moral Duties, which even Laics may use without danger of Usurpation, than he did by presuming to offer Sacrifice without a lawful Authority to do so.  
§ XXXII NOR do I see how, even in that Case, such Usurpation can be secured from a Legal Nullity. For as long as they have no Authority from God to act in his Name, no Law whatsoever can oblige him to performance, though there had otherwise no injury been offered to him by the usurping his Authority. For freeing him from all obligation to performance it suffices that the Covenant and Promises made in his name were none of his acts, and no Law will take them for his Acts, if they were made without his Authority. And this consideration might, in prudence, make it advisable, in such a Case, to forbear the Sacraments, and only to practise the Moral Duties of Religion, when, besides the sin they would be in danger of in presuming to administer them without Authority, they could expect, in that Case, no more of the benefit of them with them, than without them. Without them they might expect the benefit of the Covenant and Promises of them in equity. And with them they could not strengthen their title to them by adding further a Legal obligation.   

CHAP. XIX. The Authority of administering the Sacraments must be derived from God.  
THE CONTENTS.  
3. NO other Ministers have this Authority of administering the Sacraments, but only they who receive their Orders in the Episcopal Communion. This proved by several degrees. §. I. 1. The Authority of administering the Sacraments must be derived from God. Explained. §. II. The importance of this Proposition. §. III. Though this were not proved, yet our Adversaries Practices are unjustifiable by the Principles of Government in general. §. iv As they were at first unjustifiable by the Principles of Government, so they can plead nothing which may make that justifiable now which was then unjustifiable. They cannot plead a lawful prescription. §. V If they could, yet this Proposition will cut them off from pleading it against God. §. VI, VII, VIII. The Proposition proved, 1. From the reason of the thing. §. IX. This performed by two degrees. (1.) It is God alone that has the right of disposing the Spiritual benefits here conveyed. §. X, XI, XII. The reason of the Adversaries mistakes. §. XIII. (2.) It is none but he that can give Possession of them. §. XIV. 2. From the actual establishment of God. No such Authority actually conferred upon the People. §. XV, XVI, XVI. The weakness of the Argument from bare Primitive Precedent for proving a right conferred shown from the many condescensions of those times, and the Prudence of the Reasons that required them. §. XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV. The unreasonableness of this way of Arguing. §. XXVI. There were then circumstances proper to that Age which required particular condescension. §. XXVII. Though the Negative Argument be not good, yet the Positive is, that the actual claim of Governors than is a good presumption that they had a right to the Power so claimed by them. §. XXVIII. Persons extraordinarily-gifted at length made subject to the ordinary Governors of the Church. §. XXIX, XXX, XXXI. This derivation of Power rather from Governors than from the People, agreeable to those Precedents whom the Primitive Christians were most likely to imitate. §. XXXII, XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV. A way proposed for accommodating the several Interests concerned, in Ordination according to the Practice of those times. §. XXXVI, XXXVII. The Apostles unlikely to confer this right of Government on the People, if left by God to their own Liberty, according to the Notions which then prevailed among the Christians. §. XXXVIII. Remarks tending to the satisfaction of the Lovers of Truth and Peace: 1. This way of arguing from the actual establishments of God, as it is much more modest, so it is also more secure for finding out the right of Government, than any conjectures we can make from the reason of the thing. §. XXXIX, XL. 2. Though the People had this inherent right of Government originally, yet it cannot exclude a right of God who may, when he pleases, resume this right into his own hands, §. XLI. 3. If the People ever had such a right originally, yet all that has been done since for alienating that right which could be done. §. XLII.  
§ I 3. THEREFORE no other Ministers have this Authority of Administering the Sacraments, but only they who receive their Orders in the Episcopal Communion. This I shall endeavour to prove by these Degrees. 1. That the Authority of Administering the Sacraments must be derived from God; 2. That though it be derived from him, yet it is not so derived without the mediation of those men to whom it was at first committed; 3. That it cannot be so derived from those men to whom it was at first committed without a continued Succession of Persons orderly receiving Authority from those who had Authority to give it them from those first times of the Apostles to ours at present. 4. That this Authority is to be expected no where now, but in the Episcopal Communion.  
§ TWO 1. THE Authority of administering the Sacraments must be derived from God. I do not only mean that it must be derived from God as all other things as well as Authorities, are derived from him, who is not only the Supreme Prince, but the first Cause of all things. Nor do I mean only that it must be from God the same way as all other, even Secular Authority must be derived from him, at least Providentially, though the Power of Government were originally never so much at the disposal of the Persons to be governed. For whatever the Creature has originally the disposal of, it must be supposed at first derived from God. But yet, in a way of Providence God does also frequently dispose of Governments, which had been otherwise in the Creatures liberty to dispose of, as in those rights which are gotten by just Conquest and Prescription, where the rights of Government are certainly disposed of by Providence without any possible pretence of consent in the Persons obliged to submit to it. For the right of the Creature, wherever it has any, is not to be understood so as to derogate from the right of God to dispose of them as he pleases, whatever right they have, as it must necessarily be derived from him, if it be indeed any right at all; so that derivation does not rob him of any of that which he had before. It is to be understood, not Privatively, as they say, but Accumulatively. My meaning therefore is, that this Power of administering the Sacraments must be so derived from God, not as to exclude the mediation of such men who have received it in a Succession from him, but so as to exclude all right originally derived from the Creature, as far as the Creature is capable of such a right originally in contradistinction to God. That is, that no men have a right to Government in Ecclesiastical affairs but by a particular donation from God, not by virtue of that general right which God has given every one, by his general Providence, to take care of himself, and which therefore every individual Person may for himself, and much more whole Multitudes may, by common consent commit to others.  
§ III THE consequent whereof will be, that all Ordinations, and all Administrations of the Sacraments, derived from any Multitudes or Persons on account of their general right of governing themselves, without an express donation from God, are not only irregular, but invalid, and such as can neither, in Conscience, oblige any Subjects to submit to them, nor encourage any, who are otherwise willing to submit, to expect any benefit from them. And my design in proving this Proposition, is, particularly to oppose, not the Independents only, but those others also, who, by the badness of their Cause, have been forced upon their Principles, and do assert a power in the mutinous Communality to legitimate the Calling of those Pastors which they have been pleased to set up for themselves, in opposition to their original Superiors, on what account soever they assert it to them, besides this of an express donation, (which I do not know that any yet have pretended to) whether in regard of that intrinsic right every one is supposed to have for his own Government in Spirituals, where he is not expressly imposed on by positive Provisions, though withal he have not that intrinsic right either confirmed or enlarged by any such Provisions; or in regard of their Election, according to them who conceive the Elect only capable of constituting a Church, and that according to the popular Notion of that word of Election.  
§ IV I AM sensible how needless my present undertaking is for proving the first Dividers of the several Parties to have been guilty of Schism. For if any other form of Government be lawful in the Church besides Democracy, that is, indeed, if it be in the Power of the Multitude to alienate their own Power by their own Act (and if they cannot, it is impossible that the Supreme Government can be any other than Democratical) certainly the first dividers could have no pretence for legitimating their proceed by any consent of the Multitude. For the Multitude themselves had then done all they could do to divest themselves of this right, if originally they had any. They lived in a Peaceable Subjection to their Governors; they challenged no Authority over them; they had reserved no Power to themselves to meet together in any Assemblies that might be capable of exercising an external Jurisdiction, and without this it is impossible to understand any limitation in their granted Submission. As therefore in civil Government, where there is greater probability for ascribing much to the Multitude in regard of their original dominion over themselves, at least as to the first constitution of it; yet where the Multitude have given this power out of their own hands, whether to a Person, or a Body, they may certainly, as well as others, be obliged to stand to their compacts, when they have once made them, though they were not at first obliged to make them. And if so, it will not only be a Usurpation for themselves to resume those rights which they are thus supposed to have disposed of, but will also cause a Nullity in what is done by them pursuant to that Usurpation; and much rather it must have the same effects in them who challenge these rights only in the name of the Multitude.  
§ V BUT than it is to be observed that in Seculars, and where this original right of the People may be more plausibly pretended, that which originally was no right; nay, is still confessed to have been none, may yet in process of time become one, on account of that Prescription, which by the Law of Nations and their common interest (not to mention the tacit consent of the Parties concerned, which usually accompanies Prescription) ought to be allowed a Power to determine differences, and especially concerning the Supreme Power, which must otherwise become undeterminable, because they are uncapable of a competent Judge that may determine them. On which Principles, though the first Dividers had been guilty of Schism, yet it might have been possible that their present Successors might have been innocent of it, supposing that their Prescription had been such as had been requisite by that Law which gives a Legal force to Prescription, that is, that it had been long enough, and peaceable, that is, particularly with regard to those who were concerned in the injury which was done at the first Division, that is, that the Bishops had given some Argument, if not of their approbation, yet at least of their consent. Though I cannot but withal warn that I do not know how to clear our dissenting brethren's practices from the charge of Schism, even by this Topick of Prescription itself. For among us they never yet had that peaceableness of possession which might amount to a Legal Prescription. The Bishops whose Authority they at first invaded have ever since asserted their own Authority against them, and, have continued their claim to the same Jurisdiction of which they found them at first possessed. The Independents in America can only excuse themselves from any injury done to Governors, in regard of the Jurisdiction of the place they live in. But they themselves, though they were, on these Principles, allowed a right to erect themselves into a Body Politic, could not yet be excused for breaking off their correspondence with Episcopal Jurisdictions. But this will concern Schism in another Notion from that of which I am at present discoursing.  
§ VI BUT if it should prove true, that the Authority of administering the Sacraments must be derived from God, this will exclude all pretence of Prescription in this Case. By the Rules of all Politics there lies no Prescription in favour of the Subject against the Supreme Government; and though by the Law of Nations there may be Prescription for deciding the rights of several Independent Polities, in regard of each other; yet in reference to God they are all Subjects, and so can never prescribe against his right, by those Rules of equity which are the foundations of all Ecclesiastical Society. These inferior rights are to be measured by the public interest; and it may be presumed to be the mind of God that lesser interests give way to greater, whence it will follow that it is very fit and just, that the interests of Subjects give way to the interest of Governors, and that the interests of particular Governors give way to the common interests of mankind. It is fit that particular Governors, though absolute and independent, should rather lose their real right than that mankind should perpetually be disturbed, and the right of all Government exposed to perpetual uncertainties, which must needs follow, if Prescription may not be allowed a just right for determining differences of this nature. Nay, this is so very just and reasonable, as that it is generally more for the interest than the prejudice even of those who suffer by it, and therefore must in reason be acknowledged, even by themselves, for the most equal Rule of proceeding with Powers of an equal order. Even they themselves would lose more by the weakening of their title to all the Authorities and Jurisdictions possessed by them, if Prescription were not sufficient to legitimate a title, otherwise not only bad, but known to be so, than they could reap advantage by their gains from others who can plead Prescription against them. Without this, very few, if any, titles could be thought secure. And how great and perpetual a dissatisfaction must this be to the Possessors of any titles, if they could never be secure of the right of their possessions?  
§ VII BUT none of all these reasons do hold in the deciding a divine title. There can be no reason of public interest so weighty as to make it fit that God should suffer the loss of any known right for it. At least there can none appear so to us as that we can have reason to conclude that it is his will that his own interest should give way to it, where he has not revealed it to be his pleasure to yield his interest to it. And it cannot be right unless it be agreeable to the Divine will, nor can we know it to be right, unless we know it to be so agreeable. Nor does he receive such advantages by this Rule of Prescription as might, in any reason or equity, oblige him to submit to the inconveniences of it. Neither his title, nor its evidence to us, receives a right or confirmation from Prescription; but as soon as we know any thing to be his right, we cannot think it capable of being infringed by any whatsoever practices of his Creatures to the contrary. Nor does he stand in any such need of any external assistance for the recovery of any of his rights, as might oblige him to submit to any common Rules which might in any Case prove prejudicial to any of his rights, in order to the procuring that Assistance.  
§ VIII AND as, on these accounts there can be no reason obliging him to wave any right on any pretence of Prescription whatsoever; so, in the reason of the thing; we cannot conceive how any Creature can gain a right in process of time which was not good at first, especially where there is no reason to ascribe any virtue to these implicit compacts for the security of the common interest which may convey a right. Nor can we conceive, in this case, how that which was once the right of God can cease to be so without a deed of Gift. So that if this be proved, that this right of administering the Sacraments is originally Gods right, and that they who first made the Separation invaded it without any Authority derived from God to administer them, this will prove a Nullity, not only in the Acts of the first Dividers, but in all the Orders and Ordinances which have been since derived from them, and on which all their pretensions to the name and privileges of a Church must be founded, if they have any solid foundation at all.  
§ IX AND that this is so, that all Authority of administering the Sacraments must be derived from God, and from him alone, in opposition to all origination from Men, as I have now explained it; I shall endeavour to prove both from the reason of the thing, and from the actual institution of God. 1. From the reason of the thing. To this purpose it is to be remembered that the great end of instituting the Sacraments being the conveyance of the Spiritual benefits designed by the Sacraments, this is the difference between Sacraments administered with Authority and those which are not so administered, that by this administration of them with Authority these benefits are conveyed which cannot be expected where they are administered without Authority. And therefore he only has the power of giving this Authority who has the power of ratifying what is done in his name by Persons so Authorized by him, that is, who has the original Right of disposing of the benefits so conveyed. But it is God alone who has the right of disposing of these Spiritual benefits conveyed in the Sacrament, and no Creature can pretend to it by any of those rights with which God has invested it by his general Rules of Providence antecedently to actual Revelation. And this as to both regards, both as to the right, and as to the possession of the benefits here conveyed. If the Multitude can neither dispose of the right of these benefits, nor without the right, put the Person, to whom they would pretend to give right, in possession of them; then certainly they can have no pretence of a power of ratifying what should be done by Persons Authorized by them, nor consequently can they have any power of giving them any lawful Authority which is perfectly unintelligible without a lawful power of ratification. And that no creature has any right to dispose of either of these things, and that God alone has the power to dispose of them, will easily appear in discussing the particulars, which because I have had occasion to touch formerly, I hope I may be allowed to dispatch at present with the greater brevity, and the rather because I conceive them so clear as that I do not foresee any thing considerable that our Adversaries themselves can object against them, when they shall be pleased throughly to consider what may be said against them on this Argument.  
§ X 1. THAN it is God alone, not any Creature, that has the right of disposing of the Spiritual benefits here conveyed. It is be alone that can forgive sins, or regenerate, or give the Holy Spirit, or apply the Mystical benefits of Christ's death and passion. He alone can unite us to Christ, and it is his judgement of us, as one Body and Spirit with Christ, which entitles us to all the consequential benefits of that Union. These are the essential designs of the Sacraments, without which they would be very little significant, and to these the Multitude cannot lay any plausible claim. And if our Brethren would but be as well pleased to consider the Ministers as conveyors of these benefits to men, as they are pleased to consider them as they are representatives of men, whose Petitions are by them offered to God; certainly they could not think it in their power, in regard of any natural inherent right, to make promises of things which are not in their power, or to empower representatives to act in their name in making such promises. And if they would but consider the nature of a Covenant, and the Ministers as common representatives of both parties of this Covenant of God in some things, as well as of the people in others; though they might think themselves at liberty to name their own representatives, yet they could not but think it presumptuous to assume a right of imposing representatives on God, beside the Rules of his own appointment. They could not, in reason, think God obliged to ratify such presumptuous proceed.  
§ XI AND it is very considerable to this purpose, that, according to those Notions which prevailed among the Jews, who had always been brought up under a Theocracy, the right of Government was thought grounded on the Spirit of Government. Thus the seventy Elders derived Moses Authority by their partaking of his Spirit. So Joshua, Saul and David were the same way inaugurated by the Spirit of God which came upon them. This was the thing intended to be signified by their material Unction, the conveyance of this Spirit of Government as the Mystical Unction. 
Psal. xlv. 7 Luk. iv. 18.  Accordingly whereunto the Spirit alone without material Oil is called Oil. And the very power of Christ is derived from his being Mystically anointed with the Holy Ghost. Which is by so much the more to be expected under the state of the Gospel, because the power itself is purely Spiritual, and in relation to the other World. And accordingly when our Saviour empowered his Apostles▪ it was by breathing on them, and giving them the Holy Ghost. 
Joh. xx. 22. Act. viij. 18.  And as the Apostles gave the Holy Ghost by the imposition of their hands, so it was by that Ceremony that they conveyed the Ecclesiastical power. 
2 Tim. i 6.  And though the extraordinary manifestations that then accompanied this gift have long since ceased, yet the reason of the gift itself does still continue. Still the administration of the Government of Christ is performed by his Spirit. Still our participation of Christ is by partaking of his Spirit, and if his Authority was derived from his Unction, than they who would partake of his Authority must partake of his Unction too. And still the presence of the Spirit is as necessary to support the burden of Government as ever. And therefore the Multitude can have no inherent right to dispose of the Government, because they have none to dispose of the Spirit on which that right is grounded.  
§ XII AND if they would withal consider that the most essential parts of the Office of the Ministry depends on their being representatives of God rather than on their being representatives of the People; that this is it that gives Authority to their Preaching, that it is the word of God which is preached by them, and that they are appointed by God himself to preach that word; that this is it which obliges God to perform what they promise in his name; that they are Authorized to make those Promises, and to make them in his name; that this is it which may encourage them to expect those excitations and assistances which accompany the Preaching of the word, when it is preached by a lawful Authority; that the validity of all they do as Ministers, and as Governors of a Body Politic depends on this, that they are Authorized by him who has made the Church a Body Politic, and endowed it with privileges; that the acceptableness even of their public solemn Prayers in the name of the Multitude, does not so much depend on their being appointed by the Multitude to be their representatives, as on their being made by God masters of requests, and as the Persons whom he has declared himself pleased particularly to accept: If, I say, they had considered these things, certainly they could not have thought themselves to have a right of disposing of the office of the Ministry, for their interest in things belonging to that office which are of smaller importance, when their interest does so evidently fail in matters of the greatest consequence, and which are withal so essential to the office. They could not think that because they can easily choose a Person to Preach, and Pray, and administer Sacraments for them, therefore they could also give them that which might give them Authority for Preaching, or make their Prayers acceptable, or confer a valid title to the benefits expected by the Sacrament.  
§ XIII BUT the reason of their mistakes in these and the like particulars is very plain. They have called in question all those benefits which depend on the Divine appointment. And when they have thus left them nothing but what they may do, though they had no other Authority than what men are able give them, it cannot be thought strange that they should think their proceed valid, though ratified only by a Humane Authority. Certainly men may Preach and Pray as movingly, as to all natural Arts of insinuation, they may express themselves as fluently and properly, and pronounce as pathetically by their natural endowments without a Divine Authority, as others can with a Divine Authority, if they want those natural endowments. And they may administer the Sacraments with a solemnity as affecting, and the Sacraments so administered by them may as naturally resemble the things which they were designed to signify; and all the Devotion which may naturally be derived either from the warmth or fluency of speaking, or the gravity of the administration, or the natural representation of the Mysteries commemorated in the Sacraments; and all the Grace which may be expected by Persons so devoutly disposed, as we may suppose the Persons to be, of whom we are now speaking, and especially which may be expected by them, on our Adversaries Principles, if the Grace be given either as a natural improvement of those Acts of Devotion, on the same natural account as other Acts do naturally either produce or confirm habitual inclinations to the like Acts, or purely as rewards in point of generosity, without any regard to a promise, or a Covenant, or a ratification of Persons Authorized, or any thing that might oblige God in a Legal way. All these benefits, I say, of these Ministeries may equally be expected from Persons who have no Divine Authority as from those who have. And therefore it cannot be admired that Persons, who allow no further benefits of their Ministry should think a Humane Authority for the designation of their Persons sufficient for all the effects of their Ministry. But if they had but thought how the whole real benefit of their Ministry does depend on the lawfulness of their Call to it, and upon the lawfulness of their Call from none other but God himself; they must needs have been prompted to another judgement in this matter pursuant to these measures.  
§ XIV BUT as none but God can confer the right to the Spiritual benefits here received, so neither, 2. Can any but he put any in possession of them. I shall not now repeat what I have said elsewhere concerning this. I only observe it at present, to show that all that men can do in this matter can have no effect that can possibly entitle their actings to the name of Authority, when they can neither give the title nor the possession of the benefits conveyed by these Ordinances. And though they could have enjoyed possession for a while, yet, alas! what could that signify for their comfort, when they know that righteous judgement will at length prevail? And then their past enjoyments will be so far from being reckoned to their advantage, as that the Usurpation of them for a time will be an aggravation of their guilt. Their very enjoyment of the Elements themselves will then prove a great mischief, if they have enjoyed them sacrilegiously, though such an enjoyment was never capable of affording any solid advantage. All that I would therefore infer at present is, that all the Authority which any Creature can pretend to, in a matter of this nature, must be derived from God, and derived from him by a positive and express donation, or by that contrivance of things under the state of the Gospel which he has been pleased actually to observe. Which will oblige all who are desirous to inform themselves solidly herein, rather to inquire into the establishments of God than to trust their own conjectural reasonings concerning them antecedently to Revelation, what they think fit to have been observed by him, and what they think themselves would have done, if they had had the management of his design.  
§ XV 2. Therefore I proceed to consider the actual establishment of God, to show, that as the Multitude cannot challenge this right of administering the Sacraments by any Original inherent right, so neither can they by any actual donation. And this is so plain as that our Adversaries themselves do not, that I know of, pretend to any Text where any such a gift is expressly mentioned. How will they therefore pretend otherwise to know God's mind in such a thing as this is, which so entirely depends on his arbitrary pleasure? Will they plead primitive precedent for it? But we never find our Saviour pleading any Authority, though strictly examined by the Jews concerning his Authority, besides that of his Father. 
Joh. xx. 21.  And as his Father sent him so he sent his Apostles, who are always described as Persons sent by God himself, not by any Humane Authority. So they are said neither to have been of men nor by men. 
Gal. i 1. Eph. iv. 11. 2 Cor. v. 20.  They are reckoned among the gifts of Christ upon his ascending up on high. They are called Ambassadors for God and in Christ's stead. And it has always been reckoned among the Prerogatives of Majesty to have the sending of his own Ambassadors. Nay, it was counted so peculiar a property of an Apostle to be sent by God himself, as that St. Paul insists on it as an Argument to vindicate his own Apostleship against the false Apostles who quarrelled at it, 
Gal. i 11, 12. 1 Cor. ix. 1.  that he had received nothing from the other Apostles themselves, and that himself had seen our Lord, that he might receive his Authority from him. Thus far therefore there appears no Precedent of any Authority either received from the Multitude, or given to the Multitude by Christ himself, who as yet alone had power to give it.  
§ XVI NOR do I think that our Adversaries themselves will pretend that the Apostles received their Authority from the People. Yet so unwary they are in their arguing for the Authority of the People, as that they produce such Proofs as must conclude this, if any thing. If the People's Expostulation with St. Peter concerning his baptising of Cornelius, had been an Act of proper Jurisdiction, it must have been an exercise of Jurisdiction over St. Peter himself. And if so, they must in reason be supposed to have had some power of punishing him, either by deposing him from his office, or by suspending him from the exercise of it, or at least by Authoritative withdrawing from him, yet so as still to continue in the same good condition wherein they were before, which can hardly be understood without a weakening of his Apostolical office. For no proper Jurisdiction can be understood without a proportionably proper power of inflicting punishment in case of misdemeanour. And if they will not own this, that the People had a Power over the Apostles, they must at least let go all their proofs which prove this, if they prove any thing: Which will extremely straighten them in their pretended Scripture Precedents. For wherever they find the People doing any thing without the Apostles, (which is the only Case wherein they could show the proper extent of their own Authority) they will find the Apostles themselves concerned, which must therefore oblige them to understand such actings not to have been by way of Jurisdiction, but of Expostulation.  
§ XVII WHEN was it therefore that this Authority was given to the Multitude? By whom was it given to them, who had a just Power of giving it them? Was it afterwards given them by the Apostles, who had hitherto held it independently of them? If so, it were well our Brethren would remember to insist only on such Proofs as are later than the date wherein they think it was given them, and on such Proofs which speak more home to their design than those which are ancienter than those times wherein themselves conceive this conveyance to have been made, and which they must therefore acknowledge unconclusive. But so far were the Apostles from giving away that Power to the Multitude which they had never received from them, as that we find generally the Ordinations mentioned in the Scriptures performed either by themselves, or by Persons Authorized as themselves were, either by God himself, or by them, not by the People. 
Tit. i. 5. Act. xiv. 23. Act. vi.  They ordained Elders in every City. By them the order of Deacons was instituted, and the Persons promoted to the Order. They visited whole Countries, and settled and confirmed the Churches; they constituted what Officers, and gave them what degrees, and prescribed what Rules of Government they pleased, according to their own Prudence, and the suggestions of the Holy Ghost, without consulting the Authority of any others, which they could not have done, if they had either acknowledged any self originated Power in the People, or immediately given them that power which themselves had received immediately from God. It cannot possibly be understood how the Rules of a Democratical Government could ever have permitted them to act so arbitrarily, as it is plain they did in those first beginnings of Christianity.  
§ XVIII THERE were indeed many prudent reasons proper for those times, which might prevail with the Apostles to desire the People's consent in the administration of their Government, though the obliging validity of what was done had not depended on their Authority. The Church was then a Body linked together only by an awe of Conscience, not by any other external coercion. And though now, that the truth of Christianity, and the Authority of the Apostles, are sufficiently confirmed, all are obliged to submit to the Rules prescribed by them, as they would secure their happiness, (which will not leave them to that Liberty, nor consequently entitle them to that right in the Government before they submit to it, as our Brethren fancy) yet before this conviction had prevailed on the minds of men it could not have been prudent for them to exercise the utmost extent of that Authority which did really belong to them. Our Adversaries themselves will at least acknowledge the Apostles to have been infallible, whence it will follow that their word alone ought to have been taken in Controversies then started, at least where there appeared not evident reason to the contrary. But we plainly find, that even themselves durst not venture their Authority on so hard a trial. Even in probable things we do not find that they required their Auditors assent without such reasons as the matter would afford, that is, at least, without probable ones. And generally we find them so laying the stress of their persuasion on those reasons, as if their Authority had been no reason at all. Therefore in the Controversy concerning Circumcision, Act. xv. the Elders and the Multitude convened together with the Apostles to give their judgement concerning it, and that in a Case which was to be decided by the Holy Ghost. But what need had there been of all that trouble, if the Apostles Authority alone had been sufficient for this decision? The Holy Ghost spoke by the Apostles alone. And could the whole Synod, after all their diligence in enquiring and debating the Truth in that matter, pretend to any greater Authority? Was it likely that the ordinary Presbyters, much more that the Laity themselves, should have had any thing revealed to them which had been concealed from the very Apostles? But we find the whole matter debated by reasons and rational applications of the Mystical sense of the Old Testament, as if no new revelation had been pretended.  
§ XIX THE like might have been observed from the debates with St. Peter concerning his Preaching to Cornelius, and with St. Paul concerning his Preaching against the obligation of the Ceremonial Law. The lawfulness of Preaching to the Gentiles, and of forbearing the externals of the Law were both of them points of Doctrine. And must we therefore conclude that the Apostles had no just Authority to oblige them to believe particular Doctrines on account of the Revelation made to themselves, because they were contradicted in such Doctrines, when contrary to the present sense of those to whom they were proposed, and because they were pleased to condescend to give an account of themselves and their Doctrines upon such contradiction? Nay, their Master himself was very wary in proposing any thing, not only to the promiscuous Multitude, but even to themselves, that might seem harsh and unlikely to them, till they were first throughly possessed with a Reverence for the Authority, and till that might pass with them for a stronger Argument for their belief than all their seeming unlikelihoods for disbelieving them. Therefore he also was pleased to condescend to a rational defence of his Paradoxes. Yet none will therefore think it rational to infer that he had not▪ even then, a sufficient Authority to oblige them to believe what he said without particular reasonings; nay, none can therefore think that he had not, even then, given sufficient conviction of the Justice of his claim to such an Authority by the many Miracles he had done before them.  
§ XX AND if in that first Age the Apostles were so wary of engaging their Authority, even for the belief of Doctrines; why should we think it strange that they should have been yet more wary of engaging it for matters of Government? Why should we think it strange, that they should in these things also condescend to reason the Case with dissenters, and use all the rational inducements that might prevail with them to perform willingly the things required from them, though, as to the reason of things, they had been as little obliged to it as they were to give an account of their Doctrines, or to stand to their judgements concerning those reasons, when their own Authority so evidenced was a much stronger reason than any of them all? especially considering that their Authority for Doctrines was indeed the only true and solid foundation for their Authority in Government. If the Religion should not prove true, (and it could not be true, if when it wholly derived its credit from Revelations made to the Apostles, those same Apostles might have been convinced of a mistake in any one particular by them pretended to be a Revelation) all the pretences of Salvation to be obtained by joining themselves to that Society, and all claim to Authority over any Member of this Society, in order to his being a Member of it, being grounded on the advantages men may hope for by becoming Members of such a Society, must fail together with it. Besides that the Administration of Government was of much less consequence, in those first times when there were but few to be governed, than the general interest of Religion. And when Converts were very good and sincere, and ready of themselves to perform their Duty as soon as they might understand that it was their Duty, there was much less need of coercive Acts of Government than afterwards. And yet without coercion it is not so easy to distinguish the true right of Government from the condescensions of good and prudent Governors.  
§ XXI BESIDES there were other reasons proper to that Age very powerful to incline them to a condescension from their just rights. It was some considerable time before the Christians made an open secession from the Jewish Synagogues, of which they had been formerly Members. I do not know whether they did it at all till they were forced to it, either by the Jewish Excommunications, or till the Jews by their obstinate refusal of the Gospel were thought to deprive themselves of their pretensions to the Mystical Israel. It does not appear that they set up any distinct Government in the places converted by them, till St. Paul began it, after the Jews had behaved themselves very perversely at Antioch of Pisidia. There it was that he first used that fatal Ceremony of rejecting them, 
Act. xiii. 51.  by casting off the dust of his feet against them, and pronounced that fatal sentence against them, Lo, we turn unto the Gentiles. Till than they generally assembled in the same Synagogues, they observed the same Festivals, 
Verse 46.  and kept close to the same Legal Ceremonies, and walked orderly in all things according to the Customs received from the Fathers, as St. James expresses it. But after this we read of their ordaining Elders in every City. And the reason of the thing seems to have required it. For we plainly find that the carnal Israel were understood to have had the first title to the Privileges of the Mystical Israel, till they had forfeited their title, and God was pleased to take the advantage of the forfeiture by pronouncing the Sentence against them. And while this was so, the ordinary Government of the Church was permitted to the Jewish Synagogues, and their Rulers of them; and the Apostles exercised no other distinct Authority than what was allowed to Prophets by the Rules of the Synagogue itself, and what was absolutely necessary for maintaining themselves independently on them, if the Principles possessed by them should cause an actual breach. So that this whole time was a state of constant Prudential condescension. And yet certainly none can conclude that no more Power did, of right, belong to them, than what was, in Prudence, fit to be exercised by them in this condition. None can think that the Commission of Christ, by which he sent them in as ample a form as himself had been sent in by the Father, extended no farther than to such things as were fit to be performed by them, supposing that they were willing to condescend in these circumstances.  
§ XXII ANOTHER reason of condescending was the multitude of supernatural gifts wherewith that Age abounded, and the extraordinary course that was then observed by the Spirit in dispensing them. They were not only given to Persons Authorized upon their call to Authority, but were generally granted to new and zealous Converts upon their Baptism. They were also such as were given them, not so much for the sakes of the Persons who had them, as for the edification which the Church might be capable of receiving by them; so that their very receiving them was an interpretative Call to use them, and that in their public Synaxes, and was thought to be so by the Persons who had received them; and both they themselves and others, who were convinced that they really had them, were externally fearful of the guilt of resisting, and much more of quenching that Spirit which was the Author of them, (and they thought they should contract this guilt by endeavouring to suppress them,) which I have shown that that Age took for a guilt of the highest nature. It is very well known how great a Liberty was indulged by the Jews to true Prophets. That extraordinary Call was thought sufficient to excuse them, not only from the provisional constitutions of the standing Government, (especially where they confirmed their Mission by signs, as these generally did,) but also from most of the commands of the Law itself. I do not know whether any command was excepted, save that of Idolatry, and the perpetual obligation of their Law, and every precept of it. Otherwise a Prophet might require the breach of any one precept, that of Idolatry excepted, so it were but for a time; and this seems to have been the sense of the Jews of that Age, if we may trust the modern Jews for the sense of their Ancestors. 
Maimonid. Fund. Leg. c. 9  And I need not warn how much the new Converts to Christianity were then generally possessed with the Notions of the Jews whom they had deserted.  
§ XXIII ACCORDINGLY we find those strange disorders intimated in the first Epistle to the Corinthians▪ which the Apostles were at length necessitated to reform by the exercise of Government; but it was late before they attempted it, not till the disorders grew intolerable, and then they proceeded by slow degrees, so hard it was to prevail on the contrary pretensions. When St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians was written, many of the Prophets spoke at the same time, as it should seem the Apostles and their companions did on the day of Pentecost, the Women also prophesied, and that publicly in the Church, and they who had the gift of Tongues, exercised it in the public also, without Interpeters, and behaved themselves so extravagantly, as that the Apostle himself tells them that an unbeliever coming among them would think them all mad. These notorious and great disorders in their Synaxes make me apt to think that, at that time at least, they had no visible Government at all among them. Which conjecture seems, methinks, the more likely because the Apostle in the address of this Epistle takes no notice of the Bishops and Deacons, as he does elsewhere, where there were any, and as it was the general custom of those times in writing to Bodies to make their address particularly to the heads of the Bodies, where there were such; and because he blames the Corinthians for not mourning that the incestuous Person might be taken from among them, which they needed not to have done, if themselves had power of exercising Discipline upon him; and because he expressly empowers them to meet together with his Spirit, both for the Excommunication and Absolution of the incestuous Corinthian, and ratifies their proceed in that matter with his own approbation, that to whomsoever they forgave any thing he forgave it also.  
§ XXIV AND therefore when the celebration of the Eucharist is mentioned among them, I am to suspect that it was not performed by ordinary Presbyters, but by Persons extraordinarily inspired, who undertook that part of the Ecclesiastical Office, as they did others also, by virtue of this extraordinary Call. This I take to be the meaning of the Apostle in the xiuth. Chapter. 
1 Cor. xiv. 16.  Otherwise when thou blessest with the Spirit, how shall he that supplieth the place of the unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks? 
Apol. 2. Matt. xxv●. 26. Mark xiv. 22. Luk. xxii. 19. 1 Cor. xi. 24. Matt. xxvi. 27. Mark xiv. 23. 1 Cor. x. 16.  The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was in Justin Martyrs time a term of Art for this Sacrament; and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or blessing, is used Synonymously with it. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in St. Matthew and St. Mark, is the same with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in St. Luke and St. Paul; and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in St. Matthew and St. Mark is expressed by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in St. Paul. And in Justins' time Amen was answered in that Office by the People, just as we here find that it was answered by him that supplied the place of the unlearned. And by the expectation of this answer of the People to it, and by the other offices with which it was joined, it seems rather to have been a part of the Ecclesiastical office, than otherwise. If it had not been part of the Ecclesiastical Office, how had the unlearned been obliged to say Amen to it? How had he been obliged to use an Interpreter in it for the edification of the Church? For that the Apostle seems plainly to mean in that whole Chapter by doing any thing in the Spirit, the doing the same thing in an unknown tongue, which they who were supposed to do it without the Spirit did in a tongue commonly understood. Thus it is most accurately opposed to the doing a thing with understanding.  
§ XXV NOR did this reason hold only for hindering the exercise of Government, where there was no other settlement but these occasional extraordinary Dictates of the Spirit to uncertain Members, but even after the settlement of certain known Ecclesiastical Officers. It is certain that this same Church of Corinth had such Officers when St. Clement wrote his Epistle to them. And yet even then they, who were guilty of the Schism which occasioned his writing that Epistle, were encouraged to resist their Superiors by their pretensions to these gifts, and that notwithstanding the Apostle himself had so long before warned them of the obligation of such Persons themselves to submit to order, and the constitution of Officers among them had plainly enough signified his mind, that he intended them for Judges of those Rules which were requisite for order. At least this reason of condescension lasted so long, if not as these gifts lasted, yet till the Apostles Authority was generally received without control; and till the Apostles had declared their judgements expressly in this matter, that even these extraordinary gifts should be under the restraint of the ordinary Governors of the Church; and till this their declaration had reached the cognizance of the whole Church universally; and till men had withal some respite given them for wearing out gradually their preconceived opinions to the contrary, as we find that Rule of Prudence generally observed by the Apostles to allow them respite in such Cases. These reasons will, at least, concern those times of which the Scripture History gives us an account, and will therefore concern all the Text by them insisted on in those times.  
§ XXVI I HAVE the rather particularised all these reasons of condescension in those times, that our Brethren may understand the unreasonableness of the way they have hitherto insisted on for knowing the original extent of Ecclesiastical Authority. For if the Apostles were of themselves so careful to condescend to the weaknesses of their new Converts, if withal there were then so many reasonble inducements to persuade them to this condescension; it must then be reasonable to expect that their actual practice must have fallen short of their just right, and therefore that their way of arguing from the non-appearance of a precedent then, to deny a right now, is in itself extremely weak, though we had all the Records of that Age which we have lost, which would certainly have acquainted us with many precedents which have now miscarried for want of them. Especially considering withal that it is purely matter of fact which they here insist on, no express approbation of that power of the People, not the least conveyance of any power to them, but only such a convivance at it as we might very reasonably expect that the exigency of their affairs might have extorted from them without any direct approbation. This is most certainly the way to deprive Successors of all those branches of power the exercise whereof they then thought fit to forbear. And certainly it is not ingenuous to make condescension an Argument against right. Themselves do not think it equal to make St. Paul's precedent of serving the Corinthians without any contribution of theirs, 
1 Cor. ix. 12, 18.  nay, labouring with his hands for a livelihood, an argument against either his or his Successors titles to a competent maintenance. And what if the commands of those times may indeed give Rules to all succeeding generations? Does it therefore follow that their Histories must do so too? Were there no peculiar circumstances proper to that Age? no accommodations suited to those peculiar circumstances? no Prudential Provisions of the Apostles as Ecclesiastical Governors as well as Revelations by them as Apostles? Our Adversaries themselves, when they consider it, cannot be so mistaken as to think they were not. And why then should they make the very actions of that Age precedents for all succeeding one's in all variety of circumstances?  
§ XXVII THIS is indeed so far from being true as, that it has plainly appeared, that there were indeed circumstances extraordinary which might hinder the practice of Government in that Age, which yet because they were indeed extraordinary, and have long since failed, can be no Arguments against the right or the exercise of those same branches of Government in ours. Then Officers were sent extraordinarily from God without the Ministry or mediation of men, and together with their extraordinary Call had their extraordinary Credentials too. But now none are called immediately but by the Ministry of those who have derived their Call from God in a Succession. And sure they cannot think but that they, who have no other title to a Divine Call, but what they derive from men Authorized by God to call them, must needs be obliged to a more entire dependence on those Superiors from whom they receive their Call, than they who were never beholden to them for their Authority. And while some had really this extraordinary Call, more were at liberty to pretend to it, and could not easily or suddenly be discovered, all their Credentials not being of equal evidence, which doubtfulness alone must weaken the exercise of Authority. Then ordinary Superiors knew not but that their Prudential restraints might clash with Divine Inspiration. For the Spirit was free, as to choose what Persons he pleased for Prophets, so to reveal what he pleased to Persons chosen by him, and sometimes he revealed to one Prophet that which he concealed from another, 
1 Cor. xiv. 30.  though otherwise greater than him to whom he revealed it. And is there any reason to confine our present Superiors now, when there are either no pretences to these extraordinary Inspirations of their Subjects, or at least not plausible pretences to any extraordinary Credentials which might convince Superiors of the truth of their pretences to other things? Their extraordinary Calls than seem to have extended even to the Sacraments themselves, if that conjecture hold true which I now proposed concerning the state of the Corinthians, when St. Paul wrote his first Epistle to them. And if so, Superiors could have no curb over them, though they had thought fit to exercise their Authority upon them. But what is that to our modern Separatists, who can pretend no gifts and Personal qualifications that may be taken for so much as a Providential Call to administer the Sacraments, whatever they pretend for those other offices of Preaching and Prayer? If the Sacraments alone be exempted from these extraordinary pretences, this alone will be sufficient to oblige them to Subjection, by our Principles.  
§ XXVIII BUT though this Negative way of arguing be, upon all these accounts, extremely weak, yet the positive is very solid, that whatsoever Power was exercised by the Apostles or any other ordinary Governors empowered by them, and was challenged in any Case, that was certainly their rights, how rare soever the precedents were wherein they were pleased to exercise or challenge it. This is thought equal, even in humane right, where prescription itself is thought sufficient to make a right. One exercise of right is sufficient to confirm the right, and to overthrow the Legal force of a prescription. But how much more must it hold in Divine Right, wherein I have shown how little reason there is to ascribe any thing to Prescription? If they will allow any equal means for judging between right and condescension, I do not know any way more equal than this is, to judge of right by positive Rules, by the nature of the Government itself, and by avowed practices, and to conclude all practices soever that are different from these, how numerous soever, to be only connivances and condescensions. And certainly they will not deal more irrationally than disingenuously, if they will allow of no equal means to distinguish them, if they will needs make condescension an Argument against right.  
§ XXIX NOW though the reason of these condescensions was never any pretence of any right of Government to be derived from the People, whether on account of any original inherent right in them, or of any new conveyance to them from the Apostles; but purely on such accounts as might have been expected, though the right of this Government had been as absolutely derived from God, as I suppose it to have been, as absolutely as that Power they had of proposing new Revelations, and of obliging all to believe them on their own Authority, which none can think derived from any concession or compact of the People to be governed by them (for still this right of the People could neither have obliged Persons extraordinarily gifted to Subjection, nor the People themselves till they were satisfied of that Authority the Apostles had to oblige them) yet even these Persons were at length made subject to the Government of the Church as soon as ever the Authority of the Apostles was entirely acknowledged, and as soon as any certain provision was made for Government, and as soon as the inconveniences of this other state grew to be of that moment as to deserve a diversion of their thoughts from those other more important employments which at first took up their whole care.  
§ XXX AND that was certainly as soon as could in reason be expected. And it is observable, that as this Subjection of Persons extraordinarily inspired was a thing too great for any inherent right of the People, so it was plainly introduced by them whose right it was, without any ratification of the People that might signify any right they had in this matter by any positive gift. Immediately on writing that first Epistle to the Corinthians, the women that were Prophetesses were wholly forbidden the public use of their Talents in the Church, and obliged to a modesty of learning from their Husbands at home, notwithstanding their Divine Inspirations, and notwithstanding that these Inspirations were given them rather for the public than themselves. And even the men were obliged to order in their exercise of those Divine Gifts. And as soon as we certainly know that Government was settled in that very Church of Corinth; we find withal that it was to the ordinary Governors that those extraordinary Persons were obliged to be subject. That was their Case when St. Clement wrote his Epistle to them. 
Clem. Ep. 1. ad Corinth. §. i. 46. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in Clem. Alexan.] For the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is mentioned as one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. §. 48. §. 3, 4, 5, 6. §. 40. §. 42, 43, 44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. §. 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. §. 57  Those two or three Persons who had occasioned the Schism then mentioned, seem plainly to have been such as were puffed up on account of their extraordinary gifts. This seems to have occasioned that part of his Discourse against Emulation, and in favour of Humility, because those Persons taking themselves to equal their Superiors in gifts, seems to have been encouraged, on that account, to do what they did in disparagement of the Ecclesiastical Authority, and are therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ringleaders of Emulation. Yet even these he obliges to keep to their own station, as severely as the several ranks of the Clergy were obliged to do so in the time of the Law. Over these he asserts the rights of the then present Governors, and that from the very Argument I am now insisting on, of Succession, and in regard of the Divinity of the Institution. Nay, he plainly tells even these Persons themselves, that it were better for them to be small and of mean account in the flock of Christ, than by seeming considerable to be cut off from the hope, or fold, of Christ. So dangerous he thought it, even for such to be cast out of the Church, and out of the Communion of the ordinary Governors of it, how much milder soever the Notions are which our modern Brethren have entertained concerning it.  
§ XXXI BUT I shall hereafter have a fit occasion in my Second Part to consider the Notion of Schism alluded to in this Epistle. All that I shall further observe out of it at present, is, that the Apostles, not the People, took care of settling a Rule for preserving Succession, 
§. 44.  a sign that the Apostles never gave the Power out of their hands, at least, not so far as to deprive themselves of it. The same might also have been proved from those Catalogues of Bishops in the Apostolical Sees, which the Ancients insist on in their first Disputes against Heretics, and which, as it was a matter as notorious, so is attested to us by the same Authority on whose credit we receive the Canon of the New Testament itself, and attested with as much confidence as that Canon itself. Yet this Argument would lose much of its force for proving that the then present Successors of the Apostles must have taught the same Doctrine with the Apostles, if the People's interest in the Government had been then so considerable as that it had been in their Power to have obtruded a Succession different from the sentiments of his Predecessors. And though the reasons now given to show that the Authority itself did exceed all inherent right of the People, yet still the prudential reasons might hold, that they should not have any particular Person obtruded on them without their own consent. Which as it will not suffice to justify any orders or Sacraments derived only from the People; so I am confident that it is the uttermost that can be pretended from these Primitive Ages.  
§ XXXII NOR was this agreeable only to the nature of the Power here conveyed that it should be conveyed by these Divinely Authorized Persons who alone had power to convey it, but also to the precedent imitated herein. I have already observed that the assemblies of Christians were taken from the Schools, and that succession was the same way pleaded in the School and Chair of Christ, as it was usually made use of for maintaining the Schools of the Masters and Doctrines where they had settlements. We know the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Platonists at Athens were continued till later Ages, and we have Catalogues of the severa● Masters which supplied that Chair like those of the Primitive Bishops from the Apostles. And as the deserting these, and setting up new Schools in opposition to them, was the introducing new Heresies among the Philosophers, from whom that term was taken; so to desert Apostolical Chairs, and to follow new ones, was the same thing among the Christians who derived that term from them. Now among the Philosophers the empowering of Successors was either performed by the Predecessors, or at least by the Scholars of their own rank, not by the promiscuous Multitude. And there was other reason why it should be so, besides the nature of the Power conveyed to them. For when they contrived their Philosophy by way of Mystery, their Acroamaticks, the Mysterious part of it, were committed only to these Superior Scholars of the greatest proficiency. And therefore their Master himself and their Symmystae must needs have been taken for the most competent Judges of their ability to succeed them, who they were that understood them best, and who were most likely to prove faithful in the trust committed to them. For the terms of 
a St. Luk. i. 2. Jud. 3.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 
b 1 Tim. vi. 20. 2 Tim. i 14.  〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in deriving the succession of the Christian Doctrine seem to have been derived from the Philosophers as well as others.  
§ XXXIII AND if we may believe the modern Rabbins, the Judges of the Sanhedrim themselves were they who had the Power of admitting Successors. 
Vid. Selden. Not. in Eutych. & de Syn.  But these seem to have been Ecclesiastical Judges no otherwise than as the constitution of their Secular Government itself being Theocratical, it took in Ecclesiastical affairs as a principal ingredient in it. As for the administration of their Sacred Offices, the Succession was a thing certain, and confined to a certain Family, and all that men could do in the Case, was, not to choose any new one in, but, only to exclude those who were uncapable according to the qualifications prescribed by the Law. But whatever was done was either done by God himself, or the Supreme Civil Governors, both before and after the Captivity, I think never by the People, at least not near the Apostles times. And the customs of the Literal Israelites than were they which the Mystical Israelites, the Christians, generally followed, as far as they were suitable to the Mystical senses of the Old Testament, and their present circumstances.  
§ XXXIV AND it was really the Ambition of most of the established Religious then received, to have every particular Sacred performance done by a particular injunction of the God they worshipped. Therefore their gods signified by lots, or some such other way, the particular Person by whom they would be served on particular occasions, so far they were from leaving any thing to the disposal of the People. And if this were in any thing observed punctually, yet hardly in any thing more punctually than in Mysteries. 
Metam. xi.  Accordingly when Apuleius was desirous of being initiated in the Rites of Isis, though he were already a consecrated Person, and though the Hierophanta was his friend, yet he durst do nothing in it till the Goddess had signified her pleasure concerning it, whether she would be pleased to admit him at all, and at what time, and by what particular Hierophanta. For though her choice was out of Persons already consecrated to her service, yet no particular Person durst obtrude himself on the office without her particular appointment. Nay, they thought it as much as their Lives were worth to venture it, and were under as much terror for the least transgressions of this kind as they were who officiated in the Jewish ministrations. And can we think that a Power so sacred as this was could have been derived from the People? But in this matter of Mysteries the Case is most undoubted, that the giving of the Mysteries itself, and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the communication of the ritual Books which none but those Sacred Persons had in their custody, were parts of the Ceremonies of investing such Persons in their office. And therefore as none but they had the Power of these things, so none but they could have the Power of Authorising their Successors.  
§ XXXV AND as in the now-mentioned Rites of Isis, the Goddess alone had the nomination of the Person who was to perform her particular Solemnities, so among the Jews themselves, this was the way of determining the Person where it had not been determined by particular provisions. In that Case, the Priests cast lots for it, which was a way used in that Nation, for consulting God, not the People. Thus it was that Achan and Jonathan were discovered. 
Luk. i. 9.  And it was by lot that Zacharias was chosen out of the rest of the Priests of his Order of Abia to perform the Solemnities of his course. Now this seems to have been the most ancient way of empowering the Church Officers. Thus St. Mathias was chosen into the Apostleship in the room of Judas. And possibly this might be the meaning of that famous passage of Clemens Alexandrinus, 
Ex lib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  where giving an account of what St. John did for restoring the Churches of Asia after his return from his exile at Patmos, he tells us that he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as Valesius reads it. I suppose his meaning was, that St. John consulted God in the case, to know who should be entrusted with that that Sacred Office. Which consultation might be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, whether it were performed by lots or otherwise, as it is usual to signify a whole kind by an instance that is most eminent in it, and it is known that the way of consulting their gods by lots was then generally practised by most Nations that maintained any commerce with them. The reason that makes me think that this was at first the ordinary way of empowering Church Officers is the very name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being confined to them, and used ordinarily to signify the Office itself. Thus the Office of Judas is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Act. i. 17, 25.  not because it was given by the particular way of consulting God by lots, as certainly it was not in Judas' Case; but for this general reason now mentioned, at least because he was chosen by Divine appointment. And thus the Office seems to be called in Clement, as most certainly it was afterwards. And to this it very well agrees that St. Paul tells the ordinary Governors of the Asiatic Churches that the Holy Ghost had made them Bishops, and the Prophecies concerning St. Timothy, 
Act. xx. 28. 1 Tim. i 18.  and the trial by the Spirit, in the other St. Clement as well as the signification by they Sstirit in this.  
§ XXXVI AND possibly the several interests of the several sorts of Persons concerned in this business of Ordination might thus be accommodated according to the practice of those times. 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Corinth.  It was requisite, not for the Authority itself, but for the success of the exercise of it, that the Persons to be Authorized should have a good esteem among the Persons with whom they were to officiate. Whether deserved or undeserved, yet their actual having it is very considerable in order to their actual success. And therefore they were always careful that Persons chosen should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, such as should have creditable Testimonies of their good behaviour. Now of their public repute, who could, in prudence, be accepted for more competent witnesses than the Multitude? They were therefore allowed either to choose out the number of Persons to be Authorized, as the Apostles prescribed them the number of seven to be ordained Deacons, or else a greater number, out of which a new choice was to made, as in the Case of St. Mathias. Yet this good repute of the Persons was not the thing that could Authorise them alone. This plainly appears in both instances. In the institution of the Deacons the Apostles did not only prescribe the number to be chosen (which was plainly an act of Authority over the Multitude,) but even after the choice had been made they still reserve the Power of placing the Persons in the office to themselves. It was only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
Act. vi. 3.  that they might give them, not only the investiture, but, the Authority itself. But when a further Election was to be made, that was a plain Argument that the first Election was only to a Candidateship, not to the Office itself. And therefore if this Authority of the Multitude extended no further than to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it could not in reason be expounded to give the Authority itself. For after this nomination of the Multitude followed the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which in those extraordinary times (which continued beyond the Apostles times) was a consulting God himself in the Case, whether by the custom of lots 
a That of Mathias. , or by inspirations of the 
b That of St. Timothy.  Prophets which assisted in their Synaxes, or of the 
c Those of the choice ●f St. Gregory Thaumaturgus for Bishop of Neocaesarea by the Bishop who ordained him, and of the ordination of Alexander Carbonarius by the same Thaumaturgus. Greg. Nyssen. in vit. Thaum.  ordeiners themselves, or by some signs 
d As in the Case of Alexander chosen Bishop of Jerusalem. Euseb. Hist.  given before by God, or by some extraordinary appearances 
e As in the case of Fabian Bishop of Rome. Eus. Hist. , in the Persons elected. Yet even when this was done, this only determined the Persons, and the Ordeiners still remained Judges whether the indications were satisfactory, which was a power sufficient, even then, to oblige all such Persons to the most rigorous dependence on them. And accordingly when even they were satisfied, then, and not till then, they proceeded to Ordination, where that was prescribed as it seems to have been in all the Constitutions of ordinary Governors. And from their ordination all the validity of the exercise of their Authority began its date.  
§ XXXVII IF this be the true meaning of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of St. John after his return from Patmos, so long after St. Clement had written his Epistle where he tells us, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Clem. Ep. ad Corinth.  that the Apostles had before that taken care for maintaining their Succession; and if St. John did not deviate from the precedent of the other Apostles; and if this were the original of the appropriation of the name of Clerus to the sacred function, as we see very soon after it was appropriated: it will follow that it will also be most likely that this was the course prescribed by the Apostles for succession, when as yet we know that these Extraordinaries had not failed, and when withal we do not know whether the Apostles did know that they should ever fail. For God may undoubtedly conceal many Truths from many true Prophets, though he cannot be an Author of error to any of them. And though afterwards as the experience of these extraordinary manifestations, by degrees failed the Primitive Christians, they were at length necessitated to prudential means for continuing this Power; yet from this concession, that this was the state of Succession immediately appointed by the Apostles themselves, two things will follow very apposite to my purpose; One, that they thought the Ecclesiastical Power immediately proper to God himself, and far exceeding any inherent right of the People; the other, that as this Power did▪ not belong to the People by any original inherent right in them, so neither was it conveyed to them by any act of the Apostles in their life time, or by the course designed by them for the continuance of Succession.  
§ XXXVIII NOR is it likely that the Apostles would confer this right of Government on the People, if we suppose them left to their own liberty concerning it. We know the Eastern Nations generally, from whom the Doctrine of the Gospel came to us, were observed to be more addicted to Monarchy than any other form of Government. And though I know those Philosophical Sects, the Platonists and Pythagoraeans especially, were for Republican Principles, yet all the effect they seem to have had on those Eastern Nations, seems only to have been this, that they disliked the absoluteness, not the form of Government in a single Person. This, I think, was all that could have been meant by Josephus, when he makes Samuel averse to the motion of the Israelites for a King, on account of his dislike of Monarchy. For if by Monarchy he had understood the Government of a single Person under reasonable restraints, he could not be ignorant that Samuel himself was such a Monarch. But that which must, in all likelihood, have made the converts to the Christian Religion more favourable to Monarchy than to any other form of Government, must have been the great usefulness of this Topick of the excellency of Monarchy above other forms of Government against their common Gentile Adversaries. This was one of the principal Topics they insisted on against the Gentile Polytheism. 
Philo & Justin. Mart. the Monarch.  On this Subject they wrote entire Discourses. To this purpose they produce all the Testimonies of Philosophers and Poets, that speak in favour of Monarchy in general, whether with application to Divine things, or without it. To this purpose they urge Arguments taken from the convenience of this Government among Creatures; nay, even among men themselves. And is it probable that these same Persons should erect a new Government in Practice, so different from that which they had so much commended above it in their disputes? that they would for a matter of so small consequence to them as the particular form of Government, when without it they might still enjoy the benefit of Government under another form, overthrew the principal Argument for the most fundamental Principle of revealed Religion? that they would for it have exposed themselves to the just suspicions of disingenuity of practising so differently from their Principles? They must, in all likelihood, have been more inclinable to think that they meant as they saw them practise, than as they saw them argue. And though they had forgotten the advantage they had given their Adversaries by this way of proceeding, yet is it probable that their Adversaries would forget it too? Can they forget such an Argument for blasting the reputation of their Persons, when withal the disrepute of their Persons would go so far, as it might go then, for overthrowing the credit of the Religion preached by them? On all these accounts it is very unlikely that the Apostles did, by their settlement for Posterity, confer any new right of Government upon the People, besides that which was originally inherent in them.  
§ XXXIX BUT before I dismiss this Argument, it will not be amiss to make some remarks upon it, to let men see how far this alone may go for the satisfaction of Persons sincerely inquisitive for Truth and Peace. 1. Then, this way of arguing from the actual establishments of God, as it is much more modest, so it is also much more secure for finding out the right of Government than any conjectures we can make from the reason of the thing. It is certainly the most becoming course for a modest Christian in all things to acquiesce in God's Judgement, how great evidence soever there might seem for differing from it. And sure there is great reason to believe, that what the Apostles did in a matter of so great consequence for the security of the Christian Religion, as the settlement of Rules of Government to be observed for all posterity, they did by a direction more infallible than their humane Ecclesiastical Prudence. And there is the rather reason to ascribe much to their settlement in this Question, when it is truly stated. For I do not at present argue the obligingness of their settlement to us now, any farther than our circumstances are the same as those were which were foreseen at their settlement. If our circumstances be not the same, they might have been very prudent in their provisions for settlement, and yet we very imprudent in following their precedent in those provisions. All that I infer from their settlement, is only this, that it is no way likely that they did believe that the People had any such inherent right in the Ecclesiastical Government, as our Brethren conceive them to have, and which the reasons and Authorities produced by them in this Argument prove, if they prove any thing. For it is not likely that they would have deprived them of any thing which was their right, considering of how dangerous consequence it might have been to the progress of the Gospel itself for them to have done so, and considering withal how much their Authority was questioned in those times. But rather from the great silence with which these Rules were settled; we have reason to conclude, not only that the Apostles did not intent to deprive them of any right, but also that the Multitude themselves who were concerned in them did not think themselves deprived of any. And the very actual judgement of those times are much better assurances of the truth of this matter than our Adversaries present conjectures, and much more than any of those reasons on which they are capable of grounding their conjectures. They cannot think themselves, at this distance, better qualified for understanding the Scriptures than they were who wrote the Scriptures, or than they for whose immediate use, and in accommodation to whose language and circumstances they were written.  
§ XL AS for the reasons they made use of for informing themselves in this matter, besides that the utmost they can make of them is only conjectural, and the conjectures they make by them are not so probable as the motives of credibility of those Ages; I say, besides this, there are other prudent inducements which might in reason make one more confident of the judgement of those Ages than of those Reasons. We know no reasons which they could not know as well as we, but they knew many of which we now are ignorant; and besides were much better able to judge of the same reasons which we both know than we are. We know none which they could not know. For the reasons from the nature of Government, in general, and peculiarly of Government as Ecclesiastical, are not proper to any one Age. But for bringing these reasonings down to determine the rights of any particular Government, many particular matters of fact are requisite to be known, of which they were undoubtedly better Judges than we are. They better knew the actual design of the Sacraments, what benefits were intended by them, and how they would oblige men to a dependence on them who had the power of administering them. They better knew the precedents from whence they were taken, and the actual state how those precedents were observed by them from whom they were taken. And they who knew these things could much better judge whether they were such as would allow the people any right in the Government. They certainly knew the actual challenges of the people, and the actual condescensions that were made to them; they knew what was quietly received, and what was either not received at all, or received with contradiction. And they who knew these things much better than we do, must also have known much better what either was, or was then thought to be, the People's right in this matter of Government. I only now mention those advantages they had above us in regard of the times they lived in, not in regard of those many Prophets and other inspired Persons whom they could then consult, and by whose assistance they might know many things certainly, which without them we can only know conjecturally, though we had the best information that reason is able to afford us.  
§ XLI A SECOND thing I could wish observed in relation to this Argument is this, That though the People had this inherent right of Government originally, as our Brethren pretend them to have had, yet it cannot exclude a right of God, who can, when he pleases, take the right into his own hands. Which when he would be pleased to do, Subjects were as much obliged to submit to his disposal of them, as if they never had any right of disposing of themselves. I have already given my reasons elsewhere, and shall not now repeat them. I only observe at present, how much safer it is, on this account also, to acquiesce in God's actual establishment, than to trust to our reasonings from the nature of the thing which are much more uncertain, and unsecure, as to our Duty. For supposing that by the reason of the thing we should find that the People might, by their internal right, pretend a title to dispose of the Government, this might indeed take them off from making any further enquiry into God's actual establishment, but could not, in the mean time, secure their practice. For if, by his actual establishment, he had reserved the right of Government wholly in his own hand, and had actually subjected us to his own Rules; he that should insist on that right of the People for defending himself against these actual impositions, could not be excused, by that pretence, for his disobedience. For though the People might have had a right, if God had left them to themselves, to prescribe or abrogate Rules for the Government of themselves; yet in case God has made use of his own Prerogative, they cannot then pretend to such a right, because God has prevented it. And he who, in that Case, should refuse obedience would be a rebel against God, though he broke no compacts made by the People, whether with, or without, his particular consent. This will show that, how conclusive soever the reasons be, yet, for security of practice, all must be obliged to depend on God's actual establishment. Which may let our Brethren see their obligation to inquire into this for the security of their Practice.  
§ XLII A THIRD Observation is this, that, if the People ever had any such original right, yet all has been done for alienating it that could be done. Whatever could be done by the Rule left by the Apostles for Succession, by whatever Authority they are supposed to have acted, whether as Apostles of Jesus Christ, or as Apostles of the Churches; whatever could be done by the act of the Multitudes themselves, submitting to, and owning the exercise of Authority in the Officers, and never pretending any power afterwards to resume their own right, if it had been so, nor to practise any branch of it in calling Officers to an account for maladministration, how notoriously soever they were guilty of it; whatever could be done by their own disowning any such right for many Ages and Successions, and confirming the sentences of their Superiors against such Persons as challenged such rights in their Name; whatever could be done by a long and uninterrupted peaceable prescription against them: Whatever could be done by these, or by any other means, that are by Humane Laws thought sufficient to make a valid conveyance; all this has actually been done to deprive the People of this right, if ever they had it. And therefore no other right could be challenged by them but an unalienable one by any act of men, not alienable even by the Apostles themselves, as Ecclesiastical Governors. This alone can justify their resuming such a right, though they once had it, after so many presumptions of a Legal conveyance of it from them. If they could lose it, all was done that could be to make them lose it. And if they challenged it when they had lost it, they challenged it when they had no right to it, and therefore all that was done pursuant to such a claim, must not only have been injurious to their Superiors, but a perfect Nullity in itself. And therefore, if they will needs decline Historical Testimonies, and argue only from the reason of the thing, it were well they would take care that their reasons proved, not only that it was once the People's right to dispose of the Government Ecclesiastical, but that it is their unalienable right. For if they grant it to have been alienable, they will then be obliged to inquire into matter of Fact, to know what has been done towards an actual Alienation. And I cannot foresee what our Adversaries themselves could desire for an Alienation for whose validity they were concerned, which they can find missing in the Case proposed for alienating this supposed right of the People.   

CHAP. XX. This Authority of administering the Sacraments must be derived from God by the Mediation of those men to whom it was at first committed by him.  
THE CONTENTS.  
2. This Authority of administering the Sacraments must be derived from God by the Mediation of those men to whom it was at first committed by him. The Negative to be proved, That none can be presumed to have a Call from God, without, at least, an approbation from the Supreme visible Governors. §. I. 1. It is, in reason, and by the Principles of visible Government, requisite that this Negative be granted for the Conviction of false Pretenders to a Power received from God. 1. It is necessary that Pretenders should be discovered §. TWO, III, IV. 2. It is also requisite that the means of discovering Pretenders be notorious to all, even to ordinary capacities. §. V, VI 3. These notorious means for discovering Pretenders must be common to all Ages of the Church, not proper only to that of the Apostles. §. VII. 4. Hence it follows, that God left them to the same ordinary means of judging concerning the right of Spiritual Governors, as had been used in judging concerning the right of their Temporal Superiors. §. VIII, IX. 5. By this Rule of judging concerning Spiritual right, the same way as we judge concerning Temporal, none can be presumed to have this Power, but they who have received it from them to whom it was at first committed. §. X, XI. 6. This Inference will especially hold when access to the Supreme is most difficult. §. XII, XIII. This is the Case of Ecclesiastical Government. §. XIV. Application to the Principles of a Modern Writer. §. XV, XVII. 2. Our Brethren must be obliged, in equity, to grant this way, because they cannot pitch on a more certain way for the trial of Pretenders. §. XVII. 1. They cannot do it by deriving their Authority from God immediately. §. XVIII, XIX, XX. 2. They cannot do it by pretending to receive their Authority immediately from the Scriptures, independently on the act of their ordinary Superiors. §. XXI. An Objection answered. §. XXII.  
§ I 2. THOUGH this Authority of administering the Sacraments be such as must be derived from God, yet it is not so derived without the Mediation of those men to whom it was at first committed. By the former Proposition it appeared that no Humane right alone was sufficient to secure a valid administration of the Sacraments. Which must therefore oblige all who would expect a blessing on their Ministry, and a ratification of the Offices of it, as not to assume it to themselves without a Call, so not to venture on it without a Call from God himself, who only has the power of calling them, and particularly not to trust any right whatsoever that is purely Humane. But because this Call from God is easily pretended by Enthusiastic Persons, not only by such of them as are justly suspicious of a design of deceiving others, but also by such of them as may be supposed to be themselves deceived, considering the weakness of those Arguments by which these Persons judge concerning such matters; and because it is impossible for Governors to prove directly the Negative opposed to such pretences, if their non-appearance to them upon such grounds, by which they are enabled to judge of these things, be not allowed to be a sufficient Argument against them; and because no Government in this World can possibly be maintained, nor any order preserved, if such pretences be allowed which are not capable of being convicted in this Life; therefore I conceive this second Proposition to be also very necessary, to settle such a way of proving an Authority derived from God, as may at once secure the respect due to such Persons as are truly Authorized by him, and yet withal secure the practicableness of a visible Government, which cannot be reconciled without a dependence of such Persons on men who have the office of Government. This will sufficiently prejudg against all such Enthusiastical pretenders, and prevent all the encroachments they might otherwise make on Ecclesiaastical Authority, if, notwithstanding that the Authority itself is derived from God, yet it be also proved that the ordinary Ecclesiastical Governors be the only Persons by whose mediation God is pleased to derive this Ecclesiastical ●ower, and therefore that none ought to be supposed to have a Call from God who cannot prove that they have received it from those Persons who are entrusted with a power of calling them. And indeed the whole security of Government depends on the truth of this Negative. Nor is it alone sufficient for that purpose that they, who derive their Authority from those men who were at first Authorized by God, do as properly receive their Authority from God, as if they received it from him immediately, but it is also requisite that no Persons be admitted into Office without the approbation of the supreme visible Governors of the Church, without this they cannot undertake, nor be responsible for, the inconveniences which might follow upon such an obtrusion, and without the truth of this Negative, that none are to be presumed to have a Call from God, without, at least, an approbation of the supreme visible Governors, it will be impossible for them to prevent such obtrusions. This Negative therefore is the thing which I am at present concerned to prove.  
§ TWO THIS therefore I shall endeavour to convince our Brethren of by two Topics. 1. That it is in reason, and, by the Principles of Government in general, requisite that this Negative be granted in order to the conviction of false pretenders to a Power received from God immediately; And, 2. That our Brethren must be obliged, in equity, to grant it, because they cannot pitch upon a more certain way of trial. 1. It is in reason, and by the Principles of visible Government, as such, requisite that this Negative be granted in order to the conviction of false pretenders to a power received from God. For, 1. It is against the interest of all visible Government, and of all visible Societies, as such, that pretenders be permitted to enjoy the benefit of their pretences without means of conviction; nor is it to be presumed that any prudent Legislator could ever contrive things so, as that there should be no notorious means of convicting such Persons. And they cannot be convinced but by recourse to such positive means of trial, by which, if they cannot justify themselves, they must immediately be supposed convicted of the falsehood of their claim. To permit such Persons to pass without conviction would not only prove a grievance to Subjects, intolerable by the Principles of equal Government; but would also make the Government unpracticable in the hands of those who were undoubtedly entitled to it.  
§ III IT would be a grievance to the Subjects, intolerable by the Principles of equal Government, and therefore unlikely to be intended by an equal Legislator, that his Subjects should be imposed on at the pleasure of pretenders; that by this means many more and heavier burdens should be imposed on them than the Legislator himself would ever have imposed; that there should be no end of these Imposers or their Impositions, as there can be none, if they be not reduced to some certain Rules; that the worst and basest part of Mankind, such as false pretenders certainly would be, should, at least, in this World, be permitted to tyrannize over their betters, that the highest Criminals against Majesty, in the very practice of their Crimes, should be permitted to abuse the dutifulness and obedience of their Fellow-Subjects who are more loyal.  
§ IV AND it must needs obstruct the exercise of all visible Government in this Life. If particular Governors be obtruded on the supreme without their consent, they cannot prevent what mischief may follow, in case of their miscarriage, and therefore cannot, in Justice, be responsible for them; they cannot secure the unanimous persecution of the same designs, and the very want of Unanimity alone is of so great importance in these matters, as that they must extremely prejudice the success of the designs themselves. But when withal private Persons are encouraged not only to act independently on the ordinary visible supreme Governors of the Church on such pretences as these are; but also to contradict them and control them; when upon pretence of Authority received from God, they may be permitted to exempt themselves or any others from their duty to ordinary Governors; when, though the ordinary supreme visible Governors of the Church must be supposed to have received, whatever Authority they have received, from God himself as well as these Pretenders; yet these Pretenders may still be rather thought credible in their pretences of a Mission from God; nay, may also be supposed to have a higher degree of Authority committed to them than their ordinary Superiors (for none but a higher degree can suffice to control the Authority of their Superiors) only because their Mission is extraordinary: As these things must be great encouragements to ill-designing Persons to make these pretences, so no exercise of Government can hold, if the Persons interested in such Pretences can be confident enough to make them. They cannot control them, at least in this Life, and that is enough to make the Government in this life insignificant. It is therefore most reasonable to suppose that God has granted us means of convicting such offenders as these are.  
§ V 2. THEREFORE, it is also further reasonable to believe that these means of convicting Pretenders be notorious to all, and notorious even to ordinary capacities. If People do not know their Governors, how is it possible that they can think themselves obliged to pay any Duty to them? And if these means be not notorious to all, it will be as impossible for them to know their Governors. In the Case I am speaking of, it comes to the same purpose, whether they have no Authority at all, or whether they cannot be known to have it. For if they cannot be known to have it, all who think they have it not must take all they do for Usurpation and a perfect Nullity; and therefore, as they cannot think it antecedently obligatory, so neither can they think themselves obliged, in any equity, to ratify the acts of those whom they take for Enemies and Usurpers. Nay, the very non-appearance of such a right is a very just reason to suspect them of falsely pretending to it, considering, by the Principles of all Government, how insignificant any right is supposed to be without means of notoriety, and considering therefore how very careful all Governors are to provide such means, and not to impute disobedience as a crime, till these means may be presumed notorious to them who are concerned in them; and considering how much more equal God is than the most equal Governors, and how impossible it is that he should forget any thing which he ought in equity to have foreseen.  
§ VI AND that this notoriety ought to be so great as to be sufficient to give satisfaction to the generality even of the meanest capacities, besides that it is the common sentiment of all Governors, the very reason of the thing, and the concernment even such Persons have in Government, whatever they may have in Doctrines, that all must be guided by their Governors in their Practice, which cannot be, unless they know them; nay, the Multitude consisting principally of such Persons, and Government being principally calculated for the Multitude, and a knowledge of their Governors being the foundation of all Duties to be paid to them, all these things, I say, being laid together, do, methinks, make it very little capable of being doubted.  
§ VII 3. THEREFORE, when we speak of these notorious means for convicting Pretenders ordinarily in future Ages for ever, we must not suppose that the Apostles left the Church only to those extraordinary means of discovery which were only proper to their own Age, which, by the confession of all, are long since ceased, whose credentials at least are undeniably ceased, without which it is impossible that they should be notorious to the Multitude. And therefore it is not likely that we should now be left to the gift of discerning of Spirits, or of Prophecy, or of consulting God by lots, not to speak now of the extraordinary manifestations of God on the Persons who were to be tried. Though it is also very observable that even in that Age wherein these extraordinary means were used, yet, because they were not evident to any but them to whom they were made, at least not certainly, therefore, even then, they were not intended immediately for the Multitude, but for the satisfaction of the Ordeiners, who when they were themselves by these means informed of the qualifications of the Persons to be ordained, then invested them with the Powers. So that as it is most probable, even then, that it was not their gifts, of which these extraordinary discoveries were only testimonies, but the Solemnities of this investiture that immediately gave them the Power itself; so it is much more certain, that, in this way of proceeding, the judgement of the ordeiners concerning the sufficiency of these evidences, and the testimony given by them, by the act of ordination itself, were even then the only assurances by which the vulgar were enabled to judge concerning the Authority of any who were placed over them, even by God himself. And therefore in this way of trial none could be presumed to have Authority from God but they whom the ordinary Governors judged to have received it. Which will, as to all intents of Practice, oblige them to as near a dependence on the ordinary Governors of the Church as if they had received their Authority from those Governors themselves. And certainly the reason will be much more cogent to oblige them, to a dependence on Governors, who can make out no better a title to the Call itself than what they can receive from the Governors, than those who might pretend that their obligation to depend on them, was only for their approbation in the exercise of the Authority committed to them, not for deriving the Authority itself. These, if their pretence was true, could only be punished for the disorderliness of their proceeding; but they who derive their Power not from any supernatural gifts received by them antecedently to their ordination, but from their ordination itself, must expect that their proceed be not only disorderly, but invalid, if they presume to exercise any Divine Authority not received by Ordination.  
§ VIII HENCE therefore I infer, 4. That God did leave them to those ordinary means of judging concerning the right of their Governors which had been usual among them in judging concerning their secular Governors. These were best suited to vulgar understanding, that they might the same way judge of the title of their Spiritual Governors, by which, even they, had been used, and often been obliged, to judge of the title of their secular Governors, and the better such means are suited to popular understandings, by so much they must prove more serviceable to the great end of Government. They must have been more easily applicable to this particular design of Government, than any new means that could have been introduced for this purpose; and it is always to be presumed that all prudent Governors would rather make use of present means than any other, if they may withal serve their ends as well. In such a Case the very avoiding innovation is a very considerable advantage of such a means above any other. Besides it was to be presumed that these were the means intended, if no express provision was made for any other. For we are to consider the present customs and Notions of that Age as the matter of their Revelations, to be reform where they were amiss, and to be assured where they were uncertain, especially where the Subject was of consequence. And therefore where something was necessary to be practised, and no new order was taken for the introduction of any thing new, there it was most natural to presume that Christ did not think fit to make any alteration, and therefore that he was pleased with what was already received.  
§ IX CERTAINLY we have reason to believe that this was most likely to be the reasoning of that Age, and therefore, if it had been a mistake, he would, in all likelihood, have prevented it, especially in the first beginnings of Christianity, not only in regard of the moment of the thing, so far as that Age itself was concerned in it, but also in regard of the ill influence a mistake in that Age must have on all succeeding Ages, and the great difficulty of ever reforming any such mistake afterwards, when the mistake should have the advantage of a present possession, and the averseness which is natural to men against changing any thing that had such possession; when also such a possession received from such Persons who had best reason to know what was fit to be received, would pass for a Presumption against the right of innovating any thing, and when withal the credentials of Persons who would afterwards be desirous to reform them, should decay, as this Prescription and Presumption would grow stronger, and prevail more on the minds of men. This therefore being supposed, that the Scriptures silence concerning any new provision, is a strong presumption that the sacred Writers, and the Apostles, whose History they wrote, never intended any; this, I say, will let our Brethren see how insufficient their reasoning is, from this silence of the Scripture concerning any certain Rule prescribed for Succession, to conclude against any confinement of this Power to those certain Persons through whose hands this Succession is to be continued, when by this means of management it is proved to be an Argument of the contrary. And they must needs apprehend it as a great distress to their Cause to be obliged to produce any direct or positive Arguments, either to disprove this confinement of the Power to Persons in Authority for the time being for maintaining Succession, or to prove that they who pretend to an Authority, which they have not received from their Superiors, can justify their claim by any other solid Principles. Yet to this distress they must needs be reduced by this Observation.  
§ X 5. THEREFORE, If this be the Case indeed, that God intended that the Spiritual Power should be the same way derived to Posterity as the Temporal Power is, than the matter will be plain, that none may pretend to this Spiritual Power, but they who have received it from those men to whom it was first committed. For in deriving Temporal Power this method is still observed punctually, not only that they who are Authorized by them, who first received the Authority are validly Authorized, but that none else are so. And this Negative that none may pretend to Power, but they who have received it from those men who had at first a Power to give it, has by all wise Legislators been thought as necessary to oblige inferior Governors to a dependence on their Superiors; as this dependence has been also thought necessary for the practicableness of all visible Government. Besides, wherever Princes are obliged in extraordinary Cases to give extraordinary commands and Authority to some particular Persons without the formalities of Law (which is the only Precedent our Adversaries can make use of) yet still they give them very sufficient Legal Credentials, or where these are wanting they are not offended, if their private commands be controlled by their public notorious Rules, and till these appear, and appear to the satisfaction of those Governors who by those standing Rules are possessed of the Authority, they are not obliged to yield to them.  
§ XI AND indeed the verification or Authentic publication even of these Credentials are they from whence they derive their obliging virtue, and are properly the office of the subordinate Governors. But this is more necessary to be observed in assuming of a constant Office than in executing a temporary command. If a whole Office may be undertaken without the consent of visible Governors, it is not possible to understand how that dependence can be maintained, which is absolutely necessary for the peace of Societies. For they who pretend to an Office independently on the ordinary Governors, and who do also justify an independent exercise of that Office, must make as constant a practice of acting independently on their Superiors, as they do of performing their Office, and of approving themselves faithful to the trust committed to them. And if single Acts relating to the Public may prove of so dangerous consequence to the Public when practised independently on the supreme visible Government of any Society, how much more dangerous must it be to persist in a constant practice of such Acts? What security can there be that they shall maintain a correspondence with their Superiors for driving on the same ends, when they who are intent on those ends have no interest in the choice of them? And in case of difference, how can the public peace be preserved, whilst these pretenders to extraordinary Missions make a constant practice of resisting their ordinary Superiors? especially if their power be thought greater, because more immediately derived from God than that of their ordinary Governors; and if withal as many be allowed to assume these Offices as shall have the confidence to do so where notorious Credentials are not insisted on for examining the Truth of their pretences. At least this is extremely dissonant to the Politics of all Governments, and worldly Governors, who never give Offices to be executed in the inferior Jurisdictions without notorious ways of approbation, nor without the judgement of those Subordinate Officers within whose Jurisdiction they are to execute their Office. Yet this is the claim of our Adversaries who challenge an Office of Preaching the word and administering the Sacraments never received from those Superiors whom they found possessed of the Supreme visible Government of the Church when they first began their separation.  
§ XII BUT, 6. This course of approving the Authority of extraordinary Calls is then more rigorously and punctually insisted on▪ according to the course of humane proceed, when the access to the Supreme Prince is more difficult. Indeed where the Prince is near and may be easily consulted, neither can the danger be so great which may be occasioned by false pretenders, when they are so likely to be discovered before they can have time to compass any great design; nor is there that fear that pretenders will venture, where they are in so imminent danger of being discovered, and of being suddenly and severely punished upon discovery. And therefore it is reasonable to presume in such a case, that he who pretends the Prince's name for a design which cannot suddenly be dispatched, does pretend truly, when it is considered how present a danger it is to pretend falsely, and that the danger is greater than can be countervailed by success in any design, and more imminent than to allow time for a design which requires a considerable time before it can be compassed. And as the Subjects, in such a Case as this is, need not fear any very considerable ill consequence that may ordinarily befall them, at least not so ordinarily as they may receive advantage by sudden, and sometimes secret prudential provisions of their Prince; so neither can the Princes themselves apprehend the damage, that may follow on such false pretences for so short a time as it is possible for them to continue undiscovered, of that consequence as to countervail the benefit they may expect from the observance of their provisional commands, though sometimes transacted with great suddenness and secrecy, and therefore cannot think it reasonable altogether to forbear the advantages of these provisional commands for fear of the inconveniences of false Pretenders.  
§ XIII BUT where the distance is great, or the access is very difficult, or any other cause occurs that may delay the discovery, or give opportunity for completing ill designs before the discovery can be made; there all wise Governors have thought it more prudent and safe to lose the advantage of having their secret commands without Credentials fulfilled, than to hazard the mischiefs that may follow from the multitude of commands which may be pretended without control, when bold men may be allowed the liberty of pretending to them without notorious Credentials, or when any others are permitted to be Judges of the notoriety of those Credentials beside the ordinary Governors. Accordingly in Provinces far distant from the Courts, not only the disposal of Offices, but even particular provisional commands, (at least such commands as are to be executed publicly) must first pass the Offices of the Governors of those Provinces respectively, before those Provinces can be obliged to believe and receive them for the true Acts of their Prince; and they which are not thus verified are, for that very reason, presumed suspicious of being false, and till they pass this course of trial, it is as unlawful to act upon them, as if indeed they had been so, and what is so done is counted as mere a Nullity in Law, as if the Power had never been granted them. But if Princes depart into Countries far distant from their own, where they cannot be consulted, they do not then think fit to lay restraints on their ordinary Governors by commissions unknown to them, nor do the constitutions of any Politics oblige such Governors to own any such.  
§ XIV AND this is exactly the Case here, in Ecclesiastical Government. God cannot be consulted in this Life, and therefore, if the Rules of humane Politics be observed here, nothing is to be taken for his pleasure, but what is proposed for such by the ordinary Ecclesiastical Governors, I mean nothing relating to prudential Practice or Authority. At lest no Officers can be presumed, in this Age, to have Authority, who cannot prove their title either received from, or verified by, our present Ecclesiastical Governors. And it is to the same purpose, on whether of the two regards they depend. We shall have as much reason to presume all their proceed null, for want of Power, till that Power be verified, as we shall have to believe them null, when we think ourselves assured that they have received no Power at all. Which in reference to Subjects already under Government will disoblige such Subjects from Submission to them, and will consequently make their Authority as unpracticable antecedently to this approbation of the ordinary Governors, as if they had none antecedently. And because it is not probable, by the Principles of Government, that God would give an Authority that should be useless and unpracticable, as to all the proper uses of Authority; this will also make it suspicious that God does not indeed give this Authority itself antecedently to the approbation of ordinary Superiors. Especially considering that, though these ordinary fallible Superiors should be mistaken in thinking such Persons not Authorized when really they are so, yet still their Authority must continue unpracticable, by these Principles, and that for ever, if ordinary Superiors should for ever continue in their mistakes.  
§ XV THIS I note against the Opinion of a very ingenious and candid Person who conceives that the Authority is grounded on those gifts of the Spirit which he supposes to be in Persons antecedently to Ordination, 
Mr. Humphreys.  and which he therefore conceives not given but approved by their Ordeiners, so that according to this Hypothesis, Ordination does not give this Power, but only declares that they have it, and gives them a liberty to exercise it within the Jurisdiction of the Ordeiners, without which himself conceives it irreconcilable with any Order or Discipline that they should be permitted to exercise their gifts within those Jurisdictions, and is sensible how impossible it is to secure the Church from the mischiefs which may be occasioned by the pretences of assuming Enthusiasts, if Subjects may be allowed immediately to judge of their gifts, and to receive them as the measures of their Practice, antecedently to the declaration of their ordinary Superiors. If this were true, it would indeed follow, that Acts of this Authority would indeed be valid before God, antecedently to the Declarations of ordinary Superiors, and even after them, contrary to the Declarations of fallible Superiors, in case they should prove actually mistaken; which is no hard supposition concerning Superiors who are acknowledged fallible, especially in their Declarations concerning things which are true or false antecedently to their Declarations, though they might be obnoxious to Canonical Penalties for exercising their gifts antecedently to this Canonical approbation.  
§ XVI BUT in reference to Practice, the Question will not be, what is really valid before God, but what may be known to be valid by men. And if men presume that to be invalid which is really valid, they cannot look on any thing done by them as valid, whilst they are supposed to doubt of the validity of the Authority by which it is done. And if Subjects be obliged to stand to the judgement of ordinary Superiors concerning the validity of the Authority to which men pretend; it plainly follows, that even where their Superiors are actually mistaken in judging Persons to have no Authority who really have it, yet Subjects must, in that Case, presume they have none, at least presume so in reference to Practice. Which will as much discourage them from joining in Communion with such Persons disapproved by Superiors, and will consequently oblige them to as near a dependence on Superiors for the practicableness of their Authority as if they had really received it from them, which presumed invalidity, is sufficient for all that I am concerned for in this Question. Besides the unpracticableness of such an Authority independently on Superiors I have shown to be a great and prudent Presumption, from the Principles of Government, that no such Authority is given independently on Superiors.  
§ XVII BUT, 2. Our Brethren must be obliged, in equity, to grant this Negative way of arguing, that men cannot be supposed to have an Authority from God which they cannot show their title to by the mediation of ordinary Superiors, because they cannot pitch on a more certain way of proving that such Persons have received Authority from God than that they have received it from them who were at first Authorized by God, and Authorized to give their Authority. I cannot conceive how such Persons can pretend to come by their Authority from God otherwise than either that they must have received it from him immediately, or that they must have received it from him mediately, with dependence on the Scriptures. But neither of these Pretences can satisfy others, or prevent the mischiefs which may follow from false pretences, which I have shown how much it is the common interest of all Governments, of what nature soever, to have prevented.  
§ XVIII 1. THAN, They cannot pretend to receive their Authority from God immediately. For they neither can give any solid reason for satisfying themselves that God will call any immediately in these modern Ages, much less that they in particular are so called by him: nor much less can they satisfy others that they are called. God has never promised that he will call any in such an extraordinary way in these modern Ages, nor have we any reason to believe that he ever intended it. All the extraordinary manifestations, which alone made these extraordinary Calls seasonable and useful, all confess to have been long since discontinued. And it is no way likely that he would continue his extraordinary Calls without his extraordinary manifestations without which they must be so useless. And if it neither appear in general that God has actually promised it, nor that it is probable that he would ever have intended it; how can they satisfy themselves that they in particular are however actually called by him? Will they, or can they say, that God has spoken to them immediately? No doubt some Enthusiasts will say so. But it is sufficient for my purpose if this cannot be said without Enthusiasm.  
§ XIX AND if they will avoid this charge, let them consider the differences made between true Prophets and Enthusiasts, the secret evidences not only of the Revelations themselves, but also of their proceeding from God, which appeared to the Prophets themselves, either those that are mentioned by the Jews, or any others that may be rational. Let them consider how dangerous it must prove to themselves, as well as others seduced by them, if they should prove mistaken; how highly responsible they must be to God, if they run in his name when they are not sent by him, and whether the evidence of their Mission be great enough either to prevent or countervail that danger. Let them judge themselves in this particular with the same severity wherewith they would judge others who would pretend Authority for messages contrary to their own, and with the same wherewith they must expect to be judged by God, if they should prove mistaken, and I am confident they will find the evidence necessary for satisfying them in this particular not only much greater than they have, but also than they can rationally expect in this present Age. Nay, if they would consider how impossible it is to justify their Mission, in this way, without such a particular Revelation as must make them properly Prophets, and how themselves grant the discontinuance of that gift; I cannot but think, if these things were throughly considered, that there would be very few, if any, who would, notwithstanding all this, pretend to this Authority, or think they had that evidence for it, as might really satisfy themselves for pretending to it.  
§ XX BUT when it is considered further how much others would be concerned in this gift, indeed more so than the Person himself who had it, and therefore how insufficient it is that they satisfy themselves concerning it, unless they be able to satisfy others also; how impossible it is to expect that others should believe them extraordinarily called, whilst they do not so much as pretend to extraordinary Credentials; how little God himself ever expected this, who (when this sending of Prophets was more ordinary than it can be now pretended, yet) never sent a Prophet without signs or Miracles to confirm his Mission, and appointed Rules for judging between true and false Prophets, allowed the judgement of them according to those Rules to their fallible Superiors; Considering also that the same reasons hold still for making the same things prudent now, and fit to be expected, as well as formerly, This would not only prove a very just presumption against such a pretence with all others, besides the pretender himself, but might also shame the pretender himself from pretending it without better evidences than are pretended for the satisfaction of others of the truth of such pretences.  
§ XXI NOR, 2. Can they pretend to receive this Authority from God from the Scriptures, but so as to receive it independently on the act of any of their ordinary Superiors. Charters indeed do empower and direct ordinary Governors to continue a Succession of their Power, but never empower any particular Person without the concurrence of Governors, never without dependependence on them, much less ever in opposition to them. If they did, the Persons so Authorized could not be thought extraordinary Authorized, if they received their Authority from the same perpetual standing Rule by which ordinary Governors may be thought capable of receiving it. Either therefore they must not pretend to receive their Authority immediately from the Scriptures, or if they do, they must allow that way of receiving it as an ordinary way. And then it will concern them to explain how it is possible to maintain a dependence of the inferior Governors on the supreme visible ones, if they receive their Authority thus independently on them, or how it is possible to maintain Government in any visible Society without this visible dependence. I am sure this supposition is extremely different from all Precedents of humane Politics, which is no great recommendation of its likelihood. But how is it possible for them to explain how particular Persons can be Authorized by a Writing immediately, where their particular names are not so much as mentioned? when they were not in being when the Writings were made, and so could not have been known by any humane ways of knowledge by the Writers themselves? Can any Precedent be given for this, that ever any prudent humane Legislators have thought so small an evidence as this, sufficient for the proof of a thing which it is the public interest that it should be so very notorious? Nay, in a way of humane proof, would it not be presumed, on the contrary, that such Persons could never have been particularly designed by the Writers, whom it was so impossible for them in a humane way to know? But they may say, that God, who inspired the sacred Writers, knew all particular Persons to be Authorized by them through all succeeding generations. No doubt he did so. But it is not his secret, but his revealed, knowledge that is to be the measure of our Practices. And how can it appear to us that he was pleased to reveal to the sacred Writers the Persons who should succeed in the Ecclesiastical Authority in latter generations, when he has not been pleased to reveal their names, nor indeed to describe any particular Persons by any such peculiar Characters as might, in prudence, be sufficient to distinguish them from false pretenders? If they had been so described as that we might have known them certainly by humane means, why might not the Writers have known them, who were as able to know what might, by humane means, be collected from their own words as we are? If they be so described as that yet they cannot be known by any humane means short of Revelation, how can they be said to have been revealed at all? how can they be said to be revealed to us who are to expect no new Revelation, from that by which it is so impossible to know them certainly?  
§ XXII THE uttermost that I can foresee as possible to be pretended in this Case without gross Enthusiasm, is, that the Scripture may describe the qualifications of Persons to be Authorized, and that we may know who have those qualifications in the several succeeding Ages independently on the judgement of the present respective Governors. But where there is any difference in men's judgements concerning these qualifications of Persons, that some Persons judge those men qualified whom others judge not to be so; this is a Controversy, which, as it cannot be pretended to be decided by the Scriptures, (which, if they indeed tell us what qualifications are requisite for the Ministry, yet they cannot be thought withal to tell us what particular Persons are endued with those qualifications.) So neither is the thing itself always so notorious as to assure that unanimity of Judgement, even between candid and judicious Persons, that is altogether necessary for the preservation of the public Peace. Much less when many are likely to be concerned in it who are neither judicious nor candid, such as the Persons who set up themselves as Candidates for this Election, and the interests and Parties they may make. So that still there will be need of an Authoritative decision in this matter, and this in a thing which the Scripture cannot be pretended to have decided. But neither is it agreeable with the Principles of any policy, that all Persons who are qualified themselves, should, for that reason, be supposed to have Authority, nor that none should have Authority, who cannot appear certainly to be so qualified. The public service requires a certain number, which, if it be considerably exceeded or failed of, the excess or defect will be so far from being serviceable, as that it will prove prejudicial to the public. And what security have we that the number of Persons qualified shall be always such as may answer that due proportion which may be useful? And yet if qualifications give the Authority, and all that Church Governors can do, be not to give the Authority to Persons qualified, but to judge who have the Authority already by their having the qualifications, whatever proportion be requisite for public service; they must admit all those whom they judge qualified, and admit none but such, if the qualifications alone be supposed to entitle to the Authority. But if any may be rejected whom they think qualified, or any admitted whom they do not judge qualified, either of these are sufficient to show that qualifications alone cannot be conceived sufficient to entitle to Authority. And yet this is all that can be thought of, how the Scriptures can be thought to design particular Persons for Authority, that they may indeed describe and particularise those qualifications which may fit a Person, when he is known to have them, for Authority.   

CHAP. XXI. Ecclesiastical Authority cannot be derived to this Age without a continued Succession.  
THE CONTENTS.  
3. This Ecclesiastical Authority cannot be derived from those men to whom it was at first committed, to the age we live in, without a continued Succession of Persons orderly receiving Authority from those who had Authority to give it them. §. I. 1. This Authority could not be derived from the Apostles themselves to any beyond their own time. Neither by them in their own Persons, nor by their Deed of Gift, nor by their Writings. §. II. 2. It hence follows that the only way they could use for conveying this Authority to others, after their decease, must be by appointing sufficient substitutes who might act for them after their departure. §. III. 3. The same reasons which prove it impossible for the Apostles to convey this Power to any who did not live in their own Age, do also prove it impossible for any of their Successors to do so. §. IV, V 4. This Negative Argument will only hold concerning the only substitutes of the Apostles, and concerning them it will hold, That they who have not received Power from them who are alone substituted by the Apostles to convey their Power to others, cannot at all receive any Power from the Apostles. §. VI, VII, VIII, IX. 5. That this Negative Argument applied to any particular Age will hold concerning the only substitutes remaining in that particular Age. Bishops were the only substitutes of the Apostles then remaining when our Brethren began their innovations. §. X.  
§ I 3. THIS Ecclesiastical Authority cannot be derived, in this Age we live in, from those men to whom it was at first committed, that is, from the Apostles, without a continued succession of Persons orderly receiving Authority from those who had Authority to give it them, from those first times of the Apostles to ours at present.  
§ TWO FOR it is plain, 1. That this Authority cannot be derived from the Apostles themselves to any beyond their own time. There are but three ways conceivable how this might be possible, that they themselves might convey Authority to others, either by their Persons, or by their Deed of Gift, or by their Writings. But by none of these means are they capable of receiving Authority from them who did not live in their time. Not from them in their own Persons, because they were dead before the Persons of whom we speak were born, or were capable of receiving Authority from them. For it is impossible to understand (by the nature of any Humane contracts) how a personal right can be devolved to another without a personal act, or how any personal act can be between Persons who are not supposed coexistent at the same time. Not by their Deed of Gift, because this also could only convey their Power to Persons of their own Age. Especially considering that Power is that which is the original security of all other Gifts. Indeed where a standing Power is supposed, and a constant orderly Succession into that Power, there a Gift may be made to future Persons, which may both be determined by Persons so empowered, and the Gift secured to Persons so determined by them. But all are so sensible of the unpracticableness of a Gift to future Persons, without a Power both to determine the Persons, and secure the Gift to them, as that it is ordinary in Wills to appoint Executors, who may secure the performance, where the standing Power cannot descend minutely to take care of the performance in particular cases. And it were certainly in vain to make Testaments, if none were empowered to determine the Controversies which rise in execution of them, and if the public Authority did not confirm the Act of the Testator in nominating an Executor, and the Power of the Executor for performing the trust committed to him. It is therefore absolutely necessary that a Power be first established by which the Will may be performed, and a Succession in that Power ascertained for so long at least as any particular of the will remains unperformed, before any one can, in prudence, think such a will performable. And therefore the Power of the Apostles being the Supreme and only Power by which the Church, as a Body Politic does subsist, must be first secured, and secured in a regular constant Succession, so that none ought to be supposed, in future Ages, to receive any Power from them, but they who receive it in that Succession by the hands of Persons empowered to give it them. And because their Legacies are not confined to any certain Age, therefore the Power of their Executors must not expire for ever, and so much the rather because there is no superior Power to take care of the execution, in case the Persons should fail who are immediately entrusted with the Execution. Not by their Writings, though they indeed continued extant after the decease of the Writers, for what has been said in the future Chapter.  
§ III HENCE it follows, 2. That, if they would convey any Power to Persons not living in their own Age, seeing they could not do it by themselves, they must do it by appointing sufficient substitutes, to act in their name after their decease, that is, they must give such Persons whom they would substitute, the same Power themselves had received from Christ, (I mean, as to these ordinary exercises of Power, for which I am at present concerned) and not only so, but the same Power also which themselves had received, of communicating this Power to others. Where both of these were present, the act of such substitutes was to be taken for the Act of the Apostles themselves, and as validly obliging them as if it had been performed by themselves in their own Persons, by all the Laws than received concerning Delegation and substitution. And the want of either of them was sufficient, by the same Laws, to invalidate a conveyance from the Apostles by so imperfectly-Authorized substitutes. And I have already shown that the Laws then received were punctually observed by the Apostles in these their Legal conveyances. I cannot foresee what other means our Adversaries can think of to avoid this consequence. 
Chap. iii. §. 5, 6, 7, 8.  When they shall think of any, it will then be time enough to consider it.  
§ IV AND, 3. The very same reasons which prove it impossible for the Apostles to convey their Power to any who did not live in their own Age, does also prove it impossible for any of their successors to do so. They also cannot be supposed capable of acting in their own Persons, when they cease to be in their own Persons, and therefore can only be capable of acting by their substitutes, whom they have entrusted with their Power; and none can be taken for their substitutes but they who have been made so by their personal act, when they were alive. Which will perfectly reach the Negative, for which I am concerned at present, that they cannot be taken for the Apostles substitutes, nor for the substitutes of any of their successors in later Ages, who have not been substituted by them by a personal act; and that what has not been done since by any substitute either of the Apostles, or of any of their successors, cannot be taken for the act of any of them, and therefore cannot derive any Authority from them.  
§ V THESE things are as applicable to the Successors of the Apostles in every Age respectively, as they are to the Apostles themselves. As therefore in the Age succeeding the Apostles, nothing could be done by the Apostles, but what was done by some of them to whom the Apostles had committed their Power by a personal act in the Apostolical Age itself: So neither in the third Age could any thing be taken for the Act of the Successors of the Apostles, but what was done by Persons Authorized by their personal act in the preceding Age, whilst those Successors were yet living. And the same reasoning may be brought down through all the intermediate Ages to that wherein we live at present, so that nothing ought to be taken for the Act of the Apostles in our present Age, but what is done by them who have been lawfully substituted by them who have received their Power from their other lawful substitutes in the several Ages respectively, by personal substitution of each Predecessor respectively whilst he was yet living, and therefore no such Act can convey the Authority of the Apostles to any who is ambitious of pretending to it in our present Age.  
§ VI 4. THEREFORE the force of this Negative Argument consisting in this, that that cannot be the Apostles Act in a later Age which is not the Act of any of those who derive their substitution from them by personal Acts in the several Ages; it will not hold but only in the only substitutes. For supposing the Apostles substituted many in the first Age (as certainly they did) it will not follow that he who has not received his Authority from the Succession of Jerusalem, for example, has therefore not received it from the Apostles at all, because he may have received it from the Succession of Antioch, or any other Apostolical See. But considering the whole complex of substitutes in every Age, certainly the reason will hold, that he who has derived his Authority from none of them, must as certainly fail of deriving his Authority from the Apostles, as if he had lived in the Age immediately succeeding the Apostles, and yet had not received his Authority from any of them who had, in the former Age, received their Authority by a personal Act of the Apostles themselves. The reasoning still holds the same, how many soever the Ages of Succession are. Neither can any Authority be given by the Apostles in the fifteenth Century which is not given by their substitutes then existing, nor can they then be taken for their Successors who have not been substituted by several personal Acts of their immediate Predecessors through all the foregoing Period.  
§ VII AND this I therefore take for the imprudence of managing this Argument hitherto, that recourse has been always had to the Primitive times, as if the Succession had not been as much interrupted by a failure in later Ages, as if it had failed then. By which way of proceeding they both weakened the evidence of the Argument, and withal made it less popular. They weakened the Argument, both as to its strength, and as to its evidence. As to its strength, because what had indeed Succession then might fail of it in after Ages. And therefore though our Adversaries Hypothesis had been true, that single Presbyters had the Power of ordaining others given them when they were made Presbyters, and therefore that the Persons ordained by them then had been validly ordained; yet it is very possible that their Succession might fail afterwards, and that later Presbyters might never have that Power given them, which if they have not, that is alone sufficient to disannul their present Ordinations. And therefore the securest way of proving the validity of present Ordinations is to prove the uninterruptedness of their Succession down to our modern times, not to rest contented with what was in the beginning, but might have been since interrupted.  
§ VIII THEY weakened the evidence of the Argument, by resolving it into Primitive Records, in which way of proceeding it is very possible that many Records might have been lost; nay, it is most certain that many were so, which though it be no Argument at all to prove that any thing was not from the beginning which we do not find mentioned in our remaining Records, yet it is certainly a weakening the evidence of the Succession, if the trial be resolved into such Records as might have miscarried. As certainly no secular Magistrate of a Corporation in this Age could make his title so clear, if he were to prove it from the Records of all his Predecessors since the Charter was granted, which may very well have miscarried in a much shorter Succession than that which is requisite for justifying our present Ordinations, as if he be immediately allowed to resolve his title into the Charter, as it has been found in unquestionable Practice, and into his immediate Predecessors. And this is the rather solid, because it is a Principle agreed on for the security of all Governments to presume they came from the beginning, unless there appear very probable evidence to the contrary, though possibly their being from the beginning cannot be expressly proved from Primitive Records after the miscarriages of so many Generations. And when God was pleased to settle a Government among men, it is most likely that he would suit it, as he did many other things of far less importance, to Humane understanding, and even to those of the vulgar, who are as much concerned in Government as the Learned, and that he would accordingly expect their Obedience according to the Rules of Humane equity. And there is less reason to believe that he would oblige Ecclesiastical Government to depend on express Records than Secular, not only because it is designed much more lasting than any Secular form of Government, and Records are more apt to miscarry in a longer tract of time, but also because the Persecutions to which they are exposed more than any other Societies of men, must involve their Records in a greater danger of miscarriage than others. Besides that this dependence on Records must, in the natural course of things, make the Government weakest in the later Ages, when we are warned to expect the vices of men most outrageous, and most needing a restraint, which makes it very unlikely to have been God's pleasure that it should depend on them. Which will weaken all our Adversaries Arguments either from the less, or from the obscurity of those Primitive Records.  
§ IX AND that way of trial must needs be less popular, because it resolves it into more Ancient Histories and greater variety of Learning than can reasonably be supposed in popular capacities. If therefore Episcopacy alone, and Episcopacy in the modern sense, be the only Succession of the Apostles which has been kept uninterrupted to our present times; the consequence must then be certain, that there can be no Apostolical Power in our present Age which is not derived even from our modern Episcopacy.  
§ X FOR it is further observable, 5. That, even for this Negative consequence, it is sufficient, that the Argument be deduced from the only substitutes that are extant in the Age to which it is applied, that whatever is not done by them cannot be supposed to be done by the Apostles themselves. For what if the Presbyterian Government, had lasted as long as our Adversaries pretend it did? What if the Apostles had lest the form of Government different in several places, in some Episcopal, in some Presbyterian, as a very learned Person does conjecture? 
Dr. Stillingfleet. Iren.  And what if the Presbyteries of those times had indeed the power of Ordination, and intended to give that Power to all the particular Presbyters that were ordained by them then? All this would only prove that the Presbyters so ordained in those times had indeed the Power of Ordination, and that all who were then ordained by them were validly ordained. But it does not therefore follow that the present Ordinations by simple Presbyters is valid also, unless it can be still proved that such a Succession of Presbyterian Government has been continued down to our present times, and that the Power of Ordination is now, also conferred by them on simple Presbyters, as they conceive it to have been then. If all the Successions of those Presbyterian Governments be long since extinct, (as most certainly they are now if they ever were in being) than it is as vain to revive a title from them now, which is impossible to be received from them, as it would be to revive the title of the Julian Family to the Roman Empire. And therefore they being uncapable of having Successors, on this supposition, it must follow that the Episcopal Successions are the only Successions now remaining of the Apostolical Power, so that neither Presbyters nor Presbyteries can now have any more of the Power of the Apostles than what they can derive from the Episcopal Successions.   

CHAP. XXII. The Authority of administering the Sacraments is not now to be expected any where but in the Episcopal Communion.  
THE CONTENTS.  
4. This Authority of administering the Sacraments is not now to be expected any where but in the Episcopal Communion. §. I. Hence it follows that all the Authority which can be pretended in any other form of Government now, must be derived from the Episcopal Government of that Age wherein that form first began. §. II. The first dividers of the several parties had never a power given them of ordaining others by them who made them Presbyters. §. III, IV. 1. They have actually received no more power from God than they have received from their Ordeiners. §. V 2. They have actually received no more from their Ordeiners than what their Ordeiners did actually intent to give them, according to their presumable intention. §. VI 3. That is to be presumed likely to be the intention of their Ordeiners, which may be presumed likely to be thought becoming by Persons in their Circumstances. §. VII. 4. The securest way of judging what the Bishops, who first Ordained these Dividers, thought becoming must be by the Notions then prevailing when these first Dividers were Ordained. §. VIII.  
§ I 4. THIS Authority is not now to be expected any where but in the Episcopal Communion. This is a plain Corollary from the former Propositions. For from thence it has appeared, that no Authority can be expected in this present Age, but in that Communion where the Succession of Apostolical Power has been continued to this present. And that this Succession has been continued to our days in no other but the Episcopal Communion, I conceive to be a thing so notorious as that I think our Adversaries themselves will not deny it. They do not, that I know of, pretend the like uninterrupted Succession in any other form of Government.  
§ TWO HENCE it plainly follows that all the Authority which can be pretended in any other form of Government, or in any other Communion at present, must be derived from the Episcopal, especially of that Age wherein the several parties began. I suppose therefore that within less than two hundred years since, that there was no Church in the world wherein a visible Succession was maintained from the Apostles times to ours, which was not Episcopally governed. I suppose also that the first Inventors of the several Sects were at first Members of these Episcopal Churches, and received both their Baptism in them, and all the Orders they received. I need not use that Argument here, that they must therefore have received their Authority in the Episcopal Communion, because there was then no other Communion that could give this Authority. I think our Adversaries themselves as many of them as pretend to a regular Ordination, or a valid Succession, will not deny but that what Orders were received by them, were actually received by their Forefathers in the Episcopal Communion, and by Episcopal Authority. Let us therefore see whether the Orders so received can make valid what they now do in their several Separations, that is, whether they can ratify their Ordinances, or their Sacraments, or any thing else that concerns them as a Church, that is, as a Society privileged with Spiritual Privileges?  
§ III AND here I do not intent to take the advantage I might against the exercise of that Power by these Persons in their separate condition which they had before really and validly received from a just Authority which was able to give it them. I make no exceptions as to the validity of that exercise of it, much less as to the Canonicalness of it, which I know our Adversaries will much less regard. The uttermost that can be made of that is only this, that such Persons did receive a Power for their own Lives, which must expire with their Lives, which this present Generation is not concerned for. If therefore I can show that they of this Generation have nothing from them by which they can justify the validity of their Mission, and consequently the comfort of their Ordinances, which must, by the foregoing Principles, depend on this validity of their Mission; this will abundantly answer my design. It will let them see that, at least in the second Generation, no comfort of Church-Ordinances can be had out of the Episcopal Communion. Which will both let them see how much their Congregations must fail of being complete Churches, and consequently fail of the comforts and Privileges of such Churches, when they are not able to maintain a Succession; and must withal let them of this Generation see (at least so many of them as have not Ministers Episcopally ordained) their obligation, in interest, as well as Conscience, to return to the Communion from which they have fallen, as they desire all those comforts they might expect by being in a Church. And even for them, who at present enjoy such Ministers as have had Episcopal Ordination, this may also let them see how much better it were to return to the Communion of the Church soon, when they must be at length necessitated to return at the death of that particular Minister, at least they cannot hope for another ordained as he is, to succeed him; and withal how unlikely it is, that their Churches should be the only Churches beloved by God, when they are in imminent danger of that which God had threatened, in the Revelations, to those Churches which had provoked him, of having their Candlestick removed from them, of failing immediately in the next Succession.  
§ IV THAT therefore which I am to prove is, that neither the first Dividers, nor any among them now who have received the Order of Presbytery by Episcopal Authority, had ever any such Power given them as might enable them to ordain others on account of their being made only Presbyters. Whether they might have given them that Power I am not at present obliged to inquire. It suffices at present, that they have it not. Their not having it is alone sufficient to disannul all they do on supposition of it. Nor am I concerned whether they be obliged by God to give with the Order of Presbytery the Power of Ordination. No doubt our Adversaries will say that they are so obliged. But does it therefore follow that they have actually done it, because they are obliged to do it? May not the Episcopal Ordeiners fail of this, as well as our Adversaries pretend them to have failed of many other Obligations? If they do indeed fail, and do not actually give them that power of ordaining others which our Adversaries suppose them obliged to give them, all that can be said is, that their Ordeiners are to blame for it, and responsible to God for it; not that the Persons ordained by them have it, but that they are wronged of it, because it is not given to them. And is not the very supposition of their being wronged of it, of their not having it given them, a certain Argument that actually they have it not? unless possibly they suppose that either they may have it without being given, or have it from God immediately, though they cannot pretend to have it from Persons Authorized by him. But both these pretences have been prevented by what has been already discoursed: And their not having this Power, on what account soever they be hindered from having it, is alone sufficient to invalidate all they do that cannot be done without it.  
§ V IN order hereunto therefore I suppose, 1. That they have actually received no more Power from God than they have received from their Ordeiners. This plainly appears from what has been already proved that their Ordeiners are they, and they alone who have represented God's Person in dealing with them, and God has not appointed any other means of dealing immediately with them in these later Ages, and therefore all that Power which can be thought to come to them originally from God must come immediately from their Ordeiners.  
§ VI 2. THEREFORE I suppose further that they have actually received from their Superiors nothing but what their Superiors did actually intent to give them. One would think this should be very clear, that they can receive nothing but what is given them, and that nothing can be given but what is intended to be given. This is indeed the great design of the equity of the Law, to take care that contracts be observed according to the presumable intention of the Parties that made them, and the dealing is then thought most fair and equal when all that is given that can be presumed to have been intended by a fair dealer, and when nothing more is extorted by the other Party, whose interest may make him challenge what was never designed for him, nay cannot, in any prudence, be presumed to have been designed. But for my present Cause I am not concerned whether this be true. It suffices that nothing be given by them concerning which they may be presumed that they did intent not to give it. And though it were possible, that, supposing the Ordeiners were obliged to give the Power of ordaining others when they made Presbyters, the Law might presume that they did actually intent to do so, though their secret intentions were to do otherwise, because the Law is always charitable, to judge the best where there is no evidence to the contrary, and therefore might presume in such a case that every man intends really as he is obliged to intent; yet still the reason why, even in such a case, this might be reasonable, is not because they can be supposed to give what they never intent to give, but because they may, in this way of proceeding, be presumed to intent what they do not really intent, which is still very reconcilable with what I say, that their gift is to be measured by their presumed intention. And therefore to prevent all possible exceptions of this kind, I do intent to ground my Argument, not on the secret, but the presumed intention of these Ordeiners, I am speaking of, and shall accordingly show that the Bishops who ordained these revolting Presbyters ought to be presumed to have intended not to give them a Power of ordaining others.  
§ VII TO this purpose I suppose, 3. That, as indeed the Law is always charitable to presume that every man intends as it becomes him to intent: so it is withal prudent to presume his actual intention, not from what others do think will become him, no nor from what will really become him in the judgement of God himself, who is infallible, but from what the Person may be presumed likely to judge to become him according to the general sense of men in his circumstances. And therefore our Brethren must not judge of the intention of the Bishop by the real will of God, much less by their own Notions concerning Gods will, who cannot pretend to be more infallible than the Bishop himself; but by the judgement of the Bishop himself, that he must be presumed to intent what, according to the Principles which he is known to believe, as a condition necessary in his circumstances to his being a Bishop, he must think himself obliged to intent. This observation will prevent all the Arguments by which themselves are persuaded that the Power of Ordination ought to be given to every Presbyter, which they think the Bishop ought to will also, and therefore that he ought to be presumed to will it, if he be presumed to will as he ought. It is his actual good intention that we are concerned for at present. And that must not be presumed from Principles disputed, but from Principles already, and notoriously granted by him.  
§ VIII 4. THEREFORE, in this way of judging of the actual intention of those Bishops who ordained the first Separatists, there can be no more prudent and secure measure than to consider the Notions then prevailing concerning the power of Presbyters, especially those which were fundamental to all the Canons that were then in force, as the Rules of Practice of this power. These are most likely to have been taken by them for the measures of their Conscience. And indeed the Canons were introduced into practice by a universal consent, either when they were made, or when they were received. And they who received power, yet were obliged to those Canons as to the exercise of it; and therefore if they were either persuaded of the truth of the prevailing Opinion, or were true to the obligations they had taken for the observance of the Canons, these we have reason to presume to have been the measures of their consciences, and therefore we have also reason further to suppose their practices such as might agree with these on supposition that they acted conscientiously. And though possibly some particular persons might have entertained singular Opinions, yet it is not so secure to presume his conveyance of Orders to have been fitted to his singular Opinions, not only because it is not so easy to presume that any particular Person did follow a singular Opinion, when the generality were so agreed in another; nor only in regard of that resignation of Judgement which in those Ages was thought excellent in point of conscience, on which account many thought themselves obliged to follow the sentiments of their Superiors, in contradiction to their own; but also because the validity of Succession depends on the practice and sense of the Generality, of all places and Ages, but especially of all Ages. And though a particular person might intent differently from the rest of his Brethren, yet he could give no more than himself had received, and what that was depended on the intention of his ordainer, which again will be best presumed from the sense of the Generality. Only the supreme power is that which can never be presumed to have been confined. At least this is a presumption that the Bishops then acted according to the Opinions and Canons then generally received unless they expressly declared themselves to the contrary. Their silence is so far from being an Argument of their being of another mind, as that it is indeed a very strong presumption, in this case, if in any, of their consent. If they continued silent when it so much concerned them to speak their minds that people might know the power they intended to give the Persons ordained by them, they must expect that people would understand them according to the received Opinions, and therefore we have reason to presume that they themselves were desirous to be so understood.  
§ IX BUT whatever were the sentiments of the primitive Church concerning the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters originally; whatever also they thought concerning the fitness that the power of Ordination should be given to bare Presbyters; yet it is notorious that the contrary Opinion and Practice prevailed in the Church universally when the first dividing Presbyters (whoever they were) were ordained, and for many hundred years before, even very near the times of the Apostles, if we may believe the concurrent suffrages of the most learned Antiquaries of our Adversaries. They do not deny, and indeed the matter of Fact is too notorious to be denied by men of any ingenuity, that whether they ought to be so or not, yet actually Bishops were then distinguished from Presbyters, and distinguished in this very particular, that the power of Ordination was reserved as a Prerogative of the Bishop, and never communicated to simple Presbyters. Nor was it only their practice to do so, but their Judgement that they ought to do so on account of Conscience. It is very notorious that, at least a little before the Reformation, Aerius, and the Waldenses, 
Vid. Alphons. à Castr. adv. Haeres. verb. Episcop.  and Marsilius of Milan and Wiclef, were condemned for Heretics for asserting the Parity of Bishops and Presbyters. And it is withal as notorious that every Bishop was then obliged to condemn all Heresies, that is, all those Doctrines which were then censured as Heretical by that Church by which they were admitted to be Bishops; and how odious also the name of Heresy was then, even on account of Conscience. I mention even these, because, whatever their Doctrines were in other things, and how far soever they might go to justify a separation from them who taught those Doctrines, yet our Protestants themselves do not pretend to any Succession in these Western parts where themselves received their Orders, but what was conveyed to them, even by such Bishops as these were; nor do I use their Authority for proving the Truth of their Doctrine in their censure of this particular Heresy: but only to clear what their actual intention was in the Orders given by them, for which it is sufficient that they themselves thought them true, whether they were mistaken or not in thinking so. However this is so acknowledged to have been believed and practised in the Ages we are speaking of, as that the very Presbyterians themselves do charge them with differing herein from the sense of the first times, because the Bishops had, and exercised, a Superiority over Presbyters which they conceive they had not in the Apostolical times. They therefore call them Humane Bishops in opposition to the Scripture Bishops whom they conceive not to have been distinct from Presbyters. And could the Bishops be no Scripture-Bishops because they were distinct from Presbyters? And were not their Presbyters as much distinct, for the same reason, from Scripture-Presbyters, because they were distinct from Bishops? If this consequence hold, why do they challenge the power and privileges of those Scripture-Presbyters when they are so different from them? If it do not, why do they asperse the sacred Order of Episcopacy in modern Ages with such a deviation from the Primitive Rule?  
§ X HOWEVER this being notorious, that the Bishops of the later Ages did actually think they ought to be distinct, and distinct in this very particular of Ordination; how is it probable that they would give all that power to Presbyters that should leave no distinction between them? that they would give that power of Ordination to them which they took for the most characteristical distinctive, for the most incommunicable Prerogative of the Bishop over Presbyters? Is it probable that they would have been so partial against their own common interest to betray the honour of their Order? Is it probable that they would do so when they were as firmly persuaded that it was their right in Conscience, as well as that it was their interest, that it should be so? Nay, have we not all the assurance on the contrary that either Interest or Conscience can give us that those Bishops never intended to give the power of Ordination to the Presbyters ordained by them? nay, that they intended, on the contrary, to reserve it from them? And is not this as great an assurance as can be expected in such a matter?   

CHAP. XXIII. What influence the Opinion which prevailed in the modern Schools, That Bishops and Presbyters differed not Order but in Degree, might have upon the intention of the Ordeiners of those times?  
THE CONTENTS.  
§ I The Objection. Answ. 1. It seems rather to have been Interest than Conscience that inclined men to the belief of this Opinion. This cleared from a short History of this Opinion. §. I, TWO, III, IV, V Answ. 2. Though this Opinion had been received more universally, than it appears it was, by the Multitude, yet it is not likely that it would be so received by the Bishops, upon whose Intention the validity of the Orders conferred by them must depend. §. VI Answ. 3. Though the Bishops of those Ages had been universally of this Opinion, yet it does not thence follow that they must have given to the Presbyters, ordained by them, the power of ordaining others. It does not follow from the Notions of those times. §. VII. Nor from the reason of the thing. §. VIII, IX. The Principles on which those Persons proceeded in making one Order of Episcopacy and Presbytery did not oblige them to believe that the Power of ordaining others was a right of simple Presbyters. §. X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV. Answ. 4. They, who then held this Opinion, did, in all likelihood, neither intent, nor think of, any consequence from it prejudicial to the establishments then received. §. XV, XVI.  
THE only considerable Objection that I can foresee in this matter, is the opinion which then obtained among some of the modern Schoolmen, that Bishops and Presbyters were all one Order, and differed only in degree, that the consecration of a Bishop did not give him a new Character, but extend the old one which he had received before when he was ordained Presbyter; and the influence that this opinion might have on the Practice of those Bishops, if any such there were, who then believed it, to give the whole essential power of Bishops to those whom they ordained Presbyters, yet so as to restrain them in the practice of it by their Canonical Obedience. I do not take all the advantages I might against this opinion, as it was maintained in those Ages, to show that it is too suspicious that it was rather pique than Conscience that then brought men to it. Whenever it was vented, it seems to have been vented with particular design, and particular provocation. Not to ascend to the more knowing times, for in truth I am not desirous to touch the reputation any men have gained in the World where it may be spared with the interest of Truth, that is indeed where errors have not been introduced into the World by the Authority of men of undeserved reputation, and there sure none can blame me for complying with so unpleasing a necessity. The first time that it was retrieved after St. Hierome seems to have been in the eighth Century, and then with a particular design upon the Chorepiscopi, whose power was then maligned as derogatory to the Ordinaries. And the wisest course for reducing them, and withal the least invidious, was thought to be, not so much directly to magnify the power of the Ordinary as to magnify the dignity of them who had been subject to the Chorepiscopi, which they endeavoured not only by degrading the Chorepiscopus to the orders of a Presbyter, but by extolling the office of a Presbyter to an equality in some regards with the Bishops, to whom they, the Chorepiscopus himself, as well as other Presbyters, were obliged to pay obedience, as indeed he was. All this dispute was nothing but pure design, and how very disingenuously it was managed, appears from the several Epistles of ancient Popes counterfeited in that Age, for this very purpose to prove the Chorepiscopi to have been simple Presbyters, which may justly make us jealous of the integrity of the same party in this other principle which they advanced in opposition to it.  
§ TWO HAVING therefore gained their design in the subversion of this Office, and the Bishops themselves not being hitherto concerned to oppose this opinion whilst it was so favourable to their interests, and whilst it added to their power by the ruin of so considerable a Rival; though we have reason to believe that this usefulness of the Opinion must have endeared it to the Affections of those who had served themselves by it, yet we find little mention of it from that time till it became again useful. That was when the Popes aspired to a Superiority above all Bishops and Councils. Then it was that Dispensations and Delegations grew frequent, so that nothing was performable by the Bishop by virtue of his Office, but what was communicated to simple Presbyters by Papal Delegations. This as it highly tended to the advancement of the Roman See, so we may have reason to believe that all the Arts of the Roman Court and its Parasites were employed in promoting it. And there was no more likely policy for it than this, to make use of the same way for the subversion of the Episcopal Power which the Bishops themselves had before been so favourable to, when it was used against the Chorepiscopi. Which was a policy of the same kind with that which that politic See had made use of in their disputes with the Patriarch of Constantinople. They then seemed not so much concerned for his equalling himself with them, as for his preferring himself before the other Patriarches. This they knew to be a more popular Art to make him odious without discovering their own ambition. And in our present case, we know that this was the reason that made the Papal Bishops, even in the Council of Trent so averse to the asserting the Divine institution of their own order. And this I believe our Brethren themselves will confess to have been a very corrupt design. And yet in these unhappy times, whilst this ill design was driving on, the Schoolmen flourished, of whose suffrages they are so proud in this particular.  
§ III AND as the Pope was thus interested to oppress the Episcopal Authority whilst it was capable to stand in competition with him; so when afterwards the generality of the Bishops were so linked to him by the dependence he had brought them to, as that they could not be trusted as equal Judges in matters concerning his Authority, and yet the public exigence of the Age forced them on those disputes, they were then also interested to weaken their Authority when they found it so prejudicial to their great design. This was plainly the case when the disputes came in between Popes and General Councils. If those were to be tried by Bishops, the Popes must evidently have carried it. Not only the dependence of those, who were already made, on him for their preferment, but the multitudes more he might have made, when he had seen it useful for his purpose, of Titulars and Dependants, as he did in Trent, might have secured him of the major votes of the Bishops in any Council that would be swayed by the major votes. This the Papalins very well understood in the Council of Basil when knowing how small a proportion the Bishops bore in that Council to the rest that were allowed their votes there, 
Aen. Sylu. Comment. de gest. Conc. Bas.  and how sure they were to be over-voted, so long as those other votes were allowed, they desired that the matters might be determined by the Bishops alone according to the Precedents of former Councils. But this the Cardinal of Arles the great Patron of that Council would by no means endure, and among other Arguments on which he insists in asserting the right of Presbyters to a vote in Councils, this is the principal, of the opinion of St. Hierome concerning the original equality of Bishops and Presbyters. And considering how many innovations the Councils of those times, and this among the rest, were forced upon by the exigency of their affairs, rather than by their Judgement, such as the votes of the Universities and of the Deputies of the Nations, (of which I verily believe no ancienter precedent can be given) none can admire if in this they were also transported beyond what they would have done otherwise. And he who considers the reasonings of the Council for the Superiority of Councils above the Pope, as they are represented by Aeneas Silvius who was among them, and then a friend of them when he gave this account of them, will find that they are the very same which have been since insisted on by all Republicans and Enemies of Monarchy in general, by which it is easy to judge how far the men of that party, (many of whom were Subjects to Monarches) were transported with the heats of the disputes then managed. I mention not the exigency of affairs which necessitated the Fathers of the Reformation to take refuge in this Opinion, when they also found how the generality of the Bishops then in being were, by their interest, obliged to stand by the Roman Court in the Prerogatives then disputed, as well as by the Oaths they had taken at their Consecration; and consequently how impossible it was to expect an impartial decision of their Disputes from an Order so interessed and obliged whether in or out of Councils. I have really much better thoughts of the integrity of these Persons than of the Ages now mentioned. But even well meaning Persons are undiscernibly inclinable to favour Propositions which are inclinable to their Interests, and to have as little kindness for such as are against their interests. And how far favour may go for the deciding things which are of themselves any thing disputable, to divert men from considering the uttermost that can be said for a contrary cause, and to make little things seem great when they are produced for a favourable Opinion, he must be a stranger to Humane Nature and Conversation who has not observed. However their Authority cannot be considerable in this matter, because no Ordinations depended on them.  
§ IV I DO not, by this discourse, in the least prejudg against the evidence producible by our Adversaries in this cause. I do not therefore prejudg against the Truth of their cause, because their interest obliged them to defend it. I am sensible how very possible it is that truth may concur with interest. All therefore that I infer from these cases, is, that there was in all these cases interest that might divert Persons who were not very wary, as well as sincere, from the quest of Truth. But truly considering the light of those times by which alone they were enabled to judge, without prejudice to the light of our own Age which our modern Adversaries have produced; and considering the prejudices by which they were generally acted, I confess I cannot see how to excuse the maintainers of this Opinion in those times from insincerity. For how was it possible for them who received Isidore Mercator's wares for genuine, to doubt of the Primitive Superiority of Bishops over Presbyters, when he must find all the particular subordinations of the Episcopal Hierarchy so minutely described in Epistles ascribed to Clement, Cletus, Linus, etc. And what one was there from Hincmar's time downwards to the times we speak of, who ever questioned them? Who could question it that believed the many Legends then extant concerning the Primitive times of Christianity? And who was there then who could find in his heart to question them? especially considering their incompetency to judge of the evidence produced by our modern Adversaries. They knew nothing of most of those Testimonies amassed by Blondel. Many of their names they had not heard of, at least they had not seen their Works, or if they had seen, they could not understand them, as many of them as were in Greek and were not then translated. The Scriptures themselves as they had been quoted by St. Hierome for this purpose, were the principal Arguments they were capable of knowing. But it is withal notorious how much more was then ascribed to Commentators of note than any evidence of the Text itself for the sense of the Scripture.  
§ V AND therefore I am apt to think that St. Hierome's Authority in applying those Texts prevailed more with them than any Inferences they could have made from the Texts themselves. For we otherwise see very many instances of this partiality, not only of forced Literal senses, but also of Mystical ones, which passed unquestioned among them, and were used upon all occasions as Arguments against Adversaries on the Authority of Commentators of far less note than he was of. And the single Authority of St. Hierome against, not only the concurrent Testimonies of his own Age, and of Authorities than esteemed every way as considerable as his own, but, (which passed for a much more prevailing Argument in the Ages I am speaking of,) against the concurrent practice of the then Catholic Church, could not, in any probability, be taken for so convincing an Argument in Conscience in times that were so manifestly swayed by Authorities. I mention not the partialities that most probably got St. Hierome himself that Authority among them, that the very favourable Epistle of his to Damasus wherein he so extols the See of Rome, seems to have recommended him to the counterfeiter of the Roman Council under the name of Gelasius, not long before the time of Isidore Mercator, as the Authority of that Council in Isidore's Collection might recommend him downwards, as soon as that bundle of Forgeries had once prevailed universally. All the use that I make at present of these insinuations is, that if it be suspicious whether the men who then followed these Principles did embrace them out of a sincere sense of their Truth, than they cannot be presumed to have been Principles of Conscience. Which if they were not, this is sufficient to show that they are not fit measures of the Power that was actually given by the Bishops of that Age.  
§ VI AND though they had been received more universally than it appears they were, among the Multitude, yet how is it likely that it was so received among the Bishops themselves? Is it likely that they would be generally so partial to an Opinion so destructive of their common rights as Bishops? Is it likely that they would be so partial when there was no evident prevailing consideration in point of Conscience that might induce them to it; when it was a matter of dispute even among disinterested Persons, and debated by Arguments and Authorities at least as considerable on their side as on the others? If any particular Bishops had been so strangely partial against themselves, and thought themselves obliged in Conscience to be so; yet sure there is no reason to make use of it as a presumption to judge of the minds of them who had not otherwise declared their minds expressly, and to judge of them universally. And yet it has appeared that the whole use of this opinion, for judging what Power was actually given, is only as a presumption; and even this presumption is useless concerning others than the Bishops. None but they pretended to the Power of giving Orders, at least not to the exercise of that Power. And therefore whatever any else thought besides the Bishops is very impertinent to our present purpose, because it can give us no assurance what was actually intended by the Bishops, and it is only their intention by which we can, in prudence, judge what Power was actually given by them.  
§ VII BUT let us suppose, that which, in prudence, can never be supposed, that the Bishops of those Ages were universally of this opinion, that their own Order was the same with that of Presbyters, yet it does not thence follow that they must have given Presbyters the Power of Ordination. It neither follows from the Notions of those times, nor from the reason of the thing. And sure we cannot better judge of a matter of this nature than by one of these two ways. It does not follow from the Notions of those times. For even they who thought them to be the same Order, yet made them different degrees; and that not only from the custom of the Church, but by Divine Right also. But it could not have appeared how they could distinguish them, even in degree, but by allowing something in practice to the Superior degree as a peculiar Prerogative, and there was nothing thought so 
a So Epiphanius. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. H●res. lxxv. 4. And again: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ib. And St. chrysostom: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. init. Hom. two. in 1. ad Tim. p. 289.  peculiar to the Episcopal degree as this power of Ordination. This was the very particular excepted by St. Hierome 
b Quid enim facit, exceptâ Ordinatione, Episcopus, quod Presbyter non faciat? Ep. 85. ad Euagr.  himself, even where he most of all pleads for parity in other things. I know there are of our Brethren who understand St. Hierome's words, not of the original right of appropriating ordination to them as left to them by the Apostles, but of a privilege actually allowed them by the practice of the Church in that Age wherein he wrote, which I shall not now dispute. It suffices that he made no mention of Ordination among the instances of their parity; nay, that he expressly excepts this particular among his other proofs of the identity of their Office, without telling expressly on what right it was that he made the exception, which were very fair occasions to induce them to believe, that he did not intent to give them the power of Ordination, especially when it was withal notorious, and confessed by himself, that he lived in the Communion of a Church, wherein Presbyters were debarred from the exercise of this Power. It suffices that they who, in that Age followed his Authority, were not obliged by any of their designs in promoting his opinion to understand him of a parity in the power of Ordination; nay, never seem actually to have understood him so, whatever other sense has been applied to him by those who have more subtly considered him in our present Age. It is not St. Hierome's true opinion that I am now concerned for, but that of those who might then have followed him. If they never understood him of a parity between Bishops and Presbyters in the power of ordination; If they did not really believe them equal in this particular; if they actually believed that this distinction of degree was from the Apostles, and that this power of ordination was the peculiar Prerogative of the Superior degree; then certainly they who then followed St. Hierome, might notwithstanding, if they maintained these things also together with his opinion, thinks themselves obliged never to give the power of ordination to the Presbyters that were then ordained by them. So far our Brethren are from any solid ground of a presumption that such a thing was ever intended for them.  
§ VIII AND as this consequence was far from being owned in the actual sense of those times, so neither will it indeed follow from the opinion of these Persons, that simple Presbyters had any right to a power of Ordination. Though they believed Episcopacy to be the same Order with Presbytery, yet their acknowledging a difference in degree was enough to hinder them from confounding the peculiar rights of the several degrees; and this we see was taken for the peculiar right of Episcopacy. Though they conceived no new Character to have been imprinted in the Consecration of a Bishop, yet withal they confessed that the Character of his Presbytery was extended. And why may not this extension extend his Power also, at least to some Acts to which he had not Power before? Nay, certainly this very thing was intended by them, that it should actually do so. And if so, then certainly this extended Power must have implied an addition of Power above what was in it before it was so extended. Whence it will plainly follow, that this Power of Ordination to which the Episcopal Character was extended was wanting in them whilst they were simple Presbyters, that is, before it was so extended. And therefore they who were of this Opinion, could not think themselves obliged to give this Power to simple Presbyters. As to the Canonical exercise of their Power, Presbyters still depended on their Bishops, even in things not exceeding their Power as Presbyters. But when a simple Presbyter was licenced to Preach or hear Confessions, this was not properly called an extension of his Character. By which it seems most likely that by this extension of the Character they did not only mean a Canonical Liberty to exercise more Acts of the same Power which they supposed them to have received before, but an addition of a new branch of Power, which because Presbyters want, if they presume to exercise it, their doing so must prove not only uncanonical but invalid. Though they believed the substance of the Power to have been the same, yet certainly the least that could have been meant by the difference of Degree between Bishops and Presbyters must have been that Bishops had that same Power independently which the Presbyters had dependently on the Bishops, as to the exercise of it. Undoubtedly this they did grant who held this Opinion of St. Hierome in the greatest rigour in those Ages I am speaking of, if they did not grant something more. And yet this is sufficient for my present design, both to show why these very Persons might not have thought it fit to give this power of Ordination to simple Presbyters, and why it is very rational for us also to presume that they did not actually give it them.  
§ IX FOR by the fundamental Principles of all Societies the Power of giving Power to others is still reserved as a Prerogative of him who has that same Power independently. And the reason of it is very plain as to both parts, as to him that has the Power dependently, and as to him who has it independently. He who has the Power of administering the Sacraments, yet so as to depend on the Authority of another in the exercising of that Power, cannot therefore with any Justice make a valid conveyance of that Power to another, because he cannot himself be taken for an absolute Master of that Power. Though the Power itself be given irrevocably, yet while it is given with the condition of dependence, is cannot be alienable by the Person to whom it is given, without the giver's consent, because the right of alienation supposes a property of our own, and dependence implies a reservation of right to him on whom we do depend, which right, as it is absolutely necessary to an entire alienation, so it cannot, with any Justice or validity be disposed of without the consent of him whose property it is. Besides that giving of Power does plainly belong to the exercise of Power, and to a higher degree of exercise of it than that of the exercise of the Power so given, as it implies a greater Power to give a Power, which includes a capacity of all the Acts belonging to it, than only to give a liberty to exercise a particular Act. And therefore he who has not a just title to give way to the exercise of the Power so given, can be much less supposed to have one to that higher exercise of Power by which the Power itself is disposed of. It is also clear as to him that has the Power independently. It is necessary for Government that all others do depend on those who are themselves supposed independent. But this cannot be understood unless the independent Power alone be allowed the Power of admitting to Office whom he pleases. If others may be allowed to give their Power, they will soon make themselves independent, if they were not so at first, by making a party and perpetuating it. But because this whole Power of giving Power in the Persons I am speaking of is so eternally irreconcilable with the safety of Societies, therefore it is fit it should never be given them; and therefore, in the way of presumption, for which I am at present concerned, it is to be presumed that it never was intended for them.  
§ X BUT if our Brethren would be pleased to reflect on the Principles on which these Persons proceeded in making one Order of Episcopacy and Presbytery, they would find that they did not in the least oblige them to believe that this Power of ordaining others was a right of simple Presbyters, The plain reason was, that they made their distinction of Orders only in relation to the Sacrament of the Eucharist. And because simple Priests had the full Power of this Sacrament, of consecrating as well as of administering it, so that there was nothing higher requisite for the completion of this solemnity reserved to the Bishop, nor capable of being reserved to him, therefore there was on this account no room left for any Order above Priesthood. And because this Power of transubstantiating the Eucharistical Elements was then looked on as the highest instance of Power that could be communicated to Mortals, because this was thought sufficient to exempt from all Subjection to temporal Princes; nay, to place the Spiritual Power above the Princes; and yet in this instance of Power, which had been so extremely extolled in the Disputes of those Ages between the Popes and Princes, the Bishops could pretend to do no more than what was performable by every ordinary Priest, therefore it can be no wonder if, in this regard, many of them could not allow any Order superior to that of simple Priesthood. He that is but a little conversant in the writings of that Age will find that as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was very eagerly maintained as the great recommendation of the Sacred Power in those Disputes which were then raised concerning it; so it is particularly urged for the honour of Presbytery, as often as they were put upon magnifying their Office. And this I therefore take in earnest to have been the true reason that inclined those of the Writers of that Age that followed this Opinion, rather than the pretended instances of Scripture, or even the Authority of St. Hierome himself. For these were Principles for which as they were more firmly interested, so I believe they were also much more hearty believed in that Age than any on● particular controverted sense of Scripture recommended on the Authority of one particular Father. And therefore whatever Superiority of Bishops over Priests was reconcilable with this allowance of a Power of consecrating the Eucharist to simple Priests, all this might have been acknowledged by these very Persons notwithstanding their making them the same Order. And considering that this Power of Ordination was thus reconcilable, this Opinion could not hinder those Persons from appropriating it to the Bishops.  
§ XI FOR notwithstanding this Power of the Priesthood over the Corpus Christi verum was thought common to them with the Bishops, yet the Power over the Corpus Christi Mysticum (this was the language of those Ages) was then acknowledged for the peculiar right of the Bishops. And what can our Adversaries think themselves gainers by this Opinion, as it was maintained then, if they did not think the peculiarity of this Power sufficient to constitute a distinct Order? What matter is it whether they owned the word or no, so long as they owned the thing which our Adversaries may possibly think more properly imported by the word? Whatever the word do most properly signify, yet when we use it, as we do now, to judge of the meaning of those who used it, we are to take it as they understood it, how improperly soever they understood it. And we have the rather reason to do so in this case, because the word had no notorious sense antecedent to those Ages which they might be obliged to mean, and which they might therefore be presumed to mean where they did not very expressly declare the contrary. The terms of Ordo and Gradus, as they were terms of Art, were entirely introduced by themselves, unmentioned in the Sacred Writers, no nor as the constant language of the Church, neither of the Catholic Church, nor even of the Latin Church for many of the most ancient Ages. And why might not they be allowed to impose their own signification on their own terms?  
§ XII IF our Adversaries say, that the allowance of this Power only to Bishops will make them a distinct Order, than they must confess that the Authors we are speaking of were of our mind in the thing, and of theirs only in the use of the words, which they will find will stand them in no stead for the present design of proving their Succession. They must then say that those Authors make Episcopacy really a distinct Order with us, though they were pleased to call it only a distinct Degree with them. But if they grant that this Power is not sufficient to make them a distinct Order, we shall not be very solicitous whether they use that word so long as they acknowledge this Power. This Power of Government being appropriated to the Bishops will, in the consequence, appropriate the Power of Ordination to them, not only as Ordination implies the giving of the Power of Government to inferior Governors, but also as it is requisite for the ends of Government, not to give simple Presbyters a Power of giving their Power to others, for fear of that independence which would, in course, follow thereupon, even in the exercise of that Power. Whatever our Adversaries may think of this reasoning in it self, yet certainly they cannot deny it to have been agreeable to the actual Notions of those times, which is as much as I am concerned for at present.  
§ XIII AND if we would, according to another Notion of those times, found the Power over the Corpus Christi Mysticum on the power over the Corpus Christi verum, yet even so there was room left for asserting the Power of Ordination to the Bishops alone. For though the Power over the Corpus Christi verum was taken for the highest exercise of Power that was communicated to Mortals, yet even in that exercise of Power there were several Degrees which might very probably incline them to acknowledge a distinction, rather in Degree than in Order, between the Persons distinguished by them; and this distinction of Degrees was sufficient for appropriating the Power of Ordination to the Bishops alone. Even in the exercise of that Power, he who had a Power to give his Power to another must be supposed to have a greater degree of that same Power than he who had it only for his own Person, and so that it must expire with his Life. Whether this was a distinct Power or a distinct Degree of the same Power seems to have been the main dispute between them who disputed whether Episcopacy were a distinct Order or Degree from Presbytery. Whoever was in the right, it is sufficient for my purpose that they were both agreed in this, that this Supreme, whether we call it Power, or only Degree of Power was appropriated to the Bishops, so that it was never so much as given to ordinary Presbyters. And what matter was it whether they called the Character of the Bishop a new one, o● an extension of the old one, which he had when he was made Presbyter? These were also terms first brought into general use by themselves from the private use of St. Augustine, and it was in their pleasure how they would use them. It is sufficient for me that the Power of ordaining others was not grounded barely on the Character itself, but on the Character as extended, and therefore could not be validly challenged by them, who had the Character alone given them without its extension.  
§ XIV AND though the Power of Jurisdiction over the Corpus Christi Mysticum for term of Life were grounded on the Power over the Corpus Christi verum for time of Life also, so that he who had the Power over the Corpus Christi verum could oblige the Mystical Body to what terms he pleased, and set up what Jurisdiction he pleased over them, when they could not have the true Body without him; yet so itself there was a right reservable to the Bishop over the true Body which might both oblige Priests to a dependence on the Bishop, and the whole Church to a nearer and more necessary dependency on Episcopacy than on the Priesthood. The Priests not having the exercise of their Power over the true Body, but by appointment of the Bishop, must oblige the Mystical Body to a greater dependence on the Bishop, than on Priests, in the exercise of this common Power. For this will it put in the Power of the Bishop to deprive the Mystical Body of the true Body, if he should forbid the Priests the exercise of their Power, though against their consent: and will withal put it out of the Power of the Priest to oblige the Mystical to any dependence on them, in opposition to the Bishop, by denying them the true Body when the Bishop requires them to give it, because their presuming to refuse it, in such a case, must be an invasion of the Bishop's right, and must consequently infer a Nullity in what they do without right to do it. But the Priests not having this Power given them of giving their Power to others, this must, in regard of this dependence of the Mystical Body on the true Body, free the People from a dependence on the Priesthood, which cannot secure them of the true Body in another generation. And on the contrary the Bishops having this Power given them, and to them alone this will oblige the Mystical Body to depend on them for a Succession, because they alone can continue the administration of the true Body to them through all Ages of Succession.  
§ XV AND as these Doctrines are very reconcilable with that of making Episcopacy and Presbytery one Order, on the Principles now mentioned; so they were certainly the actual sense of those who followed that Doctrine in that Age. Most certainly they who were of this opinion could not intent to follow the Doctrines, I do not say of the Aerians who had been reckoned in the Catalogues of Heretics, 
S. Augustini & Epiphanli.  long before their own times, but even of the Wiclevists and Waldenses who had been more lately censured for maintaining the equality of Bishops and Presbyters. They who know how odious the name of Heretic was in those days; and how express condemnations of them were required from Persons who were to be admitted to preferments; and how these Catalogues and Councils who had censured these Persons were the Standards whereby such Persons were obliged to judge who were Heretics; they, I say, cannot believe that the Bishops of that Age could have kept either their Communion or their Preferments, if they had been of our Adversaries mind in asserting the Order and Character of Episcopacy to have been the same with that of Priesthood. And they must still remember that it is by what was maintained by them with a good conscience, that we must judge what Power was actually designed for the Presbyters ordained by them. We must not therefore understand these Opinions so as to think that the Persons, who maintained them in the Ages we are speaking of, intended to exclude all difference between the two Offices. And if any difference were acknowledged, it must have been this of Ordination, which St. Hierome himself, the principal Author of this Opinion, had acknowledged for such an inseparable peculiar Prerogative of Episcopacy. And therefore we have all the reason we can desire to presume that even Persons of this Persuasion in that Age did intent to reserve this Power from the Presbyters that were ordained by them.  
§ XVI FOR it is particularly considerable that this case of theirs is not capable of that Apology for submitting to an unjust Government, which is usually, and I think very justly, made use of to excuse St. Hierome. He indeed seems to have thought that in the Apostles Age the Presbyters had a greater interest in the Government of the Church than was allowed them in his own. But this did not hinder his submission to the Government even of his own time, though it had not been so just; nay, did not hinder him from thinking that it might then have a very just, though an only humane right. It was his sense, not of the Government in the Apostles times, but of the Government of his own times, that concerned his present practice. But that which these Persons taught, who made Bishops and Presbyteries of the same Order, concerned not only the Apostles Age but their own. They thought them still to be, not only de Jure, but de Facto, of the same Order, and therefore could not think themselves under any higher Duty to their Bishops than what was consistent with their being of the same Order. And therefore if this had allowed them a Power of Ordaining others, why did they not challenge that Power? why did they suffer the Bishops to engross it to themselves, and to secure their present Usurpations to posterity for ever by an unquestioned peaceable prescription? Can not any one bold Spirit be found who would stand up for the honour of his Order? Can neither interest, nor conscience neither, animate some to give a pre●edent of contradicting it? they do not seem in those Ages to have been generally so me●k, and so fearful of disturbing the public Peace for what they thought to be their right. Mighty quarrels were then engaged on for matters of incomparably more trivial concernment; and where withal they had less interest either to provoke or animate them than here. And if indeed they had thought of any such consequences, as they must have thought, if their meaning in this Assertion were such as our Adversaries are apt to understand it to have been; how came it to pass that it escaped the censures of their then present Superiors? Is it likely that it could have escaped those censures in such an Age wherein policy was their principal study, and the principal employment of their zeal was the maintenance of their present establishments? Did none of these Persons who maintained these Opinions ever come themselves to be Governors? And if their Opinions altered with their Interests, must they not then have been conscious of the ill consequence, and mischievousness of what they had maintained formerly? If none of them had been conscious of these things from their own experience, yet sure their jealousy, and the momentousness of the thing, would have made them suspicious, though they wanted solid grounds; if they had only likelihoods. And these suspicions were sufficient to have awakened all their diligence for suppressing them. When I consider these things, I cannot but think that the Persons who then maintained this Opinion concerning the identity of the Order of Bishops and Presbyters must needs have been very far from thinking of any consequence prejudicial to their present establishments, much less from attempting any thing in practice, till pure necessity, as well as opportunity, forced them upon it. They did not therefore pretend to excuse Presbyters from the least instance of their Canonical Obedience to their Ordinary, even of that Obedience which was prescribed by the Canons of those times. So far it is from being probable that they intended to give them the peculiar prerogative of the Bishop, the Power of ordaining others; nay, so far do they seem from so much as judging it fit in Conscience that this Power should be given to them who were then ordained Presbyters. And yet from what has been already said, it appears sufficiently that nothing short of their actual intentions to give them this Power can suffice to legitimate our brethren's present Ordinations.   

CHAP. XXIV. The Nullity of the Ordinations of the Non-Conformists proved from the Power of the Bishops even as Precedents over the Presbyteries.  
THE CONTENTS.  
§ I This Supposition, That the Bishops had the right of presiding over Ecclesiastical Assemblies sufficient for our purpose. §. I. 1. In regard of that Power which must be granted due to him, even as Precedent. This proved by these degrees. 1. Even by the Principles of Aristocratical Government, no Power can be given but by the act of that Body wherein the right of Government is originally seated. §. II. 2. No act can be presumed to be the act of that Body but what has passed them in their public Assemblies. §. III. 3. No Assemblies can dispose of the right of such Societies, but such as are lawful ones according to the constitutions of the Societies. §. IV, V 4. The indiction of the Assembly by the Precedent is a right consequent to the Office of a Precedent as a Precedent, and a circumstance requisite to make the Assembly itself lawful. §. VI, VII. 5. The Bishops have always been the Precedents of Ecclesiastical Assemblies, even as high as our Adversaries themselves do grant the Practice of Presiding Presbyters. §. VIII, IX. This invalidates the Orders of our Adversaries. §. X. This was a right which no Bishops, how great Assertors soever of the identity of their Order with that of Presbyters, ever did renounce, or could renounce, without making their Government unpracticable. §. XI. Though the Bishops had received their Power from their Election by men; yet that would not suffice to make valid any Acts of the same men without their consent after their Election. §. XII, XIII. This right of Presidency might hold though the whole right of their Power had been purely Humane. §. XIV. But supposing that right Divine, all that men can do can be only to determine the Person, not to confine the Power. The reasoning here used will proceed though Bishops had been made by Presbyters alone without the concurrence and Consecration of other Bishops. §. XV. The Primitive Bishops seem indeed to have been made so by Presbyters without Bishops. §. XVI.  
BUT though we should suppose those Persons then to have been altogether of the same mind which they conceive those to have been of who lived in the Apostles times; though we suppose, not only that they thought it fit that the whole power of the Bishop should be given to Presbyters, but that they had actually given it them; suppose we that the Bishop had no more Authority reserved to him than only to preside in their Assemblies, that is, to call them, and to fit in the first place of them when they were convened, that is, supposing that the Bishop's Authority were no more than what was consistent with the Aristocratical form of Government which they conceive to have been observed in the Primitive times, (though this supposition be notoriously false concerning the Ages I am speaking of) yet I do not see how, even this way, our Brethren can defend the validity of their Ordinations by single Presbyters, especially as it is practised among them. Even by the Principles of Aristocratical Government no power can be given, (I do not mean only that it cannot be given Canonically, but that it cannot be given validly,) but to Persons who are at least in conjunction with those from whom they receive their power, then at least when they actually receive it. Which will consequently null all the Ordinations which have been made in the state of separation, and will therefore make it impossible for any Schism which is made by single Presbyters, in the way that has been observed by our Adversaries, to maintain itself with any pretence of Authority beyond one generation. And this must sure be very acceptable to those generous Spirits who are more solicitous for Catholic Unity than for the party in which they were born.  
§ TWO AND that this is so I shall endeavour to prove in two regards: in regard of the power that must be allowed to the Bishop, even as the Precedent of these Assemblies; and in regard of that which must be allowed to other Presbyters as fellow-members of the same Assemblies. 1. In regard of the power of the Bishop as Precedent of those Assemblies. For by the Fundamental Principles even of Aristocratical Government it is certain, 1. That no power can be given but by the act of that Body wherein the right of Government is originally seated, that is, in our case, of the whole Presbytery. It is against the interest of all Societies, and the principles of all Government, that single Members even of those who have otherwise power in conjunction with others to dispose of the Government of a Society, should be allowed the power of disposing of it in their single capacities. But it is peculiarly against the right of a Polyarchical Government, because no particular Member has the right of the whole Society, and therefore cannot dispose of the Government of it, which, whether it be supreme or subordinate, must imply either a power over the whole Society, or a power necessarily derived from that which is so. Even subordinate Authority must be derived from the supreme, that there may be such an essential dependence upon it as is necessary for the safety of all Societies. This will therefore make it a Nullity in the thing, if single Members do presume to dispose of that which is not their own right alone, but the right of the whole Body.  
§ III AND, 2. As by the nature of this Government, the right of it must be supposed to be in the whole Body, so neither can any act be presumed to be the act of the whole Body, but what has passed them in their public Assemblies. Though every particular Member for himself should signify his own consent, yet it is not taken for the act of the Society, till it be also signified in an Assembly, and it is taken for the act of the whole Society, if it pass them in their Assembly, though without the consent of every particular Person, so it have the prevailing vote; nay, though that prevailing vote be not the greater part of the Society, so it be only of the greater part of those which are present in such Assemblies. For the reason of this I say no more at present, but that it is found necessary for all Multitudes to agree on these Rules for settling Assemblies, and for giving this power to what is done in such Assemblies to conclude the whole Societies, and to the prevailing vote of those Assemblies to conclude the whole Assemblies, before they can pass out of the state of a Multitude into that of a Society, that is before they can have any Government that can solidly unite them, at least before they can have any Government that can be practicable. The same reasons which make this fit to be agreed on in any one Society are common to all Societies as Societies, and therefore must be allowed the same force in those that are Ecclesiastical as in those that are Civil, as they are capable of being administered in this Life. And therefore God himself cannot be supposed to have made a Government, even of his own institution, practicable, till he have settled these Rules of administering it. And when they are once settled, however they come to be so, whether by Gods own appointment, or by the consent of the People, it will then be very just, as well as fit to conclude, that what is done on pretence of the right of the Society out of such an Assembly cannot validly confer any right of the Society, because, on the Principles of the agreement on these Assemblies, they are not to be reputed as acts of the Society. And certainly, as nothing, but the Society itself, can in Justice make a valid conveyance of its own right, so it is not conceivable how the Society itself can do it by any thing but its own act. Besides, the very reason of agreeing on these Assemblies as the most convenient means for administering the power of the Society, seems to be purposely to preclude all surreptitious acts that might be pretended in the name of the Society, if designing men might be allowed in their pretences concerning what might be transacted privately. And therefore the main design of settling these Assemblies, seems to be for the establishment of this Negative, that nothing might be taken for the act of the Society which is not the act of some such Assembly. But yet proceeding on the Principles on which I have hitherto proceeded in this whole Discourse, the Argument will have yet more force. For supposing that the whole right of these Assemblies could not have proceeded from the bare consent of the Society, but from the actual establishment of God; the Society itself then can have no more power in the matter we are speaking of, than what it can derive from the constitution of those Assemblies, and therefore whatever were acted out of these Assemblies can never convey a right of the Society, how validly soever it have been acted as to the real consent of the particular Members pretended for it.  
3. BY the same common Laws of all Assemblies of this nature, § IV no Assemblies can dispose of the right of such Societies, but such as are lawful ones according to the constitutions of the Societies. This is also agreed on in the practice of Societies of this nature by as unanimous a consent as the former. As out of Assemblies they have no power to act who might act in them, how many soever of the suffrages, and how freely soever also had been gotten; so all those Meetings, how numerous soever, for acts of Government, if they be not Legal, they add nothing of advantage to the power of particulars singly considered. They are not, in the eye of the Law, Assemblies but Routs, and their concurrence, not consent but confederacy. And as it were Rebellion in particular Persons to attempt any thing of that nature concerning the Government, without the consent of their present established Governors; so neither is there any thing in such a meeting that can give them any more power as united than they had as they were singly considered, that may excuse them from Rebellion. Nay rather, by the Principles of all Societies, that which had not been Rebellion, if done singly, is counted so, if it be done in unlawful Assemblies. And sure none can think it reasonable that the Society should be obliged to ratify the acts of Rebels. It is not fit that any of its Authority should be given into such hands, much less is it fit that being given them by Persons as criminal as themselves, the Commonwealth should encourage the like undutifulness in others by ratifying what is done by these.  
§ V BUT besides, as it is not fit, so neither is it just that the Society should be obliged by the act of Persons unauthorised by her; nay, of Rebels against her Authority. And the very reason why Rules are agreed on what Assemblies shall be counted lawful, and what not, seems plainly to be that it may be known by what Assemblies the whole Society shall be represented, and by what they shall not be so. And if the Society be not represented by unlawful Assemblies, how can it in Justice be obliged by them? How can any of its Legal rights be disposed of by them who are not its Legal Representatives? All Societies are sensible of the great danger to the public that may follow from promiscuous Assemblies; not only what corrupt Arts may be used in them for depraving the sentences of Persons otherwise of themselves never so justly disposed, but also what seditious practices may be fomented and driven on for a forcible execution of such corrupt sentences, and embroiling the public in intestine animosities. And therefore the very design of these Rules seems to be for preventing this corruption and disorder. And the most natural way of that is by abrogating the acts of such Assemblies. Which antecedent Rules, whether they be from God or from the People, are notwithstanding from that power by which the Society itself, and all its particular Assemblies subsist, and consequently of greater power than any particular Assemblies. And therefore it cannot be admired that the ratification of particular Assemblies should depend upon it.  
§ VI 4. THEREFORE, the indiction of the Assembly by the Precedent, is a right consequent to the office of a Precedent as a Precedent, and a circumstance requisite to make the Assembly itself Lawful. But especially this, by the Rules of all Societies, is understood to be the inseparable prerogative of that Office, when, by the fundamental constitutions of the Societies themselves, no certain places, nor periods of time are agreed on for the keeping of any. For as the very reason of ascertaining Rules for making Assemblies seems to be purposely to restrain the Liberty of particular Members, to assemble when they please, for the inconveniences now mentioned; so withal there must be some who may have the power of assembling them when they judge it convenient for the public, and who may withal be allowed for competent Judges of that convenience. For their having no certain time allotted for them plainly implies that they are to be celebrated as occasion requires. And when every one is not permitted to judge of the occasion, and to meet when he pleases, and yet withal it is impossible they should ever meet, unless some be allowed to judge when there is a fit occasion, and to oblige others to be determined by them, it plainly follows that it must be presumed that the Society is not destitute of a power which is so absolutely necessary for the practicableness of Assemblies, and therefore that this power must be presumed to be in some, though none be expressly mentioned for it. But there is none concerning whom this power can be so probably presumed, none so likely to have been mentioned, if any had been mentioned, none to whom all undisposed power does, by the common Rules of all Societies, so naturally escheat, as the Precedent of the Assemblies. Even in the Assemblies a veneration is due to him for his Office above all other Members, but much more so out of the Assemblies, when none is in a likely way to be able to oppose him, by the Laws of the Societies, whether singly or conjunctly, which must needs give him the preference above all other particular Members where none are expressly mentioned. For certainly he who calls an Assembly, must have some advantage over all the Members called by him that he may oblige them to convene, and it is necessary for the public, that they may be obliged to meet when they are so called, that is, when the Judge of circumstances thinks it necessary for the public good in present circumstances. But there is none who can pretend to this advantage, I do not say of Jurisdiction, but even of Authority and Reverence, above his Fellow-members, besides the Precedent.  
§ VII BESIDES the power of particular Members in such Assemblies expires with the Assemblies themselves, so that in the intervals of Assemblies there remains no more of that power in any of them which they have in Assemblies. But the convening of the Assemblies is an act of Authority in that very interval, and therefore cannot agree to any but the Precedent, whose Authority alone can be antecedent to the meeting of the Assembly, so that if it be the right of any, it must be his, because none besides him is capable of it. And this is more certainly true of him who has a right to preside in Assemblies when they are convened by virtue of his general right to preside over the whole Society, as well when Assemblies are not convened as when they are, than of him who is chosen by the particular Assemblies for their particular occasions. And he who has his Presidency not by virtue of any particular Election distinct from that whereby he received his Office, (if his Office be not arbitrary, or confined within a certain time,) but given him for term of Life, must have such a Presidency as I am speaking of. Concerning such a Precedent as this, the Negative Argument will hold, for which I am at present concerned, not only that the Assemblies convened by him are, in that regard, lawful, as they are convened by him, but also that no Assemblies are lawful but what are called by him, because there is no other way of making them lawful but the lawfulness of their Call, nor any power to call them distinct from that of such a Precedent.  
§ VIII 5. THE Bishop was, not only in the more modern Ages, of which I have been discoursing, the Precedent of their Ecclesiastical Assemblies, and that not arbitrarily, or by virtue of particular Elections, but constant, and for term of Life; I say not only then, but as high as our Adversaries themselves do grant the practice of presiding Presbyters. Which as they among them who understand any thing of Antiquity do not deny to have been very early after the Apostles days, so truly I do not understand how they can deny it to have been practised even then, without destroying the very Historical Faith of the Primitive Church, without weakening that testimony on which we receive the Canon of the New Testament in a matter as notorious to them as that Canon itself. Not to mention the testimony of Ignatius, though truly I think they who question it, (since the late excellent 
a In vindic. Ignat. count. Dallaeum.  defence of it performed with as great evidence as a matter of that Antiquity, after the miscarriage of so many Primitive Records, is capable of,) might as well have questioned several Books of the New Testament itself, which notwithstanding they receive on lesser evidence; I say, not to mention this, What can they say to the Angels in the Revelations? What to the testimony of St. Irenaeus 
b Iren. L.iii. adv. Haer. & apud Eus. Hist. iv. 14.  concerning St. Polycarp who seems to have been one of them, whom he makes to have been ordained Bishop of Smyrna by the Apostles themselves? What to the testimony of Clemens 
c Clem. Al. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. apud Eus. Hist. iii. 23.  Alexandrinus who mentions Bishops among other Offices of the Church settled by St. John? What to the testimony of Hegesippus 
d Eus. L.iii. Hist. Eccl. c. 20.  who makes the Kinsmen of our Saviour to have been made Bishops from Domitian's time to that of Trajan? What to those who mention St. James 
e Eus. Hist. two. 1.  to have been made Bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles themselves? What of the seven Polycrates 
f Eus. Hist. v. 24.  mentions as Bishops in his own See before himself, the first of which seems, in all likelihood, to have begun in the Apostles times? Nay, what to all those Catalogues of Bishops succeeding in the four Patriarchal Sees, particularly the fifteen in 
g Eus. Hist. iv. 5.  Jerusalem from St. James to the destruction of the Jews under Adrian? Nay, what to the Succession of all the 
h Tertull. Praescr. Iren. adv. Haer.  Apostolical Sees to which the Fathers of the second Century do so solemnly appeal to prove their own Doctrine Apostolical in opposition to the contrary pretences of the Heretics?  
§ IX CAN they think them all to have been either wilful forgeries, or general mistakes in a matter of Fact so near their own time, without so much as any likely ground in History? How will they then assure us that they were not mistaken in delivering to us the Books of the Apostles which were not more notorious to them than their Government? And what could have been a more likely occasion of their mistake of the Bishops being the Governors of their respective Dioceses than this, that they were, at least, the ordinary Precedents of their Ecclesiastical Assemblies? They will not, when they consider it, find it so easy to avoid this Presidency of Bishops, even in the Apostles times, whatever they may think of their absolute Monarchy. They will not find their Arguments concerning the confusion of the names of Bishops and Presbyters in those first times to proceed so firmly against this. Though both these names had belonged to the same Office, yet it does not follow but that one of that same rank might have been first, and, by his privilege of being so might have had the power of their Ecclesiastical Assemblies, though he had no further Jurisdiction over the particular Members of such Assemblies when they were once convened. And without granting thus much at least, they will not find it so easy, as they may think before they try it, to solve the Phaenomena now objected. The most learned of our Adversaries do themselves grant as much as I am concerned to infer from them. The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by which they account for these things, amount to as much as I desire at present. And 
* Speaking of the Offices of the first Presbyter in his first Period before the Year 136. he says they did publice in collectis, sedulis universam fraternitatem hortamentis ad bonum Pietatis certamen fidaque charitatis obsequia excitare, eandem precibus excitare, ordinis consessus cogere, etc. Praef. ad Apol. pro S. Hieronym. p. 6.  blondel does expressly grant that these earlier Bishops who lived before the deviation (as he thinks it) from the Rule of the Apostles, had this power of calling the Ecclesiastical Assemblies.  
§ X BY all which it appears, that though we judge of the rightful possessions of those times by a recourse to the Primitive establishment of the Apostles, yet it will be impossible for our Adversaries to convict the Bishops of the Ages I am speaking of, of usurping this right, at least, of presiding in the Ecclesiastical Assemblies, and that even for term of Life. And therefore if by this concession the Orders of our Adversaries may be convicted of a perfect Nullity, it will then very nearly concern them to consider how they can clear themselves of the Sacrilege of such exercising such Orders, how they can expect any blessing or comfort in such Administrations. Now that this is so will appear clearly from the Principles now mentioned. For grant this power of perpetual presiding to the Bishops, and it will then follow that the right of convening Ecclesiastical Assemblies will belong to them. Therefore those Assemblies which meet without their Calling (as all those must do which meet out of their Communion) can be no lawful Assemblies. But the acts of unlawful Assemblies, though otherwise consisting of such Persons as had a real power in lawful ones, are Nullities, can oblige the Society to nothing, much less can they dispose of a thing of so great moment to them as their power. They are not only Nullities, but offences of that nature as that they are so far from obliging the Societies in any equity to confirm them as that they do oblige them by the highest common interest to punish them. Which plainly shows that though Presbyters had been allowed a power of Ordination, yet they could not validly exercise it out of the Episcopal Communion, and therefore that whatever may be said to that Question, yet that cannot make it questionable whether the Orders of our present Adversaries be valid.  
§ XI THIS right of presiding in the Assemblies was a thing which the highest Asserters of the Identity of Order between Bishops and Presbyters in the modern Ages I am speaking of, did undoubtedly never think the Bishops obliged to renounce. Nor could any Bishop, how hearty soever he believed that opinion, be presumed to give the Presbyters ordained by him a power of meeting without his leave, when themselves pleased. And yet undoubtedly the Bishops were actually possessed of that power by a peaceable prescription of many Centuries, and by the consent of the Presbyters themselves who lived in them, so that the Presbyters then ordained could lay no claim to it without an express gift from the Bishops who ordained them, because they never had that power, nor were there any remaining then who could give it them besides the Bishops. And indeed the Bishops could not renounce this power without dissolving the Society, by making the exercise of Government unpracticable, or without changing the whole frame of Government. For supposing they had renounced this right, who must have had it? If none had it, how could the Society be secured that Assemblies should meet if none had power to call them, if none had power to oblige particular Members to be present at them when called? If any particular Presbyter had been entrusted with it, that had only been an alteration of the Person, not of the right of the Office. The new entrusted Presbyter would thereby become the Bishop, by what name soever they would be pleased to call him, and all the change that ordinary Presbyters would find by such an act would be only of their Master, not of their subjection. If it had been given away indefinitely, no particular Presbyter could lay a better claim to it than all his Brethren, and by all it is not practicable, till they be considered as convened in an Assembly If it had therefore been given to the whole Assembly, either they must thenceforth have stated times allotted them for meeting, or every meeting must be allowed to adjourn themselves and to appoint the time and place for meeting again. If at any time no meeting were ascertained the Government would be dissolved. This is indeed the way practised in Peliarchical Governments, but such a resignation of the Bishop as this must therefore have altered the very frame of the Government. And where can our Adversaries give any precedent, either in Catholic Tradition, or even in the times of the Scripture itself wherein any such thing was practised by Presbyteries? Where was it ever heard that they called or adjourned themselves without the Authority of the Precedent of their Assemblies, by what name soever our Brethren will be pleased to call them?  
§ XII NOR am I concerned by my present interest, how the Bishops came by their power of presiding, whether by the Election of their Clergy or People, or whether by a new consecration by Bishops only. Let the guesses of St. Hierome, the counterfeit Ambrose and Eutychius be as true as our Adversaries can wish them. Let it be so, that the Bishops received no new Consecration of their own Order, that no men but the Presbyters were concerned in giving their power to them. Our Adversaries usually think they have performed a great matter when they have produced these conjectures of these Authors. And yet when they have made all they can of them, they are no better than conjectures. These Authors lived too far from the times they speak of to assure us of any thing Historically. Nor do they pretend to any Histories we know not of, that might put us in any hope that they speak what they say on better grounds than eonjecture. Yet these are the only grounds of all that our Adversaries say positively in this matter. But, I say, granting that these conjectures were true, and that not only the ancient Bishops, but the Bishops of the Ages we are speaking of, had no new consecration, nor consequently had any new power from what they were capable of receiving by the Canonical Election of their Clergy, and granting therefore that all the further power they pretend to by their Consecration is no just accession of power, and therefore none at all; I do not see how, even by this power which they may receive by their Election, our Adversaries can defend the validity of their present Ordinations. For what if the Bishop had received his power from the Presbyters? Does it therefore follow that the Presbyteries must not depend on him when he has received it? Does it follow that they must still have power, as freely as formerly, to assemble themselves without his leave, and either to depose him, or to set up another in his stead, or at least to erect themselves an independent Body on any Superior? Does it follow that such practices of theirs would be valid, if they should attempt them?  
§ XIII NAY, the very contrary has been taken hitherto for the only solid security of peace in all prudent humane establishments. In all elective Kingdoms, the Interreges have a power during the vacancy to dispose of the affairs of the Kingdom till a new King be elected. But they as well as other Subjects would be guilty of Treason, if they should attempt the same things afterwards. Their Assemblies would be as illegal, and their proceed in them of as little validity as those of other Subjects. So in St. Hieromes instance, 
Ep. ad Euagr.  the Army chose the Emperor, and when he was so chosen he was not invested in his power by any Authority superior to that of the Army. Yet that power of the Army expired as soon as he was once peaceably settled in the power received from them. They could not then meet as they had done formerly. If they did, such meetings were thenceforwards illegal, and their proceed null. Much less could they justify a revolt from him, or validly defend their independence on him. Nay, the Emperor Valentinian, though he was chosen by the Army, yet when he was chosen, he would not endure to be obliged by them even to the nomination of a Colleague, though he after did it freely. So though the Presbyteries had a power, in the vacancy of Sees, to do all things necessary for the Succession of a new Bishop, yet, by the Rules of all successive Governments, they can only be supposed to have it in trust, and that trust must be presumed limited according to the design of the power by which it was committed to them. It does not therefore follow that they can forbear the Election of a Successor, and much less that they can justify their Assembling and Acting without him when he is once named. Their power may then for all this, expire, and they return to the condition of ordinary Subjects, whose acts I believe our Adversaries themselves cannot think valid, if they presume to give Authority. And the reason is plain because they cannot be supposed still to have the power, after they have given it out of their own hands. And therefore afterwards they can neither validly exercise it, nor validly dispose of it otherwise against the fundamental Laws for settling Succession in the Society, for which they are supposed to be entrusted.  
§ XIV THIS Argument will hold though this right of Presidency were purely humane. Yet even so Persons, who have given the power out of their own hands, cannot recall it again at pleasure, but must be obliged to stand to their own act. And as this will oblige such as were at first free, if any were such, in matters alienable by them, and those by whom the Laws for Succession were first made; so much more will it oblige posterity who must find themselves already confined by the acts of their Predecessors. These can pretend only such a right as they have received, and therefore if they exceed that, they usurp a right, which was never theirs, and therefore all they do must be invalid. Indeed if the supreme right of managing their own Assemblies had been, by divine right, unalienable from the Primitive Presbyters, they, who once had it, might therefore challenge it again, notwithstanding any Contracts whatsoever for parting with it, because the Contracts themselves were invalid, and therefore could not deprive them of a right which they had before they made those Contracts, but must leave them in the same condition wherein they found them. But what is that to Posterity? Suppose the modern Presbyters of the Ages I am speaking of, had never given their ●ishops the power of presiding over their Assemblies. Suppose we that they were not obliged to stand to the Contracts of their Predecessors in this matter. All that would thence follow is only this, that they are now in the same condition as if those Contracts had never been made. But though they have not alienated a right, that does not prove they have it, unless they had it antecedently to the alienation. But that is a thing posterity cannot pretend to. They never had this right given them, and therefore cannot pretend to have it, though they never alienated it. And they are, at least, thus far obliged by the acts of their predecessors, as they were thereby hindered from having this power given them, whether they be, or be not, obliged by those acts of theirs which may pretend to have alienated it from them. And till our brethren's Predecessors who were then ordained can prove that they once had this right given them, I shall not be concerned whether they have alienated it, or not, nor consequently whether they be bound to stand to the alienation of their Predecessors.  
§ XV BUT if the power of Episcopacy be Divine, and all that men can do in the Case be only to determine the Person, not to confine his power; then certainly it will follow that though men may this way make him, (which is all our Brethren can pretend to prove) yet they may not therefore, after he is made, either deprive him, or make another, or exercise the Government themselves without him as freely as before. For as soon as that power is given him by God, they immediately become his Subjects, and have then no more power to prescribe limits to his Authority than they have to do so to the Authority of God himself. Nor am I here obliged to take the advantage I might take from the peculiar way by which I have proved Ecclesiastical power to be derived from God. It is sufficient for my purpose that it be no otherwise from God than that is of every supreme Civil Magistrate. It is not usual for Kings to be invested in their Office by other Kings, but by their Subjects. Yet when they are invested, that does not in the least prejudice the absoluteness of their Monarchy, where the fundamental constitutions of the respective places allow it them, much less does it give any power over them to the Persons by whom they are invested. But they are then, and afterwards, as much his Subjects as any others are who have no part in the Solemnity. And therefore though it had been true that the Presbyters at first, had not only elected, but placed the Bishop over themselves, as St. Hierome expresses it; nay, supposing those same Presbyters who had chosen him should have also used all the ceremonies of Consecration to him, that they had invested him in his Office by Prayer and Imposition of hands, 
Eutych. Annal. Alex. Ed. Oxon. p. 31.  as Eutychius pretends, nay, supposing that no Bishops had any more to do in his Consecration than Kings have to do in the Inaugurations of our ordinary Kings; all this, I say, being supposed, which is more than they can prove by any competent testimony; it will not thence follow that those same Presbyters who chose and Consecrated him, must have any more power over him, or to act any thing without him, or to withdraw their obedience from him, after he is so chosen and Consecrated, than those same Persons have over the Princes who are Inaugurated by them; and all their presumptuous practices of such a power, may, notwithstanding all this, be not only as punishable, but as invalid, as the like presumptions would be in the Inaugurations of Princes. Nor is it only true that this may be so, (though that alone be sufficient to weaken our Adversaries confidence in this way of arguing,) but indeed it must be so, whenever the Person so invested is supposed to be invested in the supreme power, and whenever the Society over which he is placed, is also independent on all other Societies. Such a Person can never be placed in his power, if he may not be placed in it by them, who, after he is placed in it, must themselves be his Subjects as much as others, unless he be placed in it by his Predecessor, which no Society can safely depend on for a constant Rule of Succession. In his own Society he can therefore have none of his own Order that can perform the Ceremony to him, because we suppose him to be supreme, and there cannot be two such in one Society. And if he must depend on the supreme powers of the neighbouring Societies for an investiture, so that he could not be validly invested without them, this would both be dangerous in suspicious times, and would besides be very prejudicial to the liberty of the particular Society for which such a Governor were concerned.  
§ XVI AND therefore I, for my part, am so little solicitous for any consequence that may hence be inferred to the prejudice of my Cause, as that I am apt to think that this must have been the way observed at first in the making of Bishops, how absolute soever I conceive them to have been when they were once made, and how invalid soever I think the actings of Presbyters would be which were done without his consent, after his Consecration, though they were those very Presbyters by whom he had been Consecrated. And I wish our Adversaries had Authorities suitable to their confidence, either better than conjectures, or, if no better, yet more ancient than the time of St. Hierome, whose contemporary he was who wrote the Commentaries under the name of St. Ambrose, much more than the very exceptionable testimony and Age of Eutychius. This seems best to agree with the absoluteness of particular Churches before they had, by compacts▪ united themselves under Metropolitans and Exarches into Provincial and Diocesan Churches, as the word Diocese was understood in the Eastern parts in the language of that Age. And this seems to have been fitted for the frequent Persecutions of those earlier Ages, when every Church was able to secure its own Succession by its own power without depending on the uncertain opportunities of the meeting of the Bishops of the whole Province. And the alteration of this practice, the giving the Bishops of the Province an interest in the choice of every particular Colleague, seems not to have been so much for want of power in the particular Churches to do it, as for the security of the compacts, that they might be certain of such a Colleague, as would observe them, whose Communicatory Letters they might therefore not scruple to receive, when they had first, by their own act, satisfied themselves of the trustiness of his Person before his Consecration. However the matter was, I cannot but think that it was the interest of the neighbouring Bishops in the correspondence of every particular Bishop that first occasioned and procured their interest in his Election. Nor can I tell how the Succession could have been so secure otherwise, unless every Bishop had named and constituted his Successor in his Life time, for which they had precedents in the Successions of the Philosophers, in imitation whereof I have already observed, how probable it is that these Ecclesiastical Successions were framed. But then withal, as that way was uncertain, so when the Philosophers failed to nominate their own Successors, than the Election was in the Schools. But this would even then only warrant such acts of those Presbyteries which held correspondence with their own Bishops, and with the Episcopal Communion; but in these modern Ages it can only excuse those to whom the power was returned by the Bishops who had been peaceably possessed of it for many Centuries before. This I note, that it may not be drawn into a precedent now any further than it is fit and reasonable.   

CHAP. XXV. The Nullity of the same Ordinations proved from the right of Episcopal Presbyteries as Presbyteries.  
THE CONTENTS.  
2. Even from the Principles of Aristocratical Government, from the right which Episcopal Presbyteries ought to have in giving Orders, as they are considered as Presbyteries. §. I, II. This proved by these degrees, 1. Though a Presbyter, when he is once made, is a Presbyter in the Catholic Church, yet the reason that makes him so is that correspondence of the whole Catholic Church with that particular one of which he was made a Member at his Ordination. §. III, IV, V, VI 2. Hence it follows that he who cannot validly make out his Authority in the particular Church in which he pretends to have received his Orders, cannot, in reason, expect that the exercise of his Authority should be ratified in other Churches who cannot thus be satisfied that he has received them. §. VII. 3. The Church, by which the validity of the Orders of every particular Presbyter must expect to be tried, must not be a Church that derives its beginning from him, but such a one as must be supposed settled and established before he could be capable of any pretensions to Orders. Applied to single Presbyters. §. VIII. To whole Presbyteries made up of overvoted single Presbyters. §. IX, X, XI. 4. No Orders can be presumed to have been validly received in any particular Episcopal Church as Presbyterian, without the prevailing suffrages of the Presbyteries. §. XII. A smaller over-voted number of Presbyters cannot validly dispose of the common rights of the whole Presbyteries. §. XIII, XIV, XV. The power given in the Ordination of a Presbyter is a right of the Presbytery in common by the Principles of Aristocratical Government. §. XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX. An Objection answered. §. XX, XXI, XXII. Another Objection answered. §. XXIII, XXIV. Retorted. §. XXV. The reason of the Retortion given. §. XXVI.  
§ I BUT, 2. There is also another just exception against the validity of our Adversaries Ordinations, even from the right of Aristocratical Government, and that is from the right of their Fellow-Presbyters as well as themselves. If we should allow the right of Ordination to Presbyters as Presbyters, as our Adversaries desire, yet that will not justify the validity of the Ordinations of single Presbyters, no nor of a smaller part in opposition to the greater by which it is over-voted. And our Adversaries cannot defend their Ordinations at present any better than by the single acts of particular Presbyters over-voted by the greater part of the Presbyteries of which they were originally Members. Their first Ministers which began the separation were much the smaller part of the respective Presbyteries to which they were related. And though they might, if they had continued in the Communion of the Church, have had their single votes in all the acts of Government, and the disposal of all the Offices which, by the practice then obtaining, were allowed to the whole Presbyteries; yet they could never have obtained that the Offices disposed of by their single votes, must have been validly disposed of and ratified by the rest by whom they were over-voted. And sure they cannot expect to be gainers by their unpeaceableness; that their single votes must be esteemed of greater value out of the Church, than in it; that they, who could not have made Presbyters in the Church against the prevailing vote of their Brethren, should be allowed to make as many as they please on condition they will divide from their Brethren, and make themselves the Heads of a popular party.  
§ TWO THIS is not allowed in any Societies of the like nature. Though the Aldermen of Corporations have a power together with the Mayors to dispose of the Offices belonging to their respective Corporations; yet if the whole Table shall meet by themselves in separation from the Mayor, and in opposition to him, however they might over-vote him if he had been present, and their assembly lawful, yet what they should do in the Case we are now supposing, would be a perfect Nullity, and unobliging to the Corporation. But if any single Alderman should separate from all his Brethren also, and should of himself undertake to dispose of the things or Offices of the Corporation, could any of our Brethren themselves approve them in it? Can they think the Offices so disposed of by them validly disposed of? Can they think the Corporation obliged to ratify them? And yet it is strange that they should not see how like this Case is to that of their own Predecessors. The first Ministers they had ordained in the separation were ordained by such Presbyters as these, and by such an act as this now mentioned. And their whole Succession since that time has been maintained generally on no better a Title. This representation of their case may possibly affect some popular capacities better than the naked reasons. But that the more judicious among them may see that my desire it to deal fairly and candidly with them, and not to represent their cause more invidiously than it deserves, or to take any advantage that may be taken from a false representation of it, I shall endeavour to reduce the reason to a more close way of management under the following considerations, which I shall entreat our Adversaries to consider impartially.  
§ III 1. THAT though a Presbyter, when he is once made, is a Presbyter in the Catholic Church, yet the reason that makes him so is the correspondence of the whole Catholic Church with that particular one of which he was made a Member at his Ordination. By his being a Presbyter in the Catholic Church, when he is once made, I do not mean that he may canonically exercise his Power in all particular Churches where he may have occasion to come, without dependence on the respective Governors, but that the exercise of his power in his own Church is to be ratified over the whole Catholic Church in general, that they are to suppose the Sacraments administered by him to be validly administered, and that therefore they are not to rebaptize Persons baptised by him when they come to live among them, nor to refuse their Communion to such to whom he thinks fit to give it, nor to receive to their Communion those who are excluded from his; and that they are also so far to ratify the Authority received in his own Church from those who had power to give it him, as that, if they think fit to permit him to exercise his power within their Jurisdiction, they do it without pretending to give him a new Authority, but only a new Licence; and that wherever he can exercise his Authority without Canonical injury, as in Heathenish or Heretical Countries (where no Canons do oblige) ratify all his acts of power the same way as if he had performed them within his own Canonical Jurisdiction. This is more than is observed in civil Societies. One Country is not bound to confirm the censures of another, they are neither obliged to banish their exiles, nor to receive their Countrymen to the same privileges among themselves which they enjoyed in their own Country, nor to receive their Magistrates to exercise power among themselves without a new Commission which may give them a new power, which the Authority of their own Country was not able to give them.  
§ IV AND the reason why I levelly my discourse against the power that the Presbyters of our Adversaries may pretend to on account of their being Presbyters of the Catholic Church, is, because this is the only pretence that they can plausibly make for the validity of what they do. Canonical Licence they cannot so much as pretend to, for exercising their power within the Jurisdictions of others without their leave. And it has already appeared that they can make out no Succession from the Apostles, but what must originally have come from Episcopal Ordination. That therefore they should expect that the exercise of a power received from the Bishops, yet exercised within their Jurisdiction, without the Licence of the Bishops; nay, contrary to their express prohibition, should be counted valid, how unlawful soever, must be from the irrevocableness of the Authority at first received by them, and the unconfinedness of the design of that power antecedently to those Canons by which it was afterwards made irregular in its practice. Were it not for the nature of the unconfinedness of this power, they could not pretend to any right to exercise it out of the Jurisdiction of him who gave it them, nor even within that Jurisdiction without his leave. And therefore if this will not do it, they can have nothing that can defend their Usurpations from being invalid, as well as uncanonical.  
§ V AND that this correspondence of the Catholic Church with that particular one in which he was ordained, is the true reason why all other Churches are obliged to ratify the acts of every particular Presbyter, will appear, if it be considered, that by his Ordination in his own particular Church he can have no Jurisdiction given him over any other which is not under the Jurisdiction of that particular Church from which he has received his Orders. And therefore the reason why they are obliged to confirm his censures cannot be any Authoritative deference they own to him, such as Subjects own to even their fallible Superiors, even in matters, wherein they think them actually mistaken, yet so to practise as if they thought them not mistaken; but purely their own actual conviction concerning the reasonableness of the thing itself, because they either know or presume it to be fit that his censure should be confirmed. But this reason of the thing would not hold, were it not that his Church and theirs are in those things the same, and as they give the same advantages, so they require the same qualifications, which whoever is presumed to have in one, cannot, by them by whom he is presumed to have them, be at the same time, presumed to want them in the other. In other Societies, where the privileges conferred are proper to the Society, the qualifications are so too. And therefore though one Society be really satisfied that a Subject has deserved well of another, and that he has deservedly received his reward for his eminent deserts from that Authority which had power to give him it, and therefore that he has a just title to a reward; yet are they not obliged, in any reason, to give him the same honour in their own. For the nature of these Societies are so little interessed in common as that the very same performance which is eminently serviceable to one may for that very cause be as eminently disserviceable to the other, as when they are in a state of hostility. However it is certain, that, as their interests are very different, so the means of serving those interests are very different also, and therefore that there is no real consequence that he who has indeed obliged one Society, must, in doing so, oblige all others also.  
§ VI BUT the benefits of the Sacraments are such as that he who has them in one Church cannot, by him, who supposes him to have them there, be, at the same time, supposed to want them in another. Regeneration, and pardon of sins, and a Mystical Union with Christ, are the designed effects of the Sacraments. And it is impossible that he who has these in any one Church can be presumed to want them in another, by them who presume he already has them. And as no Church can think it in her power to exclude from her Communion those very Persons whom she judges regenerated and pardoned and united to Christ; so if she be convinced that these benefits are validly conferred by a Presbyter in another Church, she must, in reason, be obliged to treat them as such in her own. Now whether they be validly conferred, or not, that she is to try by his Ministry. If his Ministry be a valid Ministry, his Sacraments must be valid Sacraments, and actually confer the benefits designed by them to Persons not unqualified to receive them. And whether his Ministry be valid or no, that is, whether he be indeed a Legal Representative of God, so as to oblige him to ratify what is done by himself in his name, this being an act of Authority, and of Authority visibly administered by men, however proceeding originally from God, it must be judged the same way as is usually made use of in judging concerning acts of Humane Authority, that is, by considering the power by which he has received it. And because, by communicating with the Church of which such a Presbyter is a Member, and from whence himself pretends to have received his Authority, she plainly acknowledges that that Church has really a power to give him that Authority he pretends to, therefore the only way to satisfy herself in this matter is to examine the truth of his pretences, whether he has indeed received that Authority he pretends to, from those Persons from whom he pretends to have received it. Which way of trial does plainly resolve her judgement in this matter into her correspondency with his Church. By that she judges whether his Authority be good, and whether he have actually received it.  
§ VII 2. THEREFORE, Hence it follows that he who cannot validly make out his Authority in the particular Church in which he pretends to have received his Orders, cannot, in reason expect that the exercise of his Authority should be ratified in other Churches who cannot thus be satisfied that he has received them. For their duty of correspondence being primarily with Churches, and only secondarily with particular Persons as they relate to particular Churches, (which is particularly true in acts of Authority, which cannot be supposed in any particular Person, but by derivation from some Church, or, which is to the same purpose, from some Ecclesiastical Person whose act is to be taken for the act of the Church) it must follow that the trial of the pretences of any particular Person to Authority must be by examining his reception of it from the Church. And therefore if it cannot appear that he has received any such Authority as he pretends to, from that Church wherein he pretends to have received it, he is to be presumed not to have it at all, and therefore all that he presumes to do on supposition of it must be null and invalid.  
§ VIII 3. THE Church by which the validity of the Orders of every particular Presbyter must expect to be tried, must not be a Church that derives its beginning from him, but such a one as must be supposed settled and established before he could be capable of any pretensions to Orders. For no other Church can be supposed proper to try him by, because the Authority of no other Church can be presumed good antecedently to his being so. All the Authority, nay, the very being of a Church set up by a particular Presbyter, must itself depend on the Authority of the Person by whom it is set up. If he be no Presbyter▪ such a Congregation cannot be a Church, in the sense we mean the word at present, and therefore cannot be capable of any Ecclesiastical Authority. Whence it will follow that he cannot by any act of such a Church derive Authority, if he wanted it before, because they can have no Authority but what he brought over to them. If he brought none, they have none to give him. If they had any, yet not such as were proper for this purpose; both because it is hardly possible that it can be more notorious than that which was, at least, in time antecedent to it, and because at least it cannot be such a Church as other Churches have held correspondence with antecedently to their correspondence with his particular Person, and therefore whose Authority might have been presumed to have been granted by them on account of their correspondence with them. And there will appear the less reason either that this way of trial should be right, or should be admitted by them, because it is against the interests of all Government whatsoever, and will justify the practices of any seditious Person who can be so successful in his seditious practices as to gain himself the reputation of being the Head of a seditious party. To be sure the party headed by him will give him all the Authority they are capable of giving him. It is their interest to do so, at least in the beginnings of disturbances, and as it will oblige him to their interests, so it will give him greater advantages for promoting those interests effectually. And then what Government can think itself secure, if it were so easy to justify seditious practices? How can we think that Governments should ever be favourable to Principles so pernicious to the rights of Government in general?  
§ IX NOR are these things only true concerning Churches erected by single Presbyters, but concerning such also as had whole Presbyteries made up of multitudes of single Presbyters, who had been over-voted in their several Presbyteries respectively. Especially if they presumed to exercise their Government in the Jurisdiction of another. This would also be a precedent as favourable to sedition and as destructive to Government as the other. If fugitive over-voted Magistrates of several places may invade the Territories of a Third, and there erect themselves into an absolute Senate, independent on the Government of the place, what security could there be for any Government? For can we think that those same Persons who had behaved themselves seditiously in their single capacities, would not do so also when they were united, and when their common interest still obliged them to do so, when they might thereby so much better their disadvantages in their respective Presbyteries? It is the humour of such Persons to unite against a common Adversary; at least, for a time, how seditious soever they might be otherwise. And certainly they might expect better condescensions from Persons as criminal as themselves, who had themselves also many unreasonable things to be born with, than from their more innocent equals who had Justice on their side, much more than from their Superiors. And what could any Ecclesiastical censures signify, if they who had been ejected singly might be thus allowed to confederate themselves into a Communion and a Presbytery independent on those from which they had been ejected? Who would value Excommunication or Deprivation, when they might so easily restore themselves into a condition as good as that from which they had been ejected, and might, at the same time, so easily revenge themselves on those by whom they had been ejected, by setting up another Government within their Jurisdiction, whose acts must also be accounted as valid as their own? These things show that such a precedent of Presbyteries erected out of Persons over-voted in their particular Presbyteries, would be injurious to the common interest of Government in general, though the form were every where Presbyterian, as well as to those particular Governors by whom they had been ejected, and to those in whose Jurisdiction they were assembled▪ And its being against the common interest of Government, is, as has been observed, a great presumption that it is against Justice also.  
§ X BUT besides this presumption, the same reasons of exception lie against the Justice of such a Presbytery as against the acts of single Presbyters. I mention not the Canons that forbidden all Churches to receive the Excommunicates of each other, that put Communicants with them into the same condition with the Excommunicates themselves, that deprive them all of the Communion of all those Churches who maintain a correspondence with each other in the observation of those Canons. I mention not that common interest which, at first, induced the Governors of particular Churches to agree upon those Canons, and obliges all, even those that never received nor heard of those Canons, yet to be determined by them in their practice, on the same account as all, even the most barbarous, Nations are obliged by the Law of Nations though never explicitly received by them, because these are as necessary for the common interest and correspondence of Ecclesiastical, as the other are for those of Civil Societies. Which consideration must extend the ratification of the censures of particular Churches to the Catholic Church, as the Law of Nations is common to all Nations, so that the Excommunicates of every particular Church must be so to the Catholic Church also. And then sure it will be hard to understand how they who are de Jure out of the communion of all Churches, can yet be in the Catholic Church, or how they, who have no right to be members of any Church, can by their meeting together become a Church, and become capable of Ecclesiastical Authority. Which reason will, in the consequence of it, reach Schismatics as well as Heretics, how little soever it be observed by our Brethren who are very little used to take in the rational rights of Government in general in their disputes concerning the Government of the Church.  
§ XI BUT besides, the same reasons invalidate the acts of these Presbyteries which were urged against the acts of single Presbyters among them. Whatever may be thought of such a Multitude of over-voted Presbyters in a Heathen Country, where the right were primi occupantis; yet where a Government is already possessed, their encroaching on that must be as invalid as if they should take upon them to dispose of the goods of such Persons as were in actual possession, whatever might be thought of what conveyances they might also make of goods that were under no propriety. And the reason of these two cases is so exactly the same as the conveyances of power must, in such a case, be as invalid as the conveyance of property. Besides, according to the nature of Government, which admits of no competition within its own Jurisdiction, strangers, how numerous soever, immediately become Subjects by living in the Jurisdiction of another, whatever they be in their own, and that with this disadvantage also beyond the natural Subjects of the place, that they can have no interest in so much of the Government as the Natives of the place may pretend to where the Government is Democratical. And the acts of such Subjects, how numerous soever, must be invalid in matters of Government. Now in this I believe our Adversaries will find themselves deeply concerned. They who pretend to the most regular Ordination of them since the defection, who were not immediately ordained by Bishops, can only say that the Presbyters by whom they were ordained had received Episcopal Ordination, and that they were ordained by a full Presbytery of such Presbyters, not of the greater part of the settled Presbytery of the place where they were ordained, or of any other, but only of a Multitude of particular Presbyters from several parts who were over-voted in their several respective Presbyteries. I believe they cannot give an instance in any place where the greater part of a settled Presbytery revolted from the Bishops to them. I am sure they cannot justify their ordinary successions by such Ordinations.  
§ XII AND, 4. As the order of Presbytery which would be allowed in the Catholic Church must first appear to have been validly received in some particular Church, and that particular Church must on the Principles now mentioned be some Episcopal Church as Presbyterian; so no Orders can be presumed to have been validly received in such a Church without the prevailing suffrages of the Presbyteries. Let none be surprised at my speaking of an Episcopal Church as Presbyterian. I do it only that I may, in dealing with our Adversaries, accommodate myself to their Notions. It is therefore certain that in the Ordination of Presbyters after the Episcopal way, the Bishop does not lay on his own hands alone, but has the assistance of several other Presbyters, who are present to lay on their hands together with him. On this account it is that several of our Adversaries, who are sensible of their obligation in interest to do it, do justify the validity of those Orders they have received by Episcopal Ordination. They consider the whole act only as the act of an Episcopal Presbytery, and consider the Bishop himself in that act only as an ordinary Presbyter, who cannot lose the power he has as a common Presbyter by being made a Precedent of the whole Presbytery. Yet in that act they consider him only as an ordinary Presbyter, because they think it would belong to him as a Presbyter, though he were not also a Precedent of the Presbytery, and therefore cannot take it for a Prerogative of his Office as Precedent. That it is therefore from some such a Presbytery as this that they must derive the validity of their Orders, appears from the Principles already premised, that no other Presbyteries can make out their Succession from the Apostles, that particular Members of even these Presbyteries cannot do it alone, in a separation from them, that Multitudes of such particular Persons though meeting together cannot make up such a Church among them as were requisite to attest the Orders of Persons ordained to the rest of the Catholic Church who maintain correspondence with them.  
§ XIII CONSIDERING therefore these Episcopal Presbyteries only as Presbyters, and the Bishop himself as acting herein by no higher a power than that of an ordinary Presbyter; yet even so no Orders can be valid but those which were conferred by the prevailing vote of even such a Presbytery, at least those are invalid which are given by the votes of a smaller over voted part of them. Even by the Principles of Aristocratical Government, though it were doubtful whether the greater part might dispose a right common to them all without the consent of every particular; yet it hardly can be doubtful whether a smaller part can dispose of such a common right though over-voted by a greater number of suffrages than their own. Though it may be thought reasonable that some reserved cases of that nature wherein the whole Society were deeply concerned should not pass without the unanimous suffrages of every individual Member; yet as there is no Justice, antecedently to compacts, that any individuals should dispose of the rights of others, though less considerable than themselves, till by the general acts and compacts of all, whereby Polyarchical Societies are most naturally settled, such general rules are agreed on by which some particular Members, may, for peace's sake, be allowed to dispose of the common rights of their Fellow-members without their express consent in the particular, but by virtue of their general consent once given to such general rules; so neither is there any reason in prudence, that, where unanimous consent cannot be had, and it is therefore necessary that one part yield to the other, the greater should be swayed by the smaller part. The fundamental rule of all this public justice is, that, where there is a necessity of a choice, the public be preferred before private interests, that therefore it is very just to bear with injuries to private Persons when they cannot be avoided without injuries to the public. Which will in generosity oblige a smaller part to yield to a greater, but can on no terms oblige the greater to yield to the smaller, because indeed the interest of the greater part is more the public interest than that of the smaller.  
§ XIV BESIDES the reason of all compacts of this kind of referring their differences to a public decision, is the presumed equality of the decision above what would be among the interessed Persons themselves, and the power to execute what is resolved on beyond the resistance of those against whom the cause is decided. And therefore if we should again suppose men free; as they were before these compacts I am speaking of; we have reason to presume that they would settle this power of deciding their differences in such hands, where there might be presumed less danger of corruption, and where there were the greatest power to execute their own decrees. And both these reasons give the preference to these major votes above the smaller part. It is to be presumed that it is not so easy to corrupt a greater as it is to corrupt a smaller part. And when it is necessary that the decree be executed, the power of the greater is greater than that of the smaller part, where the particular Subjects of power are supposed equal, as they are in our present case. And though it be very possible, in after cases, that it may so fall out that the greatest right may sometimes belong to that side where there is the smallest power, yet we have reason to believe that the only reason why it comes to be so is the unexpectedness of revolutions to which humane affairs are obnoxious, which could not be so much as probably foreseen when the rules of such Societies were first agreed on. Otherwise it is reasonable to presume that, at the first constitution of those rules, they would choose the greatest power and interest for the fittest seat of Authority▪ because they would by that be best secured of the execution of the Sentences given by them. And therefore where we may presume the greater power lay at the passing of those compacts, and where they who made those compacts had reason to see the greatest power would always be, there we have also reason to presume that they would intent to place the greatest Authority.  
§ XV AND this is a reason which might, in all probability, induce them to resolve that the major vote should prevail through all succeeding generations, because the major vote, in the case I am speaking of, must inseparably carry with it the greatest power. And this is a reason that alike concerns all by whom the Government were at first settled, whether it were by compacts of the Parties themselves who were to be governed, or whether the Government were placed over them by a power who had a Jurisdiction over them antecedently to their own consent: There is the same reason why such a power should decree that the smaller number of suffrages in opposition to a greater number should be null in Societies to be established by him, as that the Parties themselves should at first agree that it should be so. The reasons now mentioned proceed alike in both cases: Which I therefore observe that our Adversaries may perceive, that as to the case of which I am now speaking, it will come to the same event, whether the power of the Presbyteries do come from the consent of the particular Presbyters, or whether it proceed immediately from the Divine institution. Still it is to be presumed that things are to be decided by the vote of the greater part, where nothing is otherwise expressly determined, because this way of determination is so certainly for the public interest, for which we have as much reason to presume that God would be solicitous, as that the Presbyters themselves would be so.  
§ XVI BY this it appears, even from the Principles of Aristocratical Government, how invalid as well as how irregular it must be for a smaller over-voted number of the Presbyters to undertake to dispose of the common rights of the whole Presbyteries, whether as acting by themselves, or as acting in Presbyteries made up of multitudes of such Presbyters as had been severally over-voted in the Presbyteries to which each of them did at first belong. Now that the power given in the Ordination of a Presbyter must be a right of the Presbytery in common, according to our Adversaries Principles, who conceive Government to be a right common to them, I do not know whether our Adversaries themselves will think it necessary for me to prove. If the supreme visible Government of the Church be the right of such Presbyteries in common, not of particular Presbyters singly considered; I cannot conceive how such a Government can be practicable unless the valid investiture of subordinate Governors be also appropriated to them.  
§ XVII I AM not concerned whether they will here allow the power given at the Ordination of a Presbyter to be a proper power of Government. It suffices at present that the power given to particular Presbyters is as properly a power of Government as that is of the whole Presbyteries. The power of the whole Presbyteries is only an Aggregate resulting from the valid Succession of the particular Presbyters whereof it consists. And the power of Administering the Sacraments which is given to particular Presbyters at their Ordination is that on which their power of Government is grounded. That is the reason which obliges all private Persons to submit to the Presbyteries, and to all their lawful impositions, because God has put it in their power to exclude refractory Persons from the ordinary means of Salvation. And as far as this power of administering the Sacraments is granted to particular Presbyters when they are ordained Presbyters, so far also it is put in their power to exclude private Persons from the Sacraments by refusing to perform their Office to them. Only because this exclusion by a particular Presbyter does not hinder other Presbyters, who have as great a power as himself who should exclude one, from performing their duty to a Person so excluded, and the exclusion does oblige the Person excluded to submission no further than as he cannot hope for the benefit of the Sacraments without the consent of his excluder; therefore it can only be to the whole Presbytery that every Member of a Church can be obliged to submit, because it is the Presbytery alone that can oblige all to ratify their censures, so that the Sacraments cannot at all be gotten without their consent. They can oblige their own Members to ratify them by virtue of the Subjection which each of them owes to the whole Community. And they can oblige all other Churches and Presbyteries to ratify their censures by virtue of that correspondence which all Churches and Presbyteries are obliged to maintain with each other on account of their common interest. But still this does not hinder but that the power of particular Presbyters must be of the same kind with the power of the whole Presbyteries, though it be not of the same extent, which, on the Principles now mentioned, is sufficient to appropriate the disposal of it to the common right of Government.  
§ XVIII AND as by the former Argument it has appeared that de facto no such power was actually designed for them by their first Ordeiners as is at present exercised by our Brethren in their separation; so by this later Topick it appears that it does not the jure belong to them by virtue of any thing given them by the Episcopal Presbyteries, though we consider them, as our Brethren are willing to consider them in this act of Ordination, only as Presbyteries, or at the utmost, only as Presbyteries with a Precedent, which cannot make any substantial difference, much less can the honour of presiding lose the Precedent any of that honour which belongs to him as a single Presbyter. Which I therefore observe that our Brethren may see how unjustifiable their Ordinations are upon any terms. Though this power had been designed for them by their Ordeiners, or though their being made Presbyters by their Ordeiners, did, as they think, confer this power upon them really, how little soever it was designed for them; yet neither of these pretences can be available, if their acts were not valid acts of the Presbyteries. If they were not, they could not give what they did intent to give them, because they could not confer a valid legal title to that which was not their own to give. So far must they be in such a case as this from giving really more than they intended to give. If they think it usurpation for the Bishops and the Presbyters who adhere to them to act in the name of the whole Presbyteries; how much greater Usurpation must it be for a smaller over-voted number of Presbyters to attempt the same without the Bishop? Certainly his presence, though only as a first Presbyter, must add great Authority to the legitimating their Assemblies as that must also do to the validity of their actings in them.  
§ XIX NAY on the contrary, as they cannot, either by any precedent, or any reason, defend the validity of such acts of a smaller part of the Presbyters without the Bishops; so I do not understand how they can avoid the owning the validity even of the acts of a smaller number of Presbyters in conjunction with the Bishops, if they will consider their own interest in them. The Presbyters who assisted the Bishops in the solemnities of ordaining their first Predecessors were much the smaller part of the Presbyteries. As for the rest, their consent was not so much as required, neither by any express act of their own, nor by any delegation of their power to those who were present, nor presumed from their absence after a Canonical summons. And yet if these acts were not valid, our Brethren cannot possibly defend the validity of their own Ordinations. But if they be, I might then show how impossible it is that the validity of such acts can be derived from the power of the Presbytery; and how necessary it is that they be resolved into an absolute power of the Bishop; and therefore how much they will be obliged to own the power of the Bishops that they may defend the validity of their own Orders. And considering that the Bishops and Presbyters make up one Government, it is impossible, if he be absolute, that they can be so too. And therefore if he can validly dispose of the common right without their consent, they cannot possibly dispose of it without his, which will again invalidate the acts of those Presbyteries for which our Brethren are concerned. And if this power of ordaining others was never given to our Brethren de facto, and if withal the validity of the conveyance fail by which they may pretend to it de jure, beside the intention of their Ordeiners; I do not understand what more can be requisite for overthrowing the validity of their Ordinations.  
§ XX THAT which they are apt to object after all is, that they are made Presbyters, and were designed to be made so, and to be made so in the Scripture Notion of that word; and that Ordination is a right belonging to a Scripture Presbyter. But why should they presume that their design was to make Presbyters in the Scripture sense any otherwise than as they thought the Presbyters in the modern sense justified by the Scripture? If this was the reason, as in all likelihood it must according to the sense of those times; then certainly their prime design was only to give that power which was then granted to Presbyters, which will not include the power of ordaining others, as I have already shown. Besides it cannot be presumed that their design was to make Presbyters in the Scripture sense any farther than as they thought Scripture precedent obliging to their own times. If they thought it lawful for them to alienate the right which originally belonged to them; if, at least, they thought such an Alienation valid when done, however unlawful to be done; why should they rather think of retrieving the Scripture-practice in this particular, than in those of the Deaconesses, and the feasts of Love, etc. to which no parties think themselves obliged at present.  
§ XXI I CANNOT but think that this was really St. Hieromes sense of this matter, 
Ad Euagr.  who never thought himself obliged by his singular opinion concerning the Primitive form of Ecclesiastical Government to make any disturbance in the present settlement. And the reason he gives for the change, that it was for the avoiding Schism, was a commendable reason, and as much concerning his own, and all future times, as it did those wherein this change was first supposed to have been made. Schism is still as dangerous to the Church, and Episcopacy is still as prudent an expedient for preventing the occasion of Schism arising from parity, now and for ever, as it was then. And the decree of the whole World which he mentions as the Authority by which this change was made, if it do not include the Apostles or some such extraordinary Officers, who, in those times had alone the power of making such a Decree as he there speaks of, which might oblige the whole World, and in whose time the expressions he makes use of for expressing this Schism, that one said he was of Paul, another of Cephas, another of Apollo's, were first and most literally fulfilled, and it is unlikely that they would defer the remedy so long after the occasion, as our Adversaries suppose; besides that the mistake of men's thinking that the Disciples baptised by them were their own, is not likely to have continued so long, and to have prevailed so universally as to occasion a general Decree against it after the death of all the Apostles, when St. Paul himself had so expressly condemned it so long before: If, I say, the whole World concerned in this business did not include the Apostles, (and it is most certain that it cannot exclude them) yet certainly it must have included all those extraordinary persons of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who, besides their intimate acquaintance with the Apostles, were themselves endued with great and Apostolical gifts; and as they cannot be presumed ignorant of the Apostles mind in a matter of fact so notorious as this was of Government, so they cannot be presumed unfaithful to their trust in a matter of this consequence as to make a Decree directly contrary to an establishment of the Apostles designed by them to be unalterable, and this Decree an universal one without contradiction of any one of these Apostolical Persons.  
§ XXII WHATEVER our Brethren may think of these things now; yet certainly St. Hierome could not, on these terms, think this change invalid. Nor consequently could any of them think so who were in this matter guided by St. Hierome. And if so, we have no reason to presume that they must have intended to restore the antiquated Scripture-right of Presbyters, which, if it prove true, must overthrow all our Adversaries Arguments for proving that Ordination was a right of Scripture-Presbyters, in order to the proving the like right in Presbyters now. Though it was their right then, yet if it be alienable, it may cease to be their right now. If it were unalienable from those who once had it, yet without defending the validity of any alienation, they may want it now, not because they alienated it, but because they never had it. However, though it had been their design to give our present Presbyters all that right which belonged to Presbyters in the Apostles times; yet certainly they who made these Presbyters are the most competent Judges of their own intentions, if we will deal fairly, not captiously. And therefore, even in this case, our Adversaries should not immediately conclude that to be the right of modern Presbyters, because themselves think that Presbyters in the Apostles time had it, unless they could prove our modern Ordeiners to have been of their mind in this particular. It suffices at present that I have shown, that it is not from the Scriptures as a Charter, but from their Ordeiners as Persons Authorized by that Charter, and as Authentic Expositors of it, if not as to truth, yet at least as to practice, that they receive their Orders; and therefore that the power actually received by them must not be measured by the true sense of the Scriptures, but from that wherein their Ordeiners understood them. But I have already proved that they who intended to make them Presbyters in the Scripture-sence, did not, could not, suppose that the power of Ordination was the right of Scripture-Presbyters.  
§ XXIII BUT they may object further, that the rights united by God are inseparable by any Humane Authority, and that the power of Ordination is by God united to the other rights of Scripture Presbyters, so that it was impossible to give them any one right without giving them all, or to retain one without retaining all, and therefore that if our present Presbyters have the power of administering the Sacraments, they must not be denied the power of Ordination. If our Adversaries mean that those Presbyters who had both those powers united in them by God could not be deprived of the one power without the other, nor indeed of any by any Humane Authority, this, if it should prove true, yet, is a case wherein our present Ordinations are not concerned, which were not received in those times wherein our Adversaries pretend to prove that these two powers were so inseparably united. If further they say that de jure they ought not to be separated, as they will find the bare Argument from Scripture-precedent very unconcluding to this purpose (they neither can prove that ever Scripture-Presbyters did ordain in separation from a Precedent, much less that smaller over-voted parts of any particular Presbyteries, or any Presbyteries made up of fugitives, from many, did so; nor, if they could, can they prove the precedent obliging now, without some more enforcing considerations from the nature of the thing) so they will not find it easy to produce better. And it is at present sufficient for my purpose, that they may be separated de facto though they who separate them be to blame for doing so.  
§ XXIV NOR is there any reason for them to oppose God and the Church as they usually do on this and other occasions. If the Church's Authority be received from God, than what is done by her is to be presumed to come from him, the same way as what is done by any man's Proxy is presumed to be his own act, and as what is done by an inferior Magistrate by virtue of his Office is presumed to come from the supreme. Which will especially hold as a presumption, that is, where there are no clearer proofs of the supreme Magistrates mind being contrary to that of the inferior than our Adversaries can pretend to for proving the inseparable union of these powers by Divine institution. If they were then united by God because they were united by the men who represented God, why are they not disunited by God now when men alike empowered by him have disunited them? Why should they not oblige God in one case as well as the other? especially, when there is nothing in the Commission itself that implies confinement in one case rather than the other, and when the whole reason of judging is taken only from the actual practice, how is it possible that any actual practice can prescribe against the power that introduced it, that it may not introduce a different practice as arbitrarily as it introduced this? If there had been a distinct Authority for making the union of these two powers inseparable distinct from that which united them only in practice, or if the same Authority of men which united them in practice had declared God's pleasure to be that they should for ever be so united; though they might reverse the Authority of their own practice, yet it might not be in their power to evacuate their own Declarations, because those are supposed to belong to an Authority greater than their own, and antecedent to it; and therefore may rationally be supposed such as may null all future acts that are contrary to it. But such distinct Authority or distinct Declaration our Adversaries cannot pretend in our present case.  
§ XXV AND if they could prove this inseparable Union of these two powers by the Divine appointment, our Adversaries would do well to consider whether it would be more for their interest or their disadvantage? that is, whether it will not rather follow that they are no Presbyters at all who have received Episcopal Ordination, that they have no power of administering the Sacraments, because it is certain that they have not received the power of Ordination, than that they must have received the power of ordaining other Presbyters because they have received the power of administering the Sacraments? The Negative consequence is as unavoidable from the inseparableness of these two powers as the Affirmative, that is, it is as certain that where one of those powers is certainly not given there nothing is given (because it cannot be supposed to be given alone) as that if one be given the other must be given also. As therefore it is certain that the Ordeiners intended to reserve the power of Ordination from the Persons ordained Presbyters by them; so it will follow, by this principle, that if the whole power was not intended, none was so. And if what was not intended was not given, and what was not given was not received, and the power of Ordination was not received; then neither could the power of administering the Sacraments be received also. And if so, then let them be called by what name they please, yet really they will be no Presbyters, at least not in the Scripture-sence, if either of these powers be essential to such a Scripture-Presbyter. And then in vain do they challenge the power of such Presbyters when they are not those Presbyters to whom those powers belong. And certainly it is much more certain and prudent to argue from the nature of the power given to them, that they are Presbyters in the Scripture-sence who have the power given them which is supposed to belong to Scripture-Presbyters, and on the contrary that they are not Presbyters in the Scripture-sence, who have not that power given them; than that they must have the power because they have the name, and that intended in the Scripture signification. Names are imposed arbitrarily to signify what men please, and if they please by the name Presbyter to signify him whom the Scriptures call so, yet still it is to be supposed to signify that sense which they understand to be the sense of Scripture, though they be mistaken in the sense of it. And it is certain that the name cannot alter the nature of the power which is given to them though the nature of that power may alter the justice of their title to the name. If they have less power given them than should belong to Scripture-Presbyters, it must certainly follow that the name would be given them improperly; and certainly our Adversaries themselves cannot think it just that they who are improperly called Scripture-Presbyters should claim the privileges of them who are called so properly.  
§ XXVI INDEED if the nature of the powers were mutually inseparable, it would be reasonable to argue that where one was given both must be so; or if at least on one side this inseparableness held, it were just to conclude that the other power must be given, if this be that from which that other is inseparable; but not on the contrary that the separable power must be given, because that power is given from which it is supposed to be separable. And on this account there is indeed some colour of reason to presume that where a higher power is given the inferior is given also, because usually the Inferior is included in the Superior, though it be not always so. But it will by no means follow that a Superior power must follow that which is Inferior, because here can be no pretence either of inseparable connexion or of inclusion. Now this is plainly the case here. All that our Adversaries can directly prove to have been given to their first Predecessors who received their Orders in the Communion of the Church is only a power of administering the Sacraments in their own Persons. But the power of giving this power to others is certainly a power of a higher nature than the power of administering in their own Persons. If therefore both these powers be essential to a Scripture-Presbyter; and they cannot prove that any more than one of them was given to their Predecessors, neither by any express donation, nor by any inseparable connexion with that which was expressly given; it will clearly follow that they were not made Presbyters in that sense which our Adversaries understand to be the sense of the Scriptures, and therefore that they cannot claim the privileges which they conceive due to Scripture-Presbyters. And for my part I do not understand a more prudent Rule for distinguishing when the negative way of arguing is seasonable from this Topick, that neither power is given because it is certain that both are not, than this, that where it is, on no account, customary to include one power in the gift of the other (as it is not customary to include a superior power in giving an inferior) there it is to be presumed that is was not intended to be given, and therefore that the gift of the other power must be invalid if one cannot be validly given alone. But where it is reasonable or usual to include the one in the other, there it is reasonable to presume that both were intended to be given, because the Person cannot in such a case be supposed willing to null his own gift, which, on this supposition, he must do, if he do not give both together, because he must inevitably either give all or nothing.   

CHAP. XXVI. The right of particular Episcopal Jurisdictions.  
THE CONTENTS.  
2. The Episcopal Communion to which every one is obliged to join himself, as he would secure the ordinary means of his own particular salvation, is the Episcopal Communion of the place wherein he lives, whilst he lives in it. §. I. This proved against the several sorts of the Non-Conformists according to their several principles. §. II. 1. As to the Presbyterians, and those who acknowledge an obligation of Government antecedently to the consent of particular Subjects. And that by these degrees: 1. That, by the obligation of Government in general, all those particulars must be obliging, without it cannot be practicable. §. III. 2. Many of the Presbyterians themselves do acknowledge the determination of particular circumstances, and the application of General Rules to particular Cases, to belong to the Office of Ecclesiastical Governors. §. iv 3. It is absolutely necessary for the practicableness of Government in general, that every Subject know his Governor, and him particularly to whom he in particular owes Obedience. §. V 4. The means whereby every particular Person may be convinced, to whom it is, that he in particular owes Subjection, must be such as may be presumed notorious to the whole Community, and such whereof others may judge as well as the Person particularly concerned, and by which they may judge as well concerning his Duty as their own. §. VI 5. The Authority of these means must be from God. §. VII, VIII. Two Consequences inferred from hence: 1. Positive, That they must be under a Divine Obligation to own the Authority of these Jurisdictions whilst they live within them. §. IX. 2. Negative, that, from this Divine Authority of Jurisdictions, they must find themselves obliged to forbear all opposite Communions or Assemblies within those Jurisdictions. §. X, XI, XII. Application made particularly to the Presbyterians. §. XIII. 2. As to the Independents, who deny all Ecclesiastical Authority antecedently to the voluntary Obligations of particular Persons. §. XIV, XV. That there is really a power of Government in the Church. §. XVI▪ That this power is not derived from the Multitude. §. XVII, XVIII.  
§ I 2. THE Episcopal Communion, to which every particular Person is obliged to join himself, as he would secure the ordinary means of his own particular Salvation, is the Episcopal Communion of the place wherein he lives, whilst he lives in it. I do not say that the ordinary means of Salvation are to be had no where but in any one particular Diocese. I do not say but that those same ordinary Administrations of Sacraments which are available to the Salvation of those who belong to other Dioceses, and do there partake of them, might also be available to the Salvation of any of another Diocese, if he were out of his own Jurisdiction, which he must needs be, if he communicate in another Diocese. Nor further do I say that any one is so obliged by his Baptismal vow in any one Diocese to continue in that Diocese for his whole Life, as that it would be a violation of his Baptismal obligation for him to remove elsewhere, especially if he removed according to the custom of the Primitive times with the Communicatory and Dimissory Letters of the Ordinary of his own original Diocese. When our Adversaries prove any of these things let them not think that they disprove any thing which I have undertaken to defend, nor that my cause does oblige me to defend. All that I design at present, and which I am sorry that it will in the consequence of it concern our Adversaries so severely, is, to prove the obligation that lies on every Member of a particular Diocese to submit to all the unsinful impositions of the Diocese whilst he lives in it. For which it is sufficient that that particular Communion be as necessary to him in opposition to all other Communions which may be had within that same Jurisdiction without the consent of those to whose Jurisdiction it belongs, as it is necessary that he communicate at all. For as I have shown that communicating in general will oblige the Communicant to a dependence on those without whose consent such Communion cannot be had; and a dependence so great as may oblige him rather to submit to any impositions short of sin, in submitting to them, than to lose the external participation of the Sacraments; so, by the same proportion of reason, if no other Communion can safely be embraced but that which depends on the Governors of that Jurisdiction to which the person, I speak of, is supposed to belong, this will oblige him to as great a dependence on that particular Jurisdiction so long as he belongs to it.  
§ TWO AND that I may make my Discourse on this Subject useful to all sorts of Non-Conformists, I conceive it necessary to reason with them differently according to the difference of Principles admitted by them, that so none of them may want that evidence which may be necessary for their conviction. As for those who do not admit of rational consequences from truths acknowledged by themselves, it is vain to reason with them at all. For all Discourse is nothing else but an inferring of something which is not granted from something which is so. But this can never oblige any such Person to believe such Inferences true, if he doubt whether real consequences from his own Assertions might not be false, though his Assertions themselves were very true. There is therefore no dealing with such Persons by reason; but they must inevitably be left to their own Enthusiasm. The rest therefore who admit of rational consequences I shall consider in two ranks: 1. Of those who admit of an Authority obliging antecedently to the acts of particular Persons; under which, I think I might rank the Presbyterians generally, if they were true to their own Principles, that is, if in arguing against the Church they would be wary of any other Principles, but such as themselves admit in their disputes against the Independents; and, 2. Of those who deny all Ecclesiastical Authority antecedent to the voluntary Obligations of particular Persons. And of this sort are the Independents and others downwards. These men when they have (1.) denied the obligingness of Ecclesiastical Authority antecedently to compacts of the Subjects; And when, (2.) they have withal denied also the obligingness of the compacts of Predecessors to oblige Successors in this matter; And when they have, (3.) denied the obligation of their Baptismal Covenant in reference to any duty owing by them to any particular Church, even to that particular one in which they have received their Baptism, even so long as they continue in it; When, (4.) they make the act whereby they confer power to their Pastors not privative, but accumulative, so that they are still supposed to reserve to themselves the same liberty after they have empowered their Pastors which they enjoyed before: I say, when we consider them as proceeding on these Principles; it cannot be admired that they destroy all Jurisdiction, especially in regard of place. For how is it possible that such Persons should think themselves obliged to submit to any particular Jurisdiction on account of their living within a particular district of place; when they neither think themselves obliged to own any Lord of any place antecedently to the compacts of the Inhabitants, nor think themselves obliged by any compacts of their Predecessors of former generations which might have given him the Dominion of the place, so far as it was in the power of the Inhabitants to give it him? How can they think themselves obliged by the place they live in, who do not think themselves bound by any thing but their own act, nor by that itself any longer, or any farther than themselves please? But it seems much stranger how they should do it who do not think particular Persons obnoxious to Discipline antecedently to any consent of their own, distinct from that whereby they undertook their Baptism and their Christianity.  
§ III 1. THEREFORE as to the Presbyterians, and those others who acknowledge an obligation of Government antecedently to the consent of particular Subjects, that which can alone be requisite in dealing with such Persons, is to let them see, that from this antecedent obligation to Government in general, it follows that they must be subject to the particular Jurisdictions. To which purpose it is to be observed, 1. That by the obligation of Government in general, all those particulars must be obliging without which it cannot be practicable. For it is not becoming the Divine Wisdom that we should suppose that he should constitute a Government that should not be practicable. He cannot be supposed to design a Government but for the actual practice of it, because this is indeed the only use of it, and therefore the only reason that might make it capable of being prudently designed. But none can design a Government for practice which he knows to be unpracticable. And therefore if he do design it, it must not be supposed to have been known by him to be unpracticable, but to prove so for some reason that was not foreseen by him when he designed it. But this cannot be thought true concerning God. Whence it must plainly follow, that if any thing else should prove necessary for the practicableness of the Government designed by him, besides what was provided for by express constitutions, yet we have reason to believe that it was foreseen, and therefore also very prudent reason to presume that it was intended, by him, when he seems to have been so well satisfied with that which he was so certain would prove true in the event as that he did not judge it necessary to make any other provision concerning it.  
§ IV AND, 2. The Presbyterians themselves, at least so many of them, in our present Age, who have lived to see those consequences actually follow which their Predecessors did not foresee that they would follow; these, I say do not deny but that the application of general Rules to particulars, and the determination of those circumstances, without which the general Rules would not be applicable to particular Cases, do properly belong to the Office of Ecclesiastical Governors. And whether they granted it, or not, yet they who will stand to the trial of reason or rational consequences must needs grant the reason now proposed that all which was necessary for the practicableness of the Government designed by God, must needs have been foreseen, and therefore designed by him, in order to the making the Government designed by him practicable. And therefore all that can be necessary to be proved further against these Persons, can only be that the acknowledgement of these Jurisdictions is absolutely necessary for the practicableness of this Government in general.  
§ V 3. THEREFORE it is absolutely necessary for the practicableness of Government in general, that every Subject know his Governor, and him particularly to whom he in particular owes obedience. If he only know in general who are Governors indefinitely, and withal, know that he is not obliged to pay any duty but only to those to whom he in particular owes subjection, it plainly follows that as yet he may deny his duty to all particular Governors, because he does not owe them it barely as Governors, but particularly as his. So that as yet no Government can be practised: For Government and Subjection do necessarily answer each other, and Government cannot be practised by the Governors without an acknowledgement of Subjection by the Subjects. An actual exercise of power will be unsufficient to secure a practice of obedience without a right to such a coercive power. Nor can the right actually oblige the Subjects to submit unless it be acknowledged by them. If at least it be not acknowledged for right by the greater part, and unless they confess themselves obliged in Conscience to acknowledge it, it cannot prove actually coercive.  
§ VI 4. THE means whereby every particular Person may be convinced, to whom it is that he, in particular, owes subjection, must be such as may be presumed notorious to the whole Community, and therefore must not be of private cognizance, but such whereof others may judge, as well as the person particularly concerned, and by which they may judge as well concerning his Duty as their own. This is necessary that every Member of the Community, ignorant as well as skilful, may know his own duty, and be left inexcusable if he neglect it, which will require great plainness and easiness in the means that they may be suitable to the meanest capacities of those who are concerned to be directed by them, as that plainness and easiness must, in the event make them notorious to all. But much rather it is necessary in a Community where Governors, and all who are concerned for the maintenance of Government, are to judge of the actions of Subjects, and to reward or punish them as they shall judge them dutiful or refractory, whatever the concerned Subjects themselves shall profess or pretend to judge to the contrary. If this liberty of judging, and of imposing their judgement in practice, be not allowed to Governors, it will be impossible for them to answer the designs of Government. And it cannot be reasonable for them to judge others to be undutiful, unless they suppose their reasons such as may not only persuade themselves, but may also prevail on all others who use that industry and ingenuity which the moment of the thing would require from them. But the evidence must be much greater which may encourage men to judge of the industry or ingenuity of those who descent from themselves, than what may suffice for their own satisfaction. Probable appearances of things to themselves may be very prudent reasons to incline men rather to one side of a disputable question. But that cannot make it reasonable for them to believe that others, who are more judicious and sagacious than themselves, are all obliged to be of their mind, and must either be wanting in their industry or ingenuity, if they be not so. Yet some cases there are which are so very evident as that men may judge concerning them for others, how judicious soever, as well as for themselves. But then the evidence must be so great as may exceed all that whereby we may judge concerning the industry or ingenuity of others. For in this case only it is reasonable to suspect the disingenuity or negligence of others rather than their want of conviction in case they descent from us. And therefore thus great the evidence must be by which Governors must judge concerning the punishableness of Dissenters. But the evidence by which they must judge of the conviction their Subjects may have of the right of such Governors to govern them, must yet be presumed by so much greater than the evidence of their particular Decrees, by how much the evidence of Principles ought to be greater than that of the inferences deduced from those Principles. For the knowledge of the Persons who are to govern us is indeed the first Principle of the practicableness of any visible Government.  
§ VII HENCE it follows, 5. That those notorious and agreed means by which Subjects may be enabled to judge to whose Government they do particularly belong, must be from God. And if it be from him, it is no matter whether it be from him immediately, or whether it be derived from him by the Ministry of men empowered by him, and who are empowered, by virtue of their general Authority received from him, to make provision, even for this particular case. It suffices that God will account resistance to Superiors, whose right is discoverable by such notorious Rules, as a resistance to Governors established by himself, and I believe this is all of which our dissenting Brethren themselves will desire to be satisfied. And that this is so, will easily appear from the Principles already premised: For if all must be presumed to come from God which is necessary for the practicableness of the Government established by him, and the knowledge of their particular Governors be necessary for the practice of the duty of particular Subjects, and no other means be proper for this knowledge of their Governors but such as are agreed and notorious; it must then follow that God must have provided some such means. And then considering that this distinction of Jurisdictions is such a means for Subjects to distinguish to whose Government they belong; seeing that this was a means agreed on by all, and notoriously in use long before the rise of them who first began to question Jurisdictions; it cannot be denied to be very becoming the care of God that this should be settled by him. But on the other side, considering also that the means assigned by our Adversaries different from this of Jurisdiction are neither notorious nor agreed on by any but themselves, or those who have innovated with them, who cannot, in any equity, be allowed to be competent Judges in a matter of this nature wherein the whole Community is concerned, even those also who dissent from them, who have the advantage of Number, as well as of Prescription, against them; I say, these things being considered, these cannot be taken for means of God's appointment. And therefore the settlement of Jurisdictions is not only a proper means, but the only means, by which all must be concluded in this matter. And therefore they must either be acknowledged obligatory by divine right, or God cannot be supposed to have made those provisions which are absolutely necessary for making the Government established by him practicable. This must follow from their finding it already settled to their hands, when they first began their Innovations, that by whomsoever these Jurisdictions were first introduced, yet they were not introduced without the Divine approbation. Which is enough to oblige all them who find it grounded on such a right, to submit to it. But according to the Principles of those of our Adversaries who allow the Church a power to determine particular circumstances not expressly determined in the Scriptures, but yet necessary for the practice of those general rules which are already prescribed there, the institution itself must be acknowledged Divine, not only providentially, but also in regard of the Authority by which it was introduced, not only because the Church's Authority in general proceeds from God, but also because she is, by these Principles, authorized to exercise her power in this very matter which I am now discoursing of, seeing this determination of Jurisdictions has appeared to be no other but a determination of particular circumstances requisite for the practicableness of Government in general.  
§ VIII NOR can they think it strange, in reason, that the right of these Jurisdictions should be Divine, notwithstanding that the limitation of them depends on men, especially when, by these Principles, those men must be supposed to be seconded by a Divine Authority. There is hardly any instance of a Divine Authority which does not, as to some particular requisite for practice, need the accession of a Humane Authority. Yet none thinks the obligation resulting from the complex of both to be therefore any thing the less Divine. Who doubts but that the Authority even of these particular Books of Scripture which we now receive for Scripture is Divine? Yet it is impossible to prove that these particular Books were written by those particular Authors whose names they bear, on which notwithstanding the credit of their being Divinely inspired does necessarily depend, but by the same way as we prove other matters of Fact, that is, by Humane Historical Testimony. Many believe that the right of Secular Government is Divine, and that the punishment of Rebellious Persons is accordingly such as those deserve who resist the Ordinance of God himself. Nay, this plainly seems to be the design of the Apostles reasoning. 
Rom. xiii. 2.  Yet there is no present Government in our parts where the determination of the particular Persons who are to govern is not wholly performed by men, by men not pretending to inspiration, nor yet, on that account, expecting any extraordinary Revelation. The use of Lots and Anguries which might look like consulting the Gods in the matter are long since discontinued, and were not observed in the case of those Princes to whom St. Paul notwithstanding advised the Christians of his time to be subject in regard of Conscience. 
Rom. xiii. 5.  Yet those Emperors of the Julian Family were thought Usurpers in that Age, and had no more to excuse them from being so, besides their Prescription for the time they had been peaceably possessed of the honours enjoyed by them, and their not having any visible just competitors. And particularly concerning Nero, in whose time St. Paul is thought to have written that Epistle, it is very well known by what wicked Arts of his Mother Agrippina he got the Empire. Yet when he was free from a more just Competitor, 
Britannicus.  this did not hinder his Authority from being from God, nor resistance to him from being a resistance of the Ordinance of God, and, in that regard, from deserving damnation. 
Rom. xiii. 1, 2.  And this must needs be the case wherever God himself does not immediately reveal himself, nor the Persons Authorized by him perform their credentials in the presence of the Persons obliged to believe them. They must then assure themselves of the truth of these things only by Humane Testimony. Yet because when they are once assured of these matters of Fact, which they cannot be assured of but by Humane Testimonies, it will then follow that the Revelations are from God; therefore the obligation to believe these Revelations is supposed to be so too, and the punishment of disbelief is thereupon proportioned to the disbelief, not of a Humane, but a Divine Authority. And therefore this may also be the obligation to submit to the Authority of Jurisdictions, notwithstanding that their certain bounds were prefixed by a Humane Authority.  
§ IX NOW from this Divine right of Jurisdictions, two consequences will follow, which it will seriously concern our Adversaries to consider impartially. The first is positive, That they must be under a Divine Obligation to own the Authority of these Jurisdictions whilst they live within them. I do not mean that they are obliged never to go out of them, or that when they are out of them they are obliged to their local constitutions, any more than any are obliged to live for ever in their Native Kingdom, or to observe the Laws of it when they are in Countries of Constitutions different from it; but only that they are the same way obliged by God to acknowledge and submit to the Jurisdiction, whilst they live in it, on the same account as they who believe the Divine Authority of the Secular Government believe all the Subjects obliged to submit to the Laws of their Country, whilst they live in it, as they will answer it to God. Now that which will follow from this positive obligation is, that they do embrace the Communion, and submit to all the unsinful impositions of it, that is, all which are unsinful to the submitters, whatever they be to the imposers, and lay out their endeavours to secure the peace of it, and to prevent the disturbances of others, as they would think themselves obliged to do in the Secular Societies to which they are respectively related. Without these things they can no more be supposed to own the Ecclesiastical Authority, than they could the Civil, if they would wilfully abstain from their Privileges in it, and refuse obedience to its Laws, or countenance others in their disobedience to them.  
§ X THE Second consequence is Negative, that from this Divine Authority of Jurisdictions they must find themselves obliged to forbear all opposite Communions or Assemblies within those Jurisdictions. This seems so evident of itself as that I do not know whether any will doubt of it but in such cases wherein evident interest makes them justly suspicious of being partial. None doubts but that other Authorities independent on the Supreme in secular Societies do manifestly ruin the Authority and security of such Societies; and that he who secretly countenances such independent Authorities cannot at the same time be taken for a good Subject and well affected to the visible Government of his Society, but much more if he should do it openly. They would in all likelihood think so, if themselves were concerned for the Government of it. They would not think such Persons well affected to them would deal with them as they do with their Superiors. If the power of their Jurisdictions be from God, then plainly it is an invasion of their right for others to arrogate or exercise power in their Jurisdictions without their leave. It is so even for Persons who have really power in other Jurisdictions, but much more for them who never had any power given them, much more for their own Subjects, who, by the common rules of subjection, in all Societies of this nature, are obliged to duty within their particular districts. This must be a double Sacrilege, not only as the right of the Jurisdiction itself, is, on these Principles, supposed to be sacred, and consequently such as cannot be usurped by any, how sacred soever themselves be, without Sacrilege, but also because the Persons themselves are not sacred who invade those sacred Jurisdictions.  
§ XI AND it is particularly to be remarked that the common rights, by which the Authority of all these particular Societies and Jurisdictions subsist, must peculiarly belong to God, and therefore cannot be violated without the most direct affront to the Divine Majesty, and the most terrible expectations of punishment. They belong, I say, more immediately to his care than those things which even men are empowered to take care of by virtue of the general Authority which they have received from him, and which only concern their own Societies respectively. In all subordinations of Governors, by how much any rules are of more general concernment, by so much more properly they are supposed to exceed the extent of the power of inferior Governors, and therefore to belong more properly to him who has the right of that whole extent which is concerned in those rules. And therefore seeing that the right of Jurisdictions in general is of much greater extent than any particular Jurisdiction, therefore it cannot belong to the right of particular Governors, and because it is the common concernment of the whole Catholic Church, therefore it must accordingly be proper for him alone who alone is concerned for the whole Catholic Church in general: Besides that it is antecedent to the right of all particular Governors. For the right of particular Governors within particular Jurisdictions is founded on the right of Jurisdictions in general. Therefore it is that particular Governors have right within particular Jurisdictions because there is in general a right in the whole Church to distinguish Jurisdictions, and to appropriate the power of them to their respective Officers when they are so distinguished, and because, according to the common rules of equity to be observed in making this distinction, this particular Jurisdiction has fallen to the share of these particular Governors. This therefore cannot be founded on the Authority of particular Governors whose Authority is wholly grounded on it, but only on the Authority of God whose Authority alone is antecedent to the Authorities of particular Jurisdictions.  
§ XII NOR can this be thought strange in Ecclesiastical Government which is so acknowledged in Civils. There are also in them some Laws of the like universal concernment, on which the right of all Civil Jurisdictions depend, and which are therefore as impossible to be derived from the Authority of particular Governors, and as necessary to be derived from God alone. Such are the Laws of Nature and of Nations, the breach whereof has by all wise men been always thought most piacular, and most properly obnoxious to the punishment of God himself. Which is a consideration very worthy to be laid to heart by our dissenting Brethren, whether it be not equally applicable to this present Subject concerning the right of particular Jurisdictions. And if this be acknowledged to be the truth of this matter, that the Divine Authority is thus resisted by this disobedience to Humane Jurisdictions, what can more agreeably be expected as the punishment of such resistance than that they who are guilty of such resistance by any acknowledgement of a power independent on the Governors of their Jurisdictions, should at least lose the advantages they might otherwise expect from the Society to which they join themselves, I mean those advantages which might otherwise be expected from a conjunction with them considered as a Society, especially such advantages as are only to be immediately performed by God whom they must, by these Principles, be supposed to have disobliged? Which will make it reasonable to believe that the Sacraments received against the Authority of these Jurisdictions shall not actually have the benefit of Sacraments, and therefore shall not actually contribute to the forgiveness of sins, or the giving of the Holy Ghost, the way whereby Sacraments are supposed to contribute to them. Nay, instead of that, such communications will incur the guilt of Sacrilege, on the same account as Corah and his company were guilty of it, though they were consecrated Persons, for transgressing the bounds allowed them by the order prescribed by God. But how much more must it be so when Persons not having any Consecration at all shall presume to encroach on those sacred rights, of their own Superiors, which God himself who gave them those rights, does hence appear obliged to preserve inviolable?  
§ XIII AND indeed I do not understand how the Presbyterians can, with any show of reason, defend their own practice of Authority without acknowledging this right of Jurisdictions? How can they justify the Authority of their National and Provincial Synods, over all those who live within the Province or Nation represented in the Synods? How can they challenge it, even over the Independents themselves who live among them, notwithstanding their profession of a different Judgement from them, notwithstanding their disowning any act whereby they have obliged themselves to submit to their Authority distinct from the Baptism which they have received among them? How can they have the confidence to charge, even them, with Schism for refusing to submit to them? or for gathering Churches out of their Parishes, if the living within the districts of a Parish could give them no peculiar title to those who did so? What can they call this right they pretend to over Persons living within their districts antecedently to any act of their own distinct from their Baptism, if it be not Jurisdiction? For my part, I profess, I mean no more at present, nor am I sensible that my cause obliges me to mean any more. And can they allow of Jurisdiction in Parishes only, and not in those greater Bodies which are only Aggregates of Parishes? The Authority they challenge to their Provincial and National Synods does plainly show they cannot do so. And how can they possibly deny the same right and reason of Jurisdiction to the Parishes and Dioceses wherein their first Predecessors were baptised? How can they think the same Episcopal Jurisdiction any more impaired by their own irregular practices since, than they think their own Jurisdiction impaired by the like irregular practices of the Independents? They who acknowledge a right over particular Christians antecedently to their own act, as these generally do when they speak consequently to their own Principles, must needs acknowledge that the power, so antecedent to private suffrages, may constitute what rules they please for distinguishing the limits of the proportion of particular Governors. So that such Persons cannot, with any show of reason, doubt of the obligingness of such rules of Jurisdiction when they are once established, but only whether this particular rule of judging by the districts of place be established by that antecedent Power. But of this there can be no doubt in our present case, because there is no other way so much as pretended, by our Adversaries themselves, for distinguishing the limits of particular Jurisdictions.  
§ XIV BUT I proceed to show, 2. How the same thing may be proved against them who deny all Ecclesiastical Authority antecedent to the voluntary Obligations of particular Persons. I have already observed how much more consequently these men speak to their Principles than the Presbyterians. And it is indeed impossible that these men should own the Authority of Jurisdictions, if they will be true to their Principles. But then the great reason why it is impossible is particularly that Principle, and the consequences of it, that they think the obligatory right of all Ecclesiastical power derived from the particular Personal consent of every particular Member, and that distinct from his consent to be a Member, that is, from his consent to Baptism. If this be overthrown, than the reasons will return which I have urged against those who grant a power in the Church obligatory of all baptised Persons living among them antecedently to their personal Contracts: For there is no middle way of dealing in this case. They who disown the Original of power to be seated in the people, if they own any Ecclesiastical power at all, they must needs place it originally in the Governors. No third seat can, or, that I know of, has been ever thought of. And if it be originally in the Governors, than it must be there antecedently to the consent of particular private persons, and being so, must also oblige antecedently to their consent, for it is a contradiction to speak of power without obligation. And if so, than whoever is a Member of the Church is a Subject of its Government, and whoever is a Member of the visible Church is, by the same reason, a Subject of its visible Government. But none can deny that it is the visible Church, as well as the invisible, of which Baptism makes us Members; nay, many of our Adversaries especially, will say, that it is the visible Church rather than the invisible. Whence it will follow that none who is baptised is sui Juris, and therefore cannot need a new contract distinct from that of his Baptism to make him a Subject of some Ecclesiastical Government.  
§ XV AND if he be a Subject to Ecclesiastical Government in general, and subject to the visible Government of the Church, than he must in particular be a Subject of a particular visible Government, when he becomes particularly a Member of that visible Church for which those Governors are concerned, either by Baptism or by cohabitation. It is very true that Baptism does admit a Member into the Catholic Church, because it gives him a right to be received into all other Churches distinct from that wherein he was baptised, (if he have occasion to remove) without a new Baptism. But I cannot think it does so immediately, but by being admitted into a particular Church he must consequently have this title to be admitted into all other Churches by virtue of that correspondence which all are obliged to maintain with each particular in ratifying its censures and its Sacraments. Which, if it prove true, it will then follow that the title every baptised Person has to Communion with the Catholic Church is grounded upon his being first a visible Member, and consequently a visible Subject, of that Church wherein he first received his Baptism. Which will settle the right of Jurisdictions on as solid a foundation as they can desire who are themselves concerned for it.  
§ XVI THE main things therefore requisite to be proved in dealing with this sort of Persons are, That there is really such a power of Government in the Church, and that it is originally seated in the Ecclesiastical Governors, antecedently to the consent of the people. And these will both appear from the Principles which I have hitherto advanced, that is, from this supposition, that the right of Government is grounded on the right of administering the Sacraments. For by this it plainly appears, that the Governors have a power over particular Persons, because they can impose their own determinations on them under pain of exclusion from the Sacraments, that is, in consequence to our Principles of exclusion from the ordinary means of Salvation. For this exclusion being, in reason, a greater mischief to the party excluded than imprisonment or banishment, or even Death itself, therefore it is also reasonable that it must prove as properly coercive to oblige him, who values it according to its due desert, to yield of his own will rather than suffer under such severities. And even those temporal coertions themselves cannot prove actually coercive to him who apprehends no inconvenience in them, at least not coercive whilst they are only threatened, not actually inflicted, which yet is the most designed coercion of threatening Laws, which prove coercive to many though they be inflicted only on a few. And when they are justly possessed of this power of compelling their particular Subjects by having this power of the Sacraments confined to them, they need nothing more express, but have the whole power of Government also given them by as necessary a consequence as he has the right of any secular Government entirely, who is alone and rightfully possessed of the power of the Sword.  
§ XVII AND from the same Principles, as I have managed them, it also appears that the right of Government in the Ecclesiastical Governors is not derived from the Multitude. I have already shown that the original right of the Sacraments does not belong to the Multitude, but to God; that therefore they can have no power in this matter but what is given them expressly by God; that there is no evidence of such a gift; nay, all the presumptions that can be against it, that it was not from them but from the father that Christ received his power, that he gave his Authority immediately to the Apostles, and the Apostles their immediately to their Successors, without depending on the suffrages of the Multitude. These things will overthrow from the foundations the pretensions of the Multitude in this matter.  
§ XVIII BUT though the Multitude had originally that power which our Independent Brethren pretend they had; yet it will not thence follow, that they do well to take that liberty, they are pleased, to overthrow the obligation of the established Jurisdictions. How do they prove that they could never alienate this power by their own consent through a long and peaceable Prescription? that Predecessors could not oblige Successors in the alienation, if it was valid? that the Multitude could not oblige particular refractory Persons by their plurality of votes? that if any act of the particular Persons were necessary, their consent to Baptism, and to become Members of the Church, was not an implicit consent to subject themselves to the Government of the Church of which they became Members? that their gift is not privative but accumulative, and revocable at the pleasure of the particular Donors? None of these things are inconsistent with the right of Democratical Government in general. Nay, the contrary to our Adversaries sentiments in all these matters has been believed and relied on in the practice of most of the Democratical Governments that we have ever heard of, and I doubt whether our Adversaries can produce one instance, like the Government they would set up in the Church, out of all the Democracies and all the Histories now extant. And as all these presumptions lie against them, so the office of proving lies upon them, as they are the Innovators from the common Doctrine of the whole Catholic Church as far as we are capable of knowing them by any certain information. Nor will the proof of any one of them suffice, but of all of them; nor of all of them on the same degrees of evidence which might suffice for matters of inferior concernment, but the evidence here should be expected proportionable to the danger and mischief which must follow on their practice, in case they should prove mistaken. But so far are they from proving these things with that accurateness and evidence which, upon these considerations, aught in reason to be expected from them, as that I can hardly think that any judicious and candid Person among them would have the confidence, on these terms, to undertake them.   

CHAP. XXVII. That the Separation of the Non-Conformists is properly SCHISM, and that from the Catholic as well as from particular Churches.  
THE CONTENTS.  
2. That the nature of this Obligation to submit to all unsinful conditions of the Episcopal Communion is such as will make them guilty of the sin of SCHISM, who will rather suffer themselves to be separated than they will submit to such conditions. The Notion of SCHISM, as it is only a breach of correspondence, not sufficient for my purpose. §. I. As it is a breach of a Body Politic, it is. Application to our Adversaries. §. II. That by the Principles here proposed, the Persons from whom they separate must be their Governors. §. III, IV, V, VI, VII. Other things proved that are necessary for this Application. §. VIII. That this separation from their own particular Churches must necessarily infer a separation from the Catholic Church also. The Objection proposed. §. IX. Answ. If it were otherwise, it would destroy all Discipline, and therefore all the dividing parties who are for Discipline are obliged, as well as we, to answer this Objection, and to be favourable to what we shall say in Answer to it. §. X, XI. A more particular Answer proving the thing principally designed. 1. This pretence of Union with the Catholic Church can be no encouragement for any to neglect any means of continuing his Union with his own particular Church, unless he may be assured that, whilst he wants it, he may notwithstanding continue united to the Catholic Church. §. XII. 2. That Union with the Catholic Church, of which we may be assured, must be such as may appear to us by the use of those external ordinary means which God has appointed for maintaining that Union. §. XIII. 3. In this way of judging, he that would assure himself of his being united to the Catholic Church, must do it by proving himself united to some particular visible Church by an external Communication in their Sacraments. §. XIV. 4. The external Communion of another Church, which while a separated Person does maintain, he may have hopes of keeping still his Interest in the Unity of the Catholic Church, must not be any other Communion within the Jurisdiction in which he lives, and from which he is supposed to be separated. This proved in regard of Usurping Members of the same Church. §. XU.XVI. and of unauthorised Members of other Churches, within the same Jurisdiction. §. XVII, XVIII. 5. Such Separatists cannot maintain their title to Catholic Unity by being received into any other Churches, though otherwise absolute and unaccountable to the Church from whence they are separated. §. XIX, XX, XXI. This proved. 1. The nature of the inconvenience, incurred by deprivation of Communion in a particular Church, is such as that it is impossible that the censure can be valid in that particular Church, unless it be valid in others. §. XXII. 2. Hence it follows, that if such a Person be received to the Sacraments in another Church without as good an Authority, for uniting him to the unity of the Catholic Church, as that was by which he was deprived, only on supposition of the continuance of his invisible unity with the Catholic Church, notwithstanding his visible separation from a part of it, such Sacraments must, as to him, be perfect Nullities. §. XXIII. 3. No particular Church can, by its Authority alone, restore any too Catholic Unity who has been separated from it by another Church, without the consent of the Church by which he was at first separated. §. XXIV. 4. Hence it follows, That all that can be done by other Churches receiving a Person separated from the Communion of his own Church, can only be to judge of his case, not so as to oblige the Church to which he belongs originally to stand to their judgement, but only so far as concerns their own Jurisdiction. §. XXV, XXVI, XXVII. 5. Whatever is necessary for the design of God's establishment, that he must, by his design, be obliged to ratify, whether he has expressly said he will do so, or no. This applied. §. XXVIII. The validity of the separation proved, when it is the act of the Separatists themselves, without any censures of Ecclesiastical Authority, §. XXIX, XXX.  
§ I THE last thing which remains to be proved in my designed method, is, That the nature of this obligation to submit to unsinful conditions of their Episcopal Communion is such as will make them guilty of the sin of SCHISM, who, rather than they will submit to such conditions, either separate themselves, or suffer themselves to be excluded from Communion by their respective Diocesan Ordinaries. And all that will be necessary to be said concerning this, will be only to remember and apply what has been already proved throughout the body of the whole discourse. It is therefore certain, 1. That Schism, as such, is a dissolution of the Body, and therefore Schism in the Ecclesiastical sense is a dissolution of the Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, a dividing of its Unity wherein soever that may be conceived to consist. If the Unity of the Church consisted only in a Unity of correspondence without any obligation to yield incumbent on one party rather than on any other, than the crime of Schism would only be culpably chargeable on him who was chargeable with the breach, that is, who either began the separation on unsufficient reasons, or who suffered himself to be excluded on terms of less importance to him than the correspondence. So that in this way of trial the whole Judgement concerning this matter depends upon the merit of the Cause. Where there is no duty owing on either side, there the whole reason of obligation to yield on one side must only be the reason of the thing, its little momentousness in comparison with the momentousness of maintaining correspondence. And as in this case, the interest of the party is the only solid reason, why he may be conceived to be obliged to yield, so the most proper and competent Judge of this interest is supposed to be the party himself who is concerned in it. As therefore the common interest of the several divided parties does, in this way of judging, no farther oblige any one to yield to the others terms than as it may appear that the common interest is more its own particular interest than the things to be yielded in regard of it; so that even the acknowledgement that any thing is indeed for the common interest cannot oblige any to yield it barely, as it is the common interest, but as it is his own private interest, and more so than the thing to be yielded for it; so also in this Unity of correspondence, which is very well consistent with an equality between the several parties who are to maintain this correspondence, every one is sui juris, and therefore very justly to be determined by his own judgement concerning his own interest, and cannot be obliged to renounce his own judgement, in compliance with others concerning his own matters, how much soever he may value their judgement otherwise above his own. This therefore would be the only Notion of Schism, if all the Members of the Church were equal, or if all the difference between them were only such as would make a reverence due to some Persons for their eminent personal accomplishments, so that still it fell short of a Subjection due to them in regard of any Office or Authority. And I have accordingly observed that in this dispute concerning Schism, 
Introd.  our Adversaries Notions are exactly fitted to this Hypothesis, even of those of them who otherwise own a properly-coercive Authority of the Church over her particular Members.  
§ TWO BUT I confess this Notion of Schism is not sufficient for my purpose. For my design is not to implead our Adversaries on the merit of the cause of their separation from us, but to show their obligation to yield on their part, how confident soever they may be that they have the truth on their side, and that their Superiors are mistaken. For this purpose therefore it is necessary that the Unity of the Church be supposed such as may be culpably broken by them who hold the right side of the Controversy, if the truth itself be not of that moment as to justify a separation, and if it be not the denial of any the least truth that is required as a condition of peace, but only a condescension in practice. And if it appear that the Unity of particular Churches (for which alone I am immediately concerned in this whole Discourse) is that of Bodies Politic, that the things required from our Brethren in order to a solid peace are required by their Superiors▪ that they are justly and properly their Subjects, and own to these Superiors a duty not of reverence only, but also of Subjection, that therefore the obligation of yielding is incumbent on them, and that in all things short of sin, that for maintaining this Unity of Bodies Politic it is absolutely necessary that Subjects be obedient actively in all things lawful, and passively even in things unlawful, and that this passive obedience obliges Subjects to abstain from either erecting or abetting any opposite Societies: I say, if these things appear, it will then follow that our Adversaries, in maintaining opposite Assemblies to their lawful Ecclesiastical Governors, on what pretence soever of maladministration of the Government short of Heresy, (which can alone make Governors uncapable of the right of Government) must become guilty of a culpable breach of the Church's Unity, which is that which is properly meant by the true Notion of Schism. Now all these things prove true on the management of our present Hypothesis.  
§ III 1. THAT the Persons requiring these things at their hands are properly their Governors, and consequently that the Society, for whose Unity they are concerned, is properly a Body Politic, will both of them follow from each other, and will appear from the same proofs. 1. Therefore they who have the power of rewards and punishments have the power of Government. And especially if their power be not only a power of actual possession, but also of right, than they must also be acknowledged to have the right of Government, which will oblige Subjects to submission, even where they cannot be compelled to it, on the same Principles of Conscience, by which they are obliged, without Humane compulsion, to pay every one that which is rightfully their due. For it is by these rewards and punishments that Government is administered, that Subjects are induced or compelled to their duty; and as it is impossible for Government to be administered without them, so it is also as impossible to suppose that he who has the power of rewards and punishments can be restrained from the power of governing them whom they can punish and reward. If these things be only actually in their power, they can actually necessitate them to Subjection. But if they also possess them rightfully, that must oblige them to a Subjection, even in conscience.  
§ IV 2. THEREFORE, they who alone have the power of the benefits of any Society must also be supposed to have the power of its rewards and punishments. For indeed all rewards are only a conferring of those benefits, and all punishments are only deprivations of them. Thus it is in civil things, because the power of the Sword extends to all worldly enjoyments, therefore he who has this, has it in his power to confer these enjoyments, or to deprive of them at his pleasure. From whence it is that his Subjects find themselves obliged to pay their duty to him, on account of their own interest, as they value these fruitions of worldly good things, or their deprivations. And therefore if it be in the power of any Order of men, to dispose of those benefits which are to be expected from Christian Societies as Societies, to admit or exclude whom they please from them; this must, for the same reason, put it as much in their power to oblige all to a compliance with them, who value the privileges of this Society, as the power of the Sword enables them who have it to oblige all to a submission to them who value the privileges of their secular Societies. This will as properly put it in their power to reward or punish the obedience or disobedience of their Ecclesiastical Subjects, as the power of the Sword does put it in the power of secular Governors to reward or punish the dutiful or undutiful behaviour of them who are their Subjects in temporals, especially considering,  
§ V 3. THAT the benefits here spoken of are the benefits of the Christian Society as a Society. Whoever has it in his power to gratify another in any thing he stands in need of, has it consequently in his power to oblige him who needs it to comply with him on any condition, less afflictive than the loss of it to him who stands in need of it. And by how much the thing is more valuable and more necessary, by so much stricter will his obligation be to compliance. But yet this will not give the Person, in whose power the gratification is, a proper Authority and Jurisdiction over him whom he has power to gratify, unless the gratification be of that kind that it is necessary to him, as a Member of the Society, and therefore which may be necessary for all other Members as well as himself. Whoever has it thus in his power to oblige any Member as a Member, must have a universal power over all the Members, which he who has, must, by a necessary consequence, have a power of obliging the whole Society. And certainly this power of obliging the whole Society will amount to that which we call properly Authority, if any thing deserve that name. Especially,  
§ VI 4. IF the benefits in the power of such Persons be necessary to the Members on account of Conscience, and if withal they think themselves obliged to believe, in Conscience, that they are not to expect these gratifications from any other. If the benefits necessary to all Members of the Society be necessary on account of Conscience, than all Members must think themselves obliged in Conscience to comply in order to the obtaining them. And if withal they think themselves obliged in Conscience to believe the appropriation of this power to them, they must needs believe that they receive it from God, who, as he has alone the power of ratifying all these exercises of this power, so he has consequently a power to invest whom he pleases with this power. And as this power does necessarily infer a power of Government, so it must necessarily be supposed that God foresaw that it would do so, and therefore that he did really intent that power of Government which he foresaw would follow from this power of the benefits of Ecclesiastical Communion for those on whom he was pleased to confer the power of these benefits. And if he did intent any Government at all, it must needs have been extremely unpolitick to have entrusted this power into the hands of any but of such whom he designed for Governors. For it must have obliged the people to a greater dependence on such Persons than on their Governors themselves, which must, in case of any difference between them, make such Persons too hard for their Governors. And that must in the consequence destroy all coercive power over such Persons, without which coercive power it is impossible to conceive how any Government can be practicable. Which will withal let our Adversaries see how necessary it is that they who have the supreme visible power of these benefits be uncontrollable by any earthly power.  
§ VII 5. THEREFORE, the power of these benefits of the Society of the Church, as it is a Society, appears plainly, by the Principles of the precedent discourse to be confined to a certain order of men above others, who must therefore consequently be understood to be invested with the proper power of governing all others who are, by this contrivance of things, obliged to depend on them. It has appeared that the benefits of the Christian Society, as a Society, are remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost; that the ordinary means of conveying these benefits are the Sacraments; that the Sacraments themselves are of no efficacy unless they be validly administered; that they are not validly administered, unless the Person who administers them be lawfully Authorized to administer them; that none can challenge any Authority for this purpose from God, but they who have derived it from the Apostles, nor any in these days from the Apostles, but they who have derived it from them in a continual succession; that none can pretend to this succession, at least, cannot maintain it to future generations, out of the Episcopal Communion; that a Person living in a particular Jurisdiction cannot expect this benefit of Episcopal Communion, from any other Communion but that of the Ordinary of Jurisdiction wherein he lives, whilst he lives in it. Which will as properly, and by the same parity of reason, prove that the Ordinary of a particular Jurisdiction is the particular Governor to whom particular Persons are obliged to pay their particular obedience whilst they are within the Jurisdiction, as it proves that Bishops are the Governors of the Church in general.  
§ VIII AND from hence all the other things necessary, in this way, for managing the charge of Schism, do follow in course, especially on the Principles already proved in this Discourse. It follows, 1. That all our Brethren who live in particular Dioceses are properly subject to the Ordinaries of those Dioceses. If the Ordinaries be their Governors, it is unavoidable, by the Rules of Relation, but that our Brethren must as properly be the Subjects of those Ordinaries. And, 2. That our Brethren must therefore owe their Ordinaries a duty not of reverence only, but subjection. Reverence may be due from those who are not Subjects. But Subjection is the duty which properly regards Subjects as they are Subjects, and is therefore as properly due to their Governors, as Governors, as God himself challenges honour as a Father, and Fear as a Master. 
Mal. i 6.  And it is as impossible to own any particular Governors for Governors without paying particular subjection to them as it is impossible to own any particular Person for our Father or Master without paying them the honour or fear which are respectively due to those Relations. And, 3. That this Subjection, which is due to them, will require that they should rather yield to their Governors than that they should expect that their Governors should yield to them; nay, that they are bound in duty to yield in all things that are lawful, especially when, upon a modest proposal of their reasons to the contrary, their Governors profess themselves dissatisfied with those reasons, and still require the same things from them as necessary for the public. If the matter of the things required in such a case as this be not sinful, the disobedience must needs be so, because it is injurious to the rights of Governors. And therefore by the Rule of our brethren's own casuistry, they are to choose it as the safest course, rather to hazard the greatest inconveniences to themselves that may follow from the nature of the things required, than to hazard the guilt of this sin against God by refusing the duty which he has imposed on them to their Superiors. Though I have withal shown that it were not every sin that would excuse them for the neglect of their duty to Governors but only such a sin as were greater or more evident than the sinfulness of such a neglect, and that very few, if any, sins can be so. However, 4. Even in those cases wherein their Subjection does not oblige them to active obedience, yet it does oblige them at least to passive. And it has been shown that this requires not only that they submit to the punishments inflicted on them by their Superiors, but also that they do not join with any opposite Society. And it has appeared from the sequels of these Principles of Unity, as applied to particular Jurisdictions, that all Societies within the Jurisdiction must be opposite who do not own a dependence on the Governors of the Jurisdiction. From all which put together it must follow that the separation, of which our Adversaries are guilty notoriously, is destructive of the Ecclesiastical Government of the respective Jurisdictions wherein they live, and consequently Schismatical in respect of those particular Churches, as Schism consists in a violation of the Church's Unity, and as the Unity of those Churches does, on these Principles, appear to consist in a Unity of Government.  
§ IX BUT our Brethren are not apt to apprehend any great danger in being thus cut off from the Unity of particular Churches, if they may still continue united to the Catholic Church. For if this may be their case, they may still enjoy all the benefits and comforts of the Christian Religion. They may enjoy the benefits. For as long as they are Members of the Catholic Church, so long they are Members of Christ himself, of his Mystical Body, and, by this means, are in as near a capacity to receive all vital influences from him as the Members of the Natural Body are to receive the influences of the natural Life. And so long they make up one Legal Person with him, and so have a Legal Title to all that he has done and suffered for them, on performance of conditions, which is all the privilege that we ourselves do challenge on account of our being within the external Communion of the Church. They may also enjoy all the comforts of the Christian Religion, even all that assurance of the safety of their condition which they are capable of receiving, even in the external Solemnities of the Covenant, and the application of the external Seals. These themselves they may receive, if not in the Church from whence they are ejected, yet in some other where they may be received upon their ejection, who may have as just an Authority to administer the Sacraments as the Church which has ejected them, and is no more obliged to stand to the judgement of the Church who has ejected them than she is to stand to hers, but is every way as competent a Judge of the qualifications to be required from those who are to be admitted to her own Communion. This indeed seems to be the true reason why all the Discipline of particular Churches has been so insignificant, since the Catholic has been divided into so many parties who are ready to receive each others Excommunicates. They only can be terrified to do their duty who must otherwise be excluded from the Catholic Church, to which alone the privileges of the Church can be thought confined. But for avoiding this, whatever censures they lie under from particular Churches, two excuses are obvious from our Adversaries Principles. Either they make the Unity of the Catholic Church such as that they may be contained in it who are excluded from the visible Communion of all particulars; or, if they require visible Communion with some particular Church to Communion with the Catholic, yet they have been used to contain, under the name of the Catholic Church, all the several divided parties, those which are Heretical and Schismatical, as well as the Orthodox. And upon these terms it is impossible for any censures to deprive of the whole visible Communion of the Church. As the case stands now, the very case of being excommunicated by one Church is a recommendation to others to receive them. And if none others would, yet it is but the setting up a new Communion of their own, which any censured Persons may do with as good right as many others have done before them.  
§ X TO this that I may reply, I must first freely confess that if it were possible to retain the Unity of the Catholic Church, whilst men are excommunicated out of the particular Churches to which they are more particularly related, at least if their exclusion from their particular Churches were not so much as a presumptive exclusion from the Catholic, but that excommunicated Members might not only as certainly be, but also as certainly assure themselves that they are Members of the Catholic Church, as they could before when they were Members of their own particular Church; I should then acknowledge that Persons so excommunicate could not have any reason to apprehend themselves to be in any such danger of Salvation as might oblige them to such unsinful condescensions as those are concerning which I have been speaking, in order to the avoiding of that danger. For it is to be considered that as the whole immediate effect of Excommunication is privative, so the deprivations of the benefits of Ecclesiastical Communion do herein differ from the deprivations of Secular censures, that the benefits cannot be taken away in one place if they may be enjoyed in another. He who is banished from England may really be deprived of all those accommodations which he is entitled to as a Subject of England, which is all that the power of England can do to him, and which is a real effect of that power. And yet at the same time he may enjoy the like or greater accommodations in France, because these are capable of being enjoyed by them who are deprived of their English Freedoms. The difference of Country is sufficient, in this case, to afford some places privileges different from the privileges of others. Put the Spiritual advantages, whereof men are deprived by Excommunication, the pardon of sin, the giving of the Holy Ghost, the promises of future and eternal Rewards, are things impossible to be enjoyed in one place, if they be wanting in another. It is God himself that must immediately ratify them; and his power is equally concerned for the Church who has exercised her power of Excommunication, as for her who receives the others Excommunicates. And therefore, if, notwithstanding the Excommunication of such Persons, they may yet communicate in other Churches, and expect that God should confirm to them the benefits of such uncanonical Communions, they must consequently expect that God, in doing so, must disannul the censures of the Church which has Excommunicated them. Which must consequently disoblige all who think so from all condescensions on their part for the recovery of the Communion of which they are deprived.  
§ XI AND if Persons Excommunicated in one place may be received in another without so much as the formalities of an absolution to repeal the sentence which has been passed against them; nay, must never have been presumed to have been cast out of the Communion of the Catholic Church by the Excommunications of their own Church; then they must still be supposed to have continued in a state of Pardon and Possession of the Spirit upon performance of the moral conditions of the Gospel. And then what effect can their Excommunication be supposed to have upon them that may oblige them to any condescensions in order to an Absolution? And therefore, that I may settle the Discipline of particular Churches on a solid foundation, it will be necessary to show that the Unity of particular Churches is, in the ordinary constitution of things, so inseparable from the Unity of the Catholic Church, as that whoever is cut off designedly from the Unity of a particular Church, however it come to pass, whether by his own act, or the act of his Superiors) cannot at the same time be presumed to retain the Unity of the Catholic Church. Whence it will follow that, as I have proved our brethren's separation to divide them from the Unity of their particular Churches of which they are Members respectively, so it must consequently divide them from the Unity of the Catholic Church, and so be as properly Schismatical in respect of that, as it is in respect of their particular Churches. But I could wish that they would remember that the reason obliging me to this is the interest of the Discipline of all particular Churches in it, and the unpracticableness of that Discipline without it, by what form of Government soever it be administered, whether Monarchically or Aristocratically or Democratically. All who maintain any power of Church censures are as much concerned for it as I am. Neither the Presbyterians nor the Independents themselves can ever expect that their censures can oblige any to perform their duty, if all they do be only to exclude him from the Ordinances of their own particular Congregations, but that notwithstanding he may as validly partake of Ordinances in other Congregations as he did before, and be received on as easy terms as if he had never been censured. This I the rather warn to let them see how they are, in interest, obliged to be favourable to the reasons which I am to produce on this Subject, and withal that they are obliged to believe their own Objections false, and to answer them as well as we are, if they be for Discipline, and think the reasons inducing them to it more cogent than their Objections.  
§ XII TO proceed therefore to my design of proving this necessary connexion between the Union of particular Churches with that of the Catholic Church; I desire it may be remembered, 1. That there can be no encouragement for any to venture to neglect the Unity of particular Churches on pretence of their disability to deprive him of the Unity of the Catholic Church, unless he may be assured in that case, of his being disunited from his own particular Church, that he notwithstanding continues united to the Catholic Church. It is not the real truth of the thing itself, but the Arguments whereby this truth may appear to him, that can afford a Person comfort who were concerned to practise it; and I have shown that the less comfortableness of such a condition is sufficient to oblige to all unsinful condescension rather than venture on it. And therefore if it may but appear that the means of our assurance of our being united to the Catholic Church depend on our being united to particular Churches, this will be sufficient to oblige all to keep to the Unity of their particular Churches as they would assure themselves of their being united to the Catholic Church.  
§ XIII 2. THEREFORE, when we speak of such a Union with the Catholic Church that may appear to us, and afford us present satisfaction, we must mean such an external Union as is made and maintained by the use of those external ordinary means which God has appointed for that purpose. And I have also shown that the external Sacraments are those ordinary means of Divine institution for maintaining the Unity of the Catholic Church, and for obtaining those Spiritual blessings to which all Members of the Catholic Church are entitled on account of their being Members of it. All that I have said concerning this will reach the Catholic Church as well as the Church of the particular Jurisdiction. Baptism does admit into the Catholic Church as well as into the particular Church where it is received. And in the Lord's Supper we profess ourselves united to all Christians in general as well as with those who are present at the particular Communion. And all who hold any efficacy in it do not deny but that we are made one with those with whom we profess ourselves to be united. Nor is any other external way pretended for uniting us to the Catholic Church, besides these whereby we are united to our particular Churches, at least, none is pretended as of Divine institution. And whatever may be pretended for other w●● of Union with the Catholic Church may be the same way prevented in reference to the Catholic Church, as I have prevented it in reference to their particular Churches, in weakening the pretences of Separatists to Union with those Churches from which they are Separated. And whatever I have said to show the necessity of these external Sacraments to Salvation, whether as Seals or Solemnities of the Covenant, or as to the nature of the benefits conveyed by them, do plainly prove at least the Negative (for which I am alone concerned at present) that none can be ordinarily assured of his being united to the Catholic Church without an external participation of the Sacraments.  
§ XIV HENCE it follows, 3. That in this way of judging, he that would assure himself of his being united to the Catholic Church must do it by proving himself united to some particular visible Church by an external Communication in their Sacraments. I say only some particular visible Church, because it is not requisite, for this purpose, that he be determinately of any one, but it is sufficient that he be of any. And by external Communion with some visible Church, I do not mean that the whole Church must be present in the place where he does communicate; but as he who communicates with two, at the least, besides the Minister, (which is the smallest number our Church allows of for a Communion) does yet communicate, at least, with that whole Church of which those few are Members (even according to the Independents themselves, they who are present, how few soever, must be allowed, at least to communicate, in some sense, even with the absents of their own Congregations,) because they are contained under the same terms of Unity with those who are present, the same Unity of Government, and the same Uniformity of the terms of Communion; so he that communicates visibly with any particular Church may, on the same account, be supposed to be, in some sense, even in visible Communion with the whole Catholic Church, inasmuch as a visible correspondence is, or aught to be, maintained between that particular Church and all others, and consequently as he has reason to expect that, if he were in any other Church, he should be received on the same terms. And on this account, whoever receives the Sacrament, though in a Wilderness, yet must thereby profess himself a Member of some particular Church, though, I confess, in th● case, it must needs be a very imperfect one. For he must receive it from the Priest as a Person Authorized to give it him. And where there is Authority and Persons subject to that Authority, there must be a Church in the sense in which I am now obliged to understand it, as its Unity is that of a Body Politic. And because it is impossible to assure ourselves of our being united with the Catholic Church, but by our visible participation of the Sacraments, and as impossible to partake of these Sacraments externally without partaking of them from a Person Authorized, and impossible to do that without uniting ourselves thereby to that Body Politic to which his Authority relates; it must therefore be impossible, on these terms, for any to assure himself of his being united to the Catholic Church, but by an external Communion in some particular Church. At least therefore thus much must be granted, that he who is separated from the Church, in whose Jurisdiction he lives, cannot have any pretence of continuing in the Unity of the Catholic Church, unless he be, at the same time, received into the Communion of some other particular Church. If he be out of all particular Churches, it is impossible to conceive how he can be in the Catholic Church; and if he be out of their external Communion, he must be out of the external Communion of the Catholic Church. And to apply this observation closer to our brethren's case, I consider,  
§ XV 4. THAT this external Communion of another Church which, while a separated Person does maintain, he may have hopes of keeping still his interest in the Unity of the Catholic Church, must not be any other Communion within the Jurisdiction in which he lives, and from which he is supposed to be separated. As for any other Churches they are also confined within their own Jurisdictions by the common right of Jurisdictions, and so confined as that their intermeddlings in other Jurisdictions are not only irregularities, but mere Nullities, and neither their obtruding Officers can oblige others to receive them, nor their presuming to censure or absolve, without the consent of the power of the Jurisdiction, can oblige either Subjects or subordinate Officers to ratify their censures. And much less can any party of the same Church do it within their own Jurisdiction, especially against the consent of the Supreme Governors of that Jurisdiction. And the reason is plain, ●●cause in the most confined acceptation of a Church there ca● be no more than one in a Jurisdiction, and therefore the multiplying of opposite Assemblies in the same Jurisdiction cannot multiply Churches, but still that party, and that alone, must be the Church of the Jurisdiction which has the original right of Authority on their side. It is certain by the fundamental constitutions of all Government, that neither the acts of Subjects in opposition to their Governors, nor of inferior subordinate Governors in opposition to the Supreme visible Governors, nor of a smaller over-voted part in opposition to a prevailing number of suffrages, are to be taken for the acts of the Society. And on account of some, or all, these defects, no act of any of the Conventicles in London can be taken for the act of the Church of London. So that still he that only communicates with the Conventicles may notwithstanding that be excluded from the Communion of all particular Churches in the World, even that of London itself. And therefore this can never, in this way of judging, secure any Communicant of his being in the Communion of the Catholic Church.  
§ XVI BESIDES it has appeared, that as they are no acts of Churches, so neither are they valid as to the nature of the thing, and therefore cannot validly admit a Member even of that particular Church. And if they be not valid in reference to that particular Church, I leave it to our brethren's second thoughts to consider, how they can be valid in regard of the Catholic Church. It suffices at present that this Nullity of such Sacraments hinders them from making their Communicants Members of any particular Church, which is sufficient, on our present Principles, to deprive them of the comfort of their being assured thereby that they are Members of the Catholic Church. And yet, if what I have said prove true, I have directly proved that they who received invalid Sacraments cannot. by virtue of such Sacraments, expect the Spirit of Christ, or to be validly united into his Mystical Body, without which our Adversaries themselves will neither think it possible to be united to the Catholic Church, nor could they think a Union with the Catholic Church desirable on such terms, though it had been possible. Besides, whoever intermeddles to repeal censures within a particular Jurisdiction against the Superiors of that Jurisdiction, cannot be presumed to be a competent Judge of such matters, though his Judgement should be never so true, and the Superiors never so much mistaken; yet in all matters of practice not sinful, the Superiors Judgement is that wherein the Subject is obliged to acquiesce, as to practice. And therefore though it were fit that a Person censured by the Governors of a Jurisdiction should be restored, yet none but the Governors themselves who have censured him have power to restore him. And therefore though such Persons so restoring him should have right on their side, as to the reasonableness of the cause why he should be restored, yet still these two cases are very different, that it is fit he should be restored, and that he actually is so. And though the Superiors themselves who have power of restoring him, do judge it fit that he should be restored, yet even their judging it fit that he should be restored does not actually restore him. And therefore if the Authority of these Persons fail who presume to restore a Person censured by the Governors of the Jurisdiction against the consent of those Governors, that alone is sufficient to invalidate the act of his restitution. And if he be not actually restored, it plainly follows that a Person, so restored, is not yet an actual Member of that particular Church, and therefore, notwithstanding that restitution, still continues out of the Communion of all particular Churches, and consequently of the Catholic Church in general.  
§ XVII AND these same reasons which prove, that the acts of usurping Subjects cannot make a Member of that particular Church to which they are related as Members, will also prove that their being received into the Communion of other Churches, by alike unauthorised Members, can never make them Members of those Churches into which they are pretended to be received. And therefore if valid Sacraments be only administered in the Episcopal Communion in opposition to all others, at least in such places where there are such opposite Communions, and it is impossible for any to be made visibly a Member of any Church without a visible participation of its Sacraments, than no reception by Persons divided from Episcopal Authority in other places can make them Members of the Churches of those places where they are received. If the Conventicles in London have no power to make a Member of the Church of London, then though such a censured Person as I am speaking of, who should despair of a visible Communion with the Catholic Church in London, should remove to York, yet he could not better his condition by that removal. The Conventicles in York are, for the same reason, under the same incapacities of making him a Member of the Church of York as they in London were for making him a Member of the Church of London. And let him remove never so often, yet wher-ever the same reason holds there will still remain the same impossibility of a relief. Let him hold correspondence with never so many Conventicles in never so many or distant places, all they can do put together, cannot make him a Member of one particular Church.  
§ XVIII TO which if we add that all those Churches, if any there be, not Episcopally governed, not yet opposed to any Canonical-Episcopacy of the place they live in, (if notwithstanding they keep an amicable correspondence with the Episcopal Communions, and withal keep true to the terms of correspondence,) they cannot receive to their Communion any who has refused to communicate with those Episcopal Communions with which they mantein correspondence, whilst he lived among them, and was subject to them. As for a surreptitious Communion which may be obtained with foreign Churches without knowledge of their condition at home, it can be of no more validity before God than their surreptitious bargains one with another. And it is to be remembered, that in these matters of Communion, the Divine ratification is the only thing considerable. This is the true case of our Nonconforming Brethren. And this being supposed to be their case, and withal that the things which I have endeavoured to prove in this Discourse are true, I do not see how it is possible for them to prove that when they are out of the Communion of the Church of England, they are in Communion with any other particular Church in the World, that may give them any plausible pretence of continuing in the Communion of the Catholic Church. Though other absolute Churches independent on the Church of England might receive them to their Communion who are separated from the Communion of our Church, and the Sacraments administered to such Persons were valid Sacraments, yet this can afford no comfort to our present Non-Conformists, because they cannot plead any countenance from any such Churches. And this were sufficient for my present design, to prove that they are actually out of the Communion of the visible Catholic Church.  
§ XIX BUT because this is a thing which our Independent Brethren do usually profess themselves not to understand, how any can communicate with the whole Catholic Church, or consequently be excluded from Catholic Communion; and because it must be a much more affecting consideration to them, to cut them off from all hopes of re●●e● on pretence of any claim to a Union with the Catholic Church, if it may be proved that their separation from their own particular Church must, not only, de facto, cut them off from all communion with other Churches, but, de jure, aught to do so, and therefore that all that other Churches can do for them cannot restore them to that Catholic Unity which they must have lost by their separation from any one particular Church, whilst it remains Catholic, that is, whilst it mainteins the terms of Catholic correspondence; Therefore, 5. I proceed further to show that such Separatists cannot maintain their title to Catholic Unity by being received into any other Churches, though otherwise absolute and unaccountable to the Church from whence they are separated. By Catholic Unity, I do not here mean, as our Independent Brethren do, a Unity of meeting ordinarily in the same Assemblies. That I confess unpracticable in the Catholic Church. But as the absent Members of particular Churches do not, by every particular absence, lose the right of Union with their particular Churches, because, as long as they submit to the conditions of Communion, they have a right to be received to Communion, as often as they shall be pleased to come to it, and are accordingly properly said to be united to it, and to be in actual Communion with it, even when they do not actually communicate with it at all; so is the case in reference to Catholic Communion. Every Person, by his Baptism in any particular Church, is admitted a Member of the Catholic Church, not of the Elect alone (nay, not at all, according to those who say that they who fall away totally and finally, when they are adult, could never have been Elect whiles they were Infants) but of the visible Church also. And that plainly appears hence, that all agree that if he have occasion to travel into foreign Churches, he has a right to be received to the external visible Privileges of baptised Persons among them, only on a certificate of the Baptism received at home, without reiterating it in the several Churches where he desires to be admitted to Communion. Only the reason of our brethren's misapprehensions seems to be this, that they seem to conceive his right to the particular Church where he is baptised to result from his Union with the Catholic Church, whereas indeed his right to communion with the whole Catholic Church results rather from that actual visible Communion in which Baptism does visibly invest him with his particular Church, as all other Churches are obliged to maintain a correspondence with this particular Church, and therefore to ratify the Sacraments therein administered as validly administered.  
§ XX THIS is an observation of very considerable influence upon my present design. If Baptism did indeed primarily admit a Person into the Catholic Church, and secondarily into the particular Church in which the Baptism was received, as a part of the Catholic Church; then our Adversaries would reason very consequently. They might then very reasonably pretend that the Union here made were an invisible Union, for so that must needs be which can be supposed to be made with the whole Catholic Church antecedently to any visible Union with any particular Church. Then they might reasonably plead a Union with the Catholic Church, though out of all visible Union with any particular Church, because their Union with the Catholic Church would be antecedent, and therefore Independent on their Union with any particular Church. Then they might justly question the right of particular Churches to deprive them of their Union with the Catholic, when they could not think themselves in a worse condition upon their separation from their particular Church, than they were in antecedently to their Union with it; but then they thought themselves united to the Catholic Church. They might justly continue their claim of right to Union even with that particular Church from which they were separated, on the same Principles of their continuing still united to the Catholic Church, and the right to Communion even with that particular, as well as other Churches, being grounded on their persevering Union, with the Catholic Church. And this right to Communion would be as properly an actual Communion with that Church itself, as absenters and those who forbear the Sacrament, are notwithstanding said to be in actual Communion with it. Which if it should prove true, it will then be as impossible for particular Churches to deprive any Member so much as of their own Communion, as it is impossible to deprive them of their invisible Union with the Catholic Church, from which this right to Communion with particular Churches is conceived to follow by so necessary a consequence. But methinks the destructiveness of these consequences to any Discipline whatsoever should make all Patrons of Discipline wary of the Principles from whence they do so inevitably follow.  
§ XXI BUT if, on the contrary, the right of Catholic Communion be grounded, as to particular Persons, on the right they enjoy to the Communion of the particular Churches where they live, and the right those particular Churches have, as parts of the Catholic Church, to have their Sacraments acknowledged, and their Members received in all other Churches whom they take for Catholic; than that which deprives them of the Communion of their own Churches must, by consequence, deprive them of the right of being Members of the Catholic Church, to which they have no other title than what they can derive from their being Members of their own particular Churches, to which they are respectively related. And then as it is in the power of the Governors of particular Churches, to deprive them, at least, of the Communion of their own particular Churches, and so to cut them off from their being Members of them; it must also consequently be in their power to cut them off from their Communion with the Catholic Church, to which they have no other title but that Membership. This therefore I shall endeavour to prove from the Principles which I intent to make use of for proving this present Particular.  
§ XXII IN order hereunto I desire it may be observed, 1. That the nature of the inconvenience, incurred by this deprivation of Communion in their own particular Churches, is such as that it is impossible that the censure can be valid in their own Churches, unless it be valid in others. The design of the suspending from the Sacraments is, for so long to deprive the Person of the benefit of the Sacraments, till he yield to the thing required from him by the Authority by which he is suspended. Either therefore he has still a title to the benefit of the Sacraments from which he is suspended, or he has not. If he have still as good a Covenant-title to the benefits of the Sacrament as before, and can as well assure himself of his title; what loss can it be for him to be deprived of the Sacramental Elements? How can it ever oblige him, in conscience, to submit to that Authority which can inflict no greater punishment than this deprivation? If therefore God himself be obliged to ratify the censures of particular Churches in order to the preservation of their Government; than it must follow that the Person so deprived must lose his interest in the New-Covenant of the Gospel, and all the privileges consequent to that interest. And he who has lost his interest in the Covenant, cannot retrieve it by a bare change of the place and Jurisdiction. He that has no interest in the Gospel-Covenant cannot possibly continue a Member of the Catholic Church whose Union consists in their confederation in the same Covenant. And considering that the Covenant is the same by which they are united to God and to each other; nay, indeed that their Union to each other is grounded on their Union with Christ, they are therefore Fellow-Members of each other, 
Eph. iv. 25. 1 Cor. v●. 17.  because they are all Members of the same Mystical Body of Christ, they are made one Spirit by partaking of that one Spirit which is also his; therefore it is impossible that they can be separated from this Mystical Union with one another, unless they be both or one of them at least disunited from Christ, which they who are, must, by necessary consequence, be disunited from all the Members of that Mystical Body. And however that Union with other Members could afford little comfort to a Person concerned in it, which were consistent with their separation from Christ their common Head. So also they who are deprived of the title the Covenant is capable of giving them to remission of sins in one Church, cannot at the same time be judged to be free from their sins in the other, even on performance of the Moral Duties, and he who is not so cannot be judged to be in a present capacity of being a Church-Member. This proves at least that the Church which thinks the censure pronounced against any Person to have been pronounced validly, and to have cut him off from the Church wherein he was censured, cannot at the same time think him united to themselves in the bond of Catholic Unity, if they think the Church from whence he is divided to be Catholic. And the case is the same whether the Person so divided have divided himself by separation, or have been divided from them by the censures of a Lawful Authority. Still so long as he is divided from any one Church that is Catholic, he cannot continue his Unity with them, if they continue theirs with the Church from which he is divided.  
§ XXIII HENCE it follows, 2. That if such a Person be received to the Sacraments in another Church without as good an Authority for uniting him to the Unity of the Catholic Church as that was by which he was deprived, only on supposition of the continuance of his invisible Unity with the Catholic Church, notwithstanding his visible separation from a part of it, such Sacraments must, as to him, be perfect Nullities, and cannot convey to him the proper benefits of Sacraments, even on the performance of the general Moral conditions of Faith and Repentance. For the Sacraments cannot convey the merits and influences of Christ to any, but those who are united in his Mystical Body, by the same proportion of reasoning as the Vessels, by which the vital influences are conveyed in the Natural Body, can convey them to none but those who are parts of the Body to which they are supposed to belong. The strength of this Mystical reasoning I have elsewhere proved. Seeing therefore that the Sacraments can convey no influences but unto them who are united to Christ, and on the supposition I am now speaking of, the Persons thus received to the Sacrament cannot be supposed thus united to him; therefore such a Communicant could not expect any benefit from such Sacraments, not only in regard of his want of those moral dispositions, but also in regard of his incapacity, though he had them. This therefore will be the case where the reception to Communion is only granted as a Testimony of the Unity which the Person so received is supposed to have invisibly, even antecedently to such reception. But if it be designed further, not to testify that Catholic Unity which he is supposed to retain, but to restore it to him who is supposed to have lost it by his separation from his own Church, this is another case. And concerning it, I say,  
§ XXIV 3. THAT no particular Church whatsoever can, by its Authority alone, restore any too Catholic Unity who has been separated from it by another, without the consent of the Church by which he was at first separated. This is plain from what has been said before, because this is impossible to be done without disannulling the Authority by which he was at first separated from the Church. For if this later Church can restore such a Person to Catholic Unity, than it may also restore him to Unity with that Church by which he was at first separated. And if so, than he may have a right to the Communion even of his own Church, even whilst he is actually separated from them. And then what effect can such an Authority have whereby it may appear to be Authority, if it cannot deprive him of so much as the right to that Communion from which he is so separated? Seeing therefore both these exercises of Authority cannot be supposed valid at the same time, and seeing therefore that God is obliged to disannul the one, if he will ratify the other; it will not be difficult to determine which of the two must prove invalid. The Church which endeavours to restore such a Person is supposed to be only equal with the Church which has rejected him, and therefore can have no Authority to reverse her censures. And therefore as God is not obliged to ratify that act of hers in regard of her Authority, so he is obliged to disannul it, as he is the common Governor of all the Churches, and as he is thereupon obliged to maintain Discipline, and that correspondence between the Churches which is so necessary for the preservation of Discipline.  
§ XXV HENCE it follows, 4. That all that can be done by other Churches receiving a Person separated from the Communion of his own Church can only be to judge of his case, not so as to oblige the Church to which he belongs originally to stand to their judgement, but only so far as concerns their own Jurisdiction. They can judge whether they be in conscience, or for the maintenance of their common correspondence, obliged to ratify their censures within their own respective Jurisdictions, that is, they can judge concerning the validity of the censures, whether they be grounded on a cause properly belonging to the Authority by which they were censured, and whether they have reason therefore to presume them valid before God, that is, indeed, whether they do really cut him off from Catholic Unity. And in case they find the sentence pronounced against him in his own Church invalid in itself, they may then receive him to their own Communion, yet so as that they do not pretend any Authority to reverse the sentence pronounced against him in his own Church, but only to declare the original invalidity, and that only with relation to their own obligation to confirm it within their own Jurisdictions; nor pretend to restore him to the Catholic Unity which he had lost by the censures which had been passed upon him in his own Church, but only receive him as an acknowledgement of his uninterrupted right to Catholic Communion, and of their own obligation as parts of the Catholic Church to admit him to their own Communion. This certainly they may do by their own Authority without any the least encroachment on the Authority which had originally passed the censure, not as superior to that Authority, but only as not subject to it.  
§ XXVI AND this seems actually to have been the case of the Western Church in the cause of Athanasius. Whilst he was charged only with Canonical matters they were willing to hear what might be said against him, and in the mean time to suspend him from their own Communion. But when they found, partly by the notorious conviction of the disingenuity of the accusations of this kind (as in the charges of the suborned whore, and the cutting off the hand of Arsenius, and profaning the sacred offices at Mareotis) and partly by their delays and evasions of this kind of trial, that this was not the thing indeed insisted on, how much soever it was pretended, but that it was rather an artifice made use of for the subversion of the common faith professed by him, they must then look on such censures as passed upon him rather for his Faith than for the Ecclesiastical crimes which were pretended. Wherein if they judged right, the censures must have been essentially invalid on two accounts, both as to the cause for which they were inflicted, and as to the Persons by whom. As to the cause for which they were inflicted. For they could not believe that God would deprive him of Catholic Unity only for maintaining the Catholic Faith, which was one of the principal foundations of that Unity. And as to the Persons by whom they were inflicted, who being Heretics were uncapable of being Bishops, and consequently of any Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction, besides that they were not obliged to maintain any correspondence with Heretics, and therefore could not be confined to Canons in dealing with them, the Canons being only terms of correspondence. Though in the case wherein our Adversaries are concerned, there is much more reason for the confinement of this power of other Churches. For the power is much more absolute which particular Churches may challenge over their particular Subjects than that which Provincial or National Synods can pretend to over particular Churches. And therefore the obligation to confirm their censures must be proportionably greater on account of the common correspondence.  
§ XXVII NOW if this be so, than it will plainly follow that the Governors of particular Churches do as often deprive of Catholic Unity, as they deprive any really of the Communion of their own Churches; and that all that other Churches can do cannot really unite any to the Catholic Church who has been separated from any particular Church by a just Authority, without the consent of that Authority by which he was separated; and that if their receiving such a Person to their Communion do him any good, it must be only in such cases wherein he was really never deprived of a right to Communion, even with that Church whose actual Communion has been denied him. The only thing remaining further for settling the Discipline of the Church on a solid foundation can only be to see in what cases the censures may be presumed valid, and wherein it may therefore be known that the restitution is invalid▪ and unsafe to be trusted; and whether any relief may be expected thence by Persons in our brethren's circumstances. If either by any censure of their Superiors, or by their own resistance and separation from them, they be really separated from their own Churches to which they were originally related, they must consequently be separated from the Unity of the Catholic Church, nor can they be restored to it but by being reunited to their own particular Churches, and that by a reconciliation as visible as their separation. And for clearing this, that their separation must needs be a real separation, even in the esteem of God himself, I desire it may be considered,  
§ XXVIII 5. THAT whatever is necessary for the design of God's establishment, that he must, by his design, be obliged to ratify, whether he has expressly said he will do so, or no. Nay, indeed there can be no necessity that he should expressly warn them of it who are already sufficiently convinced that this is agreeable to his design. For it is certain that God cannot design an end without the means, nor be ignorant of what is requisite to his design as a means, nor fail where the means belong to his part of the Covenant to see them performed, as I have already shown that it is his part to perform the benefits of the Sacraments. None but he can immediately give the Spirit, and apply the forgiveness of sins which are there promised. But yet he is obliged to do so when the Persons Authorized by him do it in his name, and with reference only to that end for which he has given them that Authority. If therefore Government be a thing designed by God, and the ratification of this separation by God be necessary for the end of this Government, I do not know what can be required further to prove that God is obliged to ratify it. The former has already been proved, and the later will appear by easy inferences from it, especially considering the peculiar circumstances of our Adversaries case. The practicableness of any Government will require, 1. A power of determining indifferent circumstances; and, 2. A power of obliging Subjects to stand to the judgement of Governors concerning the expediency of such determinations, at least to acquiesce and submit in practice, though they may otherwise think them mistaken in their judgements; and, 3. A power of obliging Subjects to a passive obedience even in things unlawful, so long as the title to this Government is lawful. And this passive obedience implies that they must not assume a power which is not committed to them in any case at all, no extremity whatsoever can warrant that; that for the same reason they do not abet others who are guilty of it; that because the independency of Societies cannot possibly be understood within a Jurisdiction already rightfully possessed, without either assuming or abetting such an Usurpation, besides the resistance that must thereby be made against the lawful Authority of the Jurisdiction, therefore no opposite Societies be erected or abetted within settled Jurisdictions. These are things so necessary to Government in general, as that the Authority exercised in these cases must be valid, if there be any Authority at all acknowledged that may properly deserve that name. And therefore, in these cases, there can be no necessity to descend to the merit of the cause. Whatever the cause be, so long as it is reducible to any of these Heads, the presumption lies clear in favour of the Governors.  
§ XXIX BY this it will appear that our brethren's separation for any of these causes is altogether unjustifiable on their part, whence it will follow, that if they be separated by their Superiors for any cause of this kind, they are separated, as well for a just cause as by a just Authority, so that nothing can be wanting for making their separation valid before God. And though their separation be entirely their own act without any express censures of their Superiors, yet it will as effectually cut them off from the Unity of that Church from which they separate, as if they were deprived by Authority. For the great design of God in joining the Grace of the Sacraments with the external participation of the Elements being, by this contrivance of things, to oblige them to adhere to their Superiors without whose consent they cannot enjoy the Sacraments, the reason of the thing will require that they lose those Graces as well by their own separation of themselves from their Superiors as by being separated by them. The Unity of the Church is alike prejudiced both ways, and if withal we consider this right of Governors as designed by God for a preservative of Unity; nay, indeed as the very bond of Unity of a Body Politic; it will then appear that a separation from visible Governors must be a direct violation of this Unity, and the rather so, because it is impossible that it should not be injurious to the rights of Governors which God himself has designed for the preservation of Unity. Nay, it plainly overthrows their coercive power over Malefactors by which they are enabled to preserve this Unity. For if all they can do for this purpose be only to cut them off from their Communion, and they may elude this by cutting themselves off first, this is an art that may be made use of by any who are objects of their Discipline, and must therefore render their whole power ineffectual. As therefore this visible separation does evidently cut them off from any legal notorious pretence to Unity; so by its opposing the design and means appointed by God for the preservation of Unity it must also cut off such Separatists from all hopes of relief in point of equity. For all that can be said to justify men's claim to the equity of God's promises, when they evidently fail of performing the ordinary conditions of those promises, can only be their compliance with God's design in making those promises, which could not, in their circumstances, be complied with by the use of the ordinary means. But this cannot be pleaded in our Adversaries behalf. And therefore such a separation as this must really cut off the Members so separated, from Catholic Unity, and consequently the reconciliation made without the consent of the Church, which had been particularly injured by the separation, must be invalid, and cannot expect the Divine ratification.  
§ XXX AT least, upon this account, the Church which would venture to reconcile them would have reason to believe that they were really disunited from the Catholic Church antecedently to her own reconciliation. Whence it will follow that she cannot truly declare them united. And therefore, unless her act of reconciliation can reunite them whom she finds disunited, it can signify nothing for the comfort of the Persons reconciled by her. But besides the reason's now-mentioned there are others sufficient to convince such a reconciliation, not only of irregularity but of invalidity also, both in regard of the reconciliation itself, and in regard of the correspondence she is obliged to maintain. In regard of the reconciliation itself, because indeed it nulls itself. For if she have no power to cut off, she can have none to reunite them who are cut off by others. And upon the same reasons by which she deprives other Churches of having a power to cut off that Member which she is pleased to receive to her Communion, and to own as still united notwithstanding what has been done for cutting him off from the Unity of his own Church, she must also deny that power in herself to separate any of her own Members from her own Unity. For if, on the terms now-mentioned as necessary for the preservation of Government in general, his own Church has not a power to deprive him of her own Unity, she can have it in no case at all, nor can any other Church have it, because it is the same power that is supposed common to all particular Churches. This will at least show that they who admit of any such power of Churches to punish the misdemeanours of particular Subjects with an effectual deprivation of her own Communion, cannot, in reason, look upon the reception as valid, at least so far as it is only declarative. And that it cannot be valid by way of Authority to restore to Catholic Unity those who had been validly separated from it, will appear from the other consideration of the correspondence they are obliged to maintain with all other Churches. For it having appeared that, by the Divine contrivance of things, every particular Church is obliged to ratify the censures of all others in order to the securing of her own Discipline, it will thence follow that God as a Governor is obliged to secure this correspondence; which himself has made so necessary by his own appointment. And therefore where his own interposition is concerned (as it is in ratifying the acts of Church-Authority) he must be obliged to ratify that act only which is in favour of this correspondence, not that which overthrows it. Not only as this way of dealing answers the deserts of the parties concerned in the case of which I am speaking, but as he is by his own Government obliged only to ratify such exercises of power as are performed by a just Authority. And that such receptions are utterly destructive to this correspondence, I think our Adversaries themselves can hardly question.   

CHAP. XXVIII. The usefulness of this Hypothesis above others.  
THE CONTENTS.  
§ I The usefulness of this Discourse as to its two great Designs. §. I, II. 1. For the most likely Notion of SCHISM. Two advantages of this way of stating the Government of the Church above others. §. III. 1. That the Government thus contrived will be most wisely fitted for practice. §. IV, V Because best fitted to the capacity of the illiterate Multitude. §. VI Who will, 1. By these Principles, be best enabled to distinguish their true Superiors from false Pretenders. §. VII. As to the Ordination of our Ministers. §. VIII, IX, X, XI, XII. As to that of the Non-Conformists. §. XIII. 2. They will hereby be best enabled to judge of the extent of their Duty to their true Superiors themselves. §. XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII. 2. This Hypothesis is peculiarly suited to the practice of such a Society as the Church is, for preserving Unity and a due respect to Authority in it, especially in times of Persecution. §. XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX, XXXI. 2. The usefulness of this Discourse as to its second great design, the showing the real danger and mischievousness of the sin of SCHISM. The impossibility of doing this on our Adversaries Principles. §. XXXII, XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV, XXXVI, XXXVII, XXXVIII, XXXIX, XL, XLI. On our Principles, the Notion given hereof is popular, derived from the nature of the sin itself. §. XLII, XLIII. And suited to the affections and relish of pious Persons, though illiterate. §. XLIV. The great advantage of Reasons suited to the affections of the Persons to be persuaded by them. §. XLV. These Principles are more easy to be judged of by popular capacities, in three regards. §. XLVI. 1. Most of those Disputes which are matters of Learning are here avoided. §. XLVII. 2. The remaining Disputes are reduced to such things which even illiterate Persons must be supposed experienced in, even in their Worldly affairs. §. XLVIII, XLIX. 3. The main Principles of this Discourse are such as are granted by our Adversaries themselves. §. L, LI, LII. The great advantages of proceeding on granted Principles. §. LIII, LIV. Particularly in relation to the accommodation of our present Disputes. §. LV.  
HAVING therefore thus finished my designed Method, it will, I suppose, be very convenient to make some short reflections upon the usefulness of the whole design, and of this particular way of managing it, above others that have hitherto been ordinarily insisted on.  
§ TWO TWO things therefore I conceived myself obliged, by the exigency of my cause, to insist on: 1. To let our separating Brethren understand, as well as I was able, their Obligation to submit to all unsinful conditions, how hard soever they may seem otherwise (when imposed on them by their Superiors as conditions of Communion) as they are desirous to clear themselves of this charge of SCHISM; And, 2. Withal to let them see the great danger and mischievousness of this sin. This, as well as the former, is a thing hitherto not sufficiently understood. And when both of them are cleared, I do not know what can be further necessary to make all good, well-disposed, Souls sensible of the great Obligation incumbent on them to return to Catholic Unity.  
§ III THE former I have endeavoured by showing that SCHISM is a breach of the Church's Unity; that the Unity of the Church is that of a Body Politic; that the Unity of a Body Politic consists in a subordination to the Governors; that the Body Politic is visible, and therefore the Government must be so too; that God has accordingly contrived the Sacraments as visible confederations of this Body Politic; that by confining the ordinary communications of his Grace to the Sacraments, he has put it in the power of them who have the power of the Sacraments to exclude from these ordinary conveyances of Graces; that, by confining the power of administering them to a certain Order of men, he has put it in the power of those men to admit or exclude from the Sacraments whom, and upon what conditions they please; that from this contrivance of things there will necessarily follow a proper power of Government, and of coercion, at least in all things lawful, however inconvenient; that because nothing can follow from the Divine constitution of things but what was actually foreseen and designed by God in his actual constitution of them, therefore this Government, and the Obligation to Unity resulting from it, were also foreseen, and designed by him. Now in this way of stating the Government of the Church, there are two advantages above any other ways of stating it: that this way of explaining the Government will make it most wisely contrived for practice, and most suitable to the nature of such a Society as the Church is, and to such a Government as must be conceived most suitable to such a Society.  
§ IV 1. IT will hence appear to be most wisely contrived for practice. And this is a consideration of great concernment in a matter so naturally, and so principally designed for practice as Government is. And it is a very strong presumption of the truth of it. As it is certain that such Hypotheses concerning Government as make it unpracticable, must for that very reason stand convicted of falsehood, how plausible soever they may seem otherwise; so if there were others that might, in other regards, seem equally probable, yet this would be a real advantage above them, if it might be more practicable. For this consideration being, as I said, principal in a matter of this nature, it is certainly the wisest course to judge of inferior probabilities by it, though we were otherwise unable to give particular Solutions of them, as we do not the least scruple the existence of that motion which we see with our eyes, notwithstanding all those Philosophical subtleties which may be objected against the existence of any motion, because we take our senses for the most principal instruments of humane information. Besides that such a Government will indeed appear to be most worthy of God's Wisdom, which appears most suitable to the ends for which God, as a Governor was obliged to design it. And it is not only an excusing presumption to presume that to be true concerning God which is most worthy of him, where either there are no Arguments at all, or where the Arguments appear in other regards equal; but it is also a great Argument of the Truth of an Hypothesis, when all things answer it so as they would, or must, have done, if God himself had been the Author of it.  
§ V NOW that the Hypothesis here given is indeed thus fitted for practice, will appear, if it be considered that general cases are those which all prudent contrivers of Government do take themselves to be obliged to foresee. If these things be sufficiently provided for, they will not think their reputation concerned, if things fall out hard in particular cases. Not only the impossibility for humane prudence to foresee all particulars, which will concern men; but the nature of the things, which will reach even God himself, will make such inconveniences as those are impossible to be avoided. But where these general cases are not provided for, that is a certain disrepute to the whole contrivance, and therefore a certain conviction of a contrivance pretending to come from God; and where they are best provided for, that aught to be a prevailing presumption that such a particular Hypothesis came from God where it is certain and supposed that some did so.  
§ VI BUT the general cases relating to Government are they which concern the Multitude of those who are to be governed, and therefore those of mean and ordinary capacities, and unimproved by learned Education, because indeed these are the most considerable ingredient in the Multitude. And therefore it is certain that a Government contrived by Divine Wisdom must needs be such as that even they, proceeding on those general presumptions, (which they are capable of in their other affairs) may be capable of knowing their duty, even where they are sensible of their own incapacity of judging concerning the merit of the things. And that Hypothesis which gives the best account in this regard, and most suitable to such capacities, must therefore be presumed most agreeable to the Divine Wisdom. And this will appear in both those particulars which are of principal importance for making duty practicable: in regard of the Superiors to whom this duty is to be performed, where many competitors pretend to the title of Superiors; and in regard of the extent of that duty which they are to perform to those true Superiors.  
§ VII 1. IT will be most easy, by these Principles, even for such capacities, to distinguish their true Superiors from the multitude of false pretenders to that name. These ordinary Persons I am speaking of need not trouble themselves with those disputes of our Brethren concerning the form of Government settled in that part of the Apostles Age whereof the Scriptures do inform us; no, nor in the Histories of those Ages which immediately succeeded the Apostles: either for clearing the sense of those Scriptures; or for showing what was introduced by the Apostles in that later end of their Age, wherein the Church was more ripe for settling a succession of Government, and whereof the Scripture History does not pretend to give us any account; nor for discovering what was introduced by the unanimous consent of the Church, of parties concerned as well as others, and which was morally impossible to have been without the knowledge or approbation of the Apostles, and much more impossible that it should have obtained so suddenly and universally, if the Apostles had known and disapproved it. These disputes, besides that they are not so certain in such a loss and obscurity of Primitive Monuments, by which they ought to be decided, are withal matters of Learning beyond the reach of the Persons I am now discoursing of. But they way of judging which is the true Church, in opposition to other Schismatical ones by Succession, as it is more certain in itself, so its proof depends on things much more capable of being judged of by these Persons. For,  
§ VIII 1. IT is plain, and plain even to such illiterate Persons, who do but understand what it is to reason, that (granting the Principles of our present discourse) there must be such a succession owned somewhere, unless we will question the validity of all the Sacraments of the World, which were indeed to question the continuance of the Church itself, at least, as it is a Body Politic. And this being certain will be a rational presumption of the falsehood of any Arguments produced to the contrary, though they could not tell how to answer them. Especially if they depend on things of which such Persons find themselves less competent Judges than they are of this. Whence it will also follow that such Arguments cannot, in reason, expect a bearing from such Persons, till they be first convinced of the insolidity of these Principles.  
§ IX AND, 2. It may, even to such Persons, be also notorious, by the unanimous consent of all Persons skilled in the Histories of those Ages, that for many Centuries before the Reformation, Succession from the Apostles was not maintained so much as in any one individual Church in the World, by any Government, but Episcopal. This is not a thing controverted even by them who do indeed dispute the right of Episcopal Government. And therefore here unskilful Persons may securely trust the testimony of the skilful, because they are unanimous, on the same account of prudence whereby they find themselves obliged in other cases, wherein they have no skill, to trust them who are skilful. Now from this unanimous acknowledgement of this matter of Fact in our present case, it will follow, both that the Succession was then maintained in the Episcopal Government, even as then administered, seeing it must otherwise have been perfectly lost; and that all pretences to this Succession in any Person now must be derived from that Episcopal Government which immediately preceded the contrary Innovations, because no other could then pretend to such a Succession.  
§ X AND, 3. Upon these terms of trial, the same common prudence which enables, even such illiterate Persons, for managing their worldly concernments, wherein they have equal occasion for knowing something not done within their own cognizance, and wherein they must consequently be obliged to rely on the testimony of other credible Persons; and the same industry, which even that common prudence will dictate to be necessary for so great and near concernments as those are of eternity: These, I say, will enable these same Persons to judge which of these different pretenders are really invested with Authority, and consequently to which of them they are bound as Subjects to pay Obedience. For,  
§ XI 1. THE Innovations are so late, and of so clear and remarkable an Original, as that it needs no great Learning, even for such a Person, to inform himself when they began, and what Government then prevailed universally. He may be assured it was Episcopacy, if he should distrust his own enquiry, by the unanimous consent, as I said, of interessed as well as disinteressed, agreeing in it. And,  
§ XII 2. IT is as notorious that our present Bishops have succeeded the Bishops of those times in a Canonical way: both that they have their power given them in a Succession from them who were then invested with it (I mean, at least, so far Canonically as is requisite for the validity of their call) and that they have had as much power given them as was requisite to keep up the Succession valid to this day. For none can doubt but that an Episcopal power, according as it was understood and designed in those Ages, did include a power, not only of ordaining other ordinary Ministers, but of validly consecrating other Bishops too; And none can doubt but that these two powers are abundantly sufficient for securing succession, and that all our Ministers have their present Orders from them who, upon these terms, must be supposed sufficiently empowered to confer them on them. The Successions are so few, since the Reformation, as that every particular Minister may easily reckon up the particulars for his own vindication. I presume this also notorious, because I suppose the ordinary prudence, even of honest Rustics, would not think the contrary suggestions concerning the Nagshead Ordination (raised only by a few concerned Persons, in a corner, and not divulged till many years after the thing was done) to be credible in opposition to the still extant Records of the Nation to the contrary.  
§ XIII AND by the same way whereby such illiterate Persons may satisfy themselves of the validity of the Ordination of our Ministers, they will also find reason to question that of the Non-Conformists. They need trace them up no higher than the first deviation from Episcopacy. And supposing that they must thence derive all the power they can now pretend to have, it will be as easy to discover the Nullities of their present proceed as it is to discover the like Nullities in their worldly affairs, in which they are often concerned to trust their own judgements. They might find the Nullity, even of those, who were at first lawfully ordained by them who had power to Ordain them, in their actings against all the visible Superior powers by which they were ordained, on the same account on which, in their worldly concerns, they would think the actings of a particular lawfully-empowered Constable invalid, if he opposed himself to all the visible supreme Magistracy of the Land in which he had been made a Constable. Much more must they find the Nullity of the Successions continued from such Persons. In their secular affairs they judge a title null, if either the power given were not sufficient for maintaining a Succession, or if a sufficient power were given, but by Persons who had no power to dispose of it. And they may find themselves to judge thus, not because of any concernment of it as secular, but in regard of the pure intrinsic Justice of the Contract, and the nature of the thing, which must therefore equally concern the like Contracts and conveyances. And upon the Principles here proposed they need only apply these Concessions. For I have endeavoured to show that the power of ordaining others was not given them by the Episcopal Presbyteries from whom the first of them received their Orders, at least that it was not given them separately from those Presbyteries: That, though they had that power given them, yet the Orders since conferred by them must be Null, even by the Principles of Aristocratical Government, even as Aristocratical, because they have neither been conferred in lawful Assemblies, nor by plurality of votes. So that still in all this there is nothing but what may appear, even to such illiterate Persons, even by those common rules of Justice by which they guide themselves in their secular Transactions.  
§ XIV BUT besides this of distinguishing their true Governors from false pretenders, They will, 2. Be better enabled, by these Principles, to know the extent of their Duty, even to their true Governors themselves. They need not here follow our brethren's method of engaging into disputes concerning the expediency or inexpediency of every constitution, seeing this will not excuse them from their duty though they should prove really inexpedient. Because for that not they, but their Superiors, must be responsible, if they be obedient; but they themselves may be responsible, if they should withdraw their obedience unwarrantably. Nor need they trouble their Heads with those many scruples of our Brethren which make their duty unpracticable, and therefore must be groundless; or even with those which, after all considerations, may still remain practicable, yet not without much tediousness and scrupulosity, even to wellmeaning Persons themselves, which certainly could never have been designed by God.  
§ XV BUT, upon our Principles, their duty will be plain and easy. What may appear to be their duty, upon reading of the Scripture with an honest and unprejudiced heart, and that moral diligence and assistance of skilful Persons in matters wherein they would find their own unskilfulness, which their own prudence would suggest in matters of the like concernment, expressed in an ancient Book, and in an exotic tongue and style; what, I say, might, upon these terms, appear to be their duty clearly, (for it is not likely that God would oblige such to any duty which, upon these terms, might not be clear to them) that they must practise whatsoever any Authority on earth should decree to the contrary. As for other things, how inconvenient soever, they cannot, in prudence, be thought sufficient to encourage them to a resistance, because there can be no greater inconvenience than to be excluded from the ordinary means of Salvation, excepting sin. And therefore in all impositions whatsoever, how oppressive soever, and therefore how sinful soever they may prove to the Governors who impose them, yet if they be not also sinful to the Subjects, the Subjects cannot be excused from yielding to their Governors as much the lesser inconvenience. So that, by these Principles, such idiots, as I am speaking of, are disobliged from any further inquiries into the merit of their Superiors Impositions, but only whether they be sinful. And the instances must needs be rare which could, on this account, oblige them to stand out against their Ecclesiastical Superiors.  
§ XVI ESPECIALLY considering the several degrees such a deliberation must proceed through, before it can come to this height: In the first place the illiterate Person I am speaking of, may by his own prudence find how unsafe it would be for him to rely on his own Judgement, but only in such cases wherein, upon full information in the evidence by such as were skilful, he might find himself capable of apprehending and judging. For others which, even on these supposals, he could not find himself fit to judge of, (that is, wherein he could not apprehend what were told him, and what withal he should judge necessary to be throughly apprehended by any one before he could be qualifyed for judging concerning them) he must, in the same prudence, think it the safest course to rely on the judgement of such as were skilful. And when he must, in pursuance of this discourse, find himself obliged to trust some guide, there are peculiar reasons why he should, in prudence, submit himself to the guidance of his Ecclesiastical Superiors rather than any others. Besides the equal skilfulness of such Superiors with any others who might pretend to guide him; besides the peculiar obligation of providence to direct them who, as Superiors, have so many presumptions in favour of them, to oblige others to acquiesce in their determinations, and therefore whose errors must, in this regard, prove of so fatal consequence to the prejudice of Multitudes of good and wellmeaning Persons: I say, besides these things, he will hereby secure himself the use of the ordinary means of Salvation, which must needs be acknowledged to be a very prudent and affecting consideration to sway a doubtful practice. He who were tru●● sensible how much he must be a loser by living out of all 〈◊〉▪ so as to want those ordinary Assistances to which Communicants are entitled, and which a daily experience of his own frailties would make him very unwilling to want; and were withal sensible how, not only fruitless, but mischievous, it would be to gain the external Elements in an unwarrantable Communion; would find that within him which would never suffer him to forfeit the external Communion of the Church, but upon reasons extremely weighty and considerable. As nothing under sin would be judged a sufficient reason, so neither would any evidence, concerning the sinfulness of a condition of Communion, be judged sufficient, but such as were drawn from the nature of the thing, not from any contrary Humane Authority; nor even any such evidence from the nature of the thing which were not of greater importance, and more convictive than those which recommend the credibility of Ecclesiastical Authority. Which will yet further diminish the number of the doubts of this kind. Which might be supposed incident to candid, though illiterate, persons.  
§ XVII BUT let us suppose them advanced yet higher, to be convinced, by reasons intrinsic to the thing, of its sinfulness, and suppose we those reasons stronger than the reasons of credibility of their Ecclesiastical Superiors; all that would follow, even so, would be, that it ought not to be done for the credit of any Humane Authority that should call it lawful. But may it not be sometimes done when it cannot be omitted without a greater sin? Will it not in such a case cease to be a sin, when both are unavoidable? Undoubtedly it will, if its sinfulness depend on circumstances, which is the most our Adversaries can pretend concerning our conditions of Communion. For, from our Principles, it has appeared that the sins of disobedience to Ecclesiastical Superiors, and of dividing the Church, or separating from it are of a higher guilt than can be pretended to be in those sinful conditions, even according to them who believe the conditions sinful. They will not pretend the sin of wearing a Surplice, etc. equal to the sin unto death, to that against the Holy Ghost, or those spoken of, Heb. VI or X.  
§ XVIII BUT if the real sinfulness of such a condition be yet further supposed not to be circumstantial, but in the nature of the thing absolutely considered; then I confess the thing is by no means to be done, not that it is at any hand lawful to avoid it by flying into a greater sin, but because there is no necessity of doing either. He that cannot communicate but on conditions which he believes sinful, may forbear the Communion which he cannot keep but on such conditions. But such forbearance would be no sin, as separation would be even in such a case. For still dividing of the Church, disrespect to Superiors, usurpation of a Sacred Power, or abetting such an usurpation, would be as essentially and unalterably sinful as such conditions of Communion could be pretended to be. And therefore even in such a case he would continue as much obliged to avoid separation, as to avoid the Communion which could not be had without such sinful compliances; Nay, by so much the more, as the sinfulness of such a separation must be supposed greater than the sinfulness of such a Communion. Which will let, even the ignorant Person, I am speaking of, see his obligation to passive obedience where he cannot pay active to his Ecclesiastical Superiors; and that this duty of his passive obedience will oblige him to forbear opposite Communions, even where he cannot, by any lawful compliances, enjoy the lawful one. This does at least reach the case of Laics, and with regard to Communions destitute of sufficient Authority, for which I am at present concerned.  
§ XIX BUT besides this general suitableness of our Hypothesis for practice, It is particularly considerable, 2. That it is peculiarly suited to the practice of a Society of such a nature as the Church, for preserving Unity and a due respect to Authority in it. For the Church as a Body Politic must always preserve a coercive power over her own Subjects: And that, 1. As well in persecution as prosperity. For persecution was indeed the principal let she had reason to expect, when her Government was first established, and for which it is therefore most credible that her Government then was peculiarly fitted, and therefore she must have been enabled to maintain this Authority independently on the favour of the secular Magistrate. And therefore, 2. She must have been enabled for this purpose without any title to the Bodies or Fortunes of her Subjects, and so without any power of using coercive means of these kinds, whether by employing her obedient Subjects to inflict such penalties on her disobedient ones, or by moving the secular Magistrate to it. Because these are things to which, as she can pretend no right as a Spiritual Society, so she cannot expect to have them actually in her power in such a time of persecution.  
§ XX NOW for maintaining such a coercive power in a Society under such disadvantages, It is plain, 1. That the Authority must be purely Spiritual, and coercive only over the consciences of its Subjects. It must be Spiritual, because Christ has given his Officers, by virtue of their being Officers of his Church, no title to any temporals at all. And therefore they cannot, by virtue of their being his Officers, have so much as a good title to dispossess their Subjects of their Lives or Fortunes. It can only be over their Subjects consciences, because, by want of their title to externals, they can have no coercive power over their Bodies. And therefore what coercive power they have must be over their consciences, or they can have none at all. Whence it will follow that they must needs destroy all coercive power in the Church who pretend that Ecclesiastical Laws do not oblige the conscience, especially they who urge it in that extravagant sense in which some seem to mean it, and more are obliged to mean it by the interest of their reasonings.  
§ XXI AND yet, 2. This power must not be so confined to the conscience, but that it may also have a secondary influence on the external actions of men, to oblige them to perform such external duties upon account of conscience, which they might otherwise have been unwilling to have performed of themselves. For unless this Obligation of conscience have an influence on the external actions, it can be of no use for the external Government we are speaking of, whose Subjects are men, who are not capable of being edified by our thoughts any farther than as they are signified to them by our actions; and it is administered by men, who cannot judge of the Observation of their own injunctions (otherwise than by our external actions) in order to the rewarding the obedient, or punishing the disobedient, and indeed for whose ends only external actions are useful, as was already observed. And yet they must not only be those external actions to which their own prudence would oblige them for their own intrinsic usefulness, but also such wherein Subjects may differ from the judgement of their Superiors, that they must be obliged in conscience to observe in order to the ends of Government. For no Government whatsoever is capable of being administered by fallible Persons, unless their Subjects conceive themselves obliged to submit to them even in such cases wherein they should believe them actually mistaken in point of prudence; (for the generality of moral affairs, and especially the prudential commands of Governors, are not capable of any more than probable evidence, and in such cases it is very possible for such Governors to be really mistaken, and for Subjects to believe them mistaken, and yet if they be not observed even in such cases, other instances are so very rare as that their Government itself must prove in a great measure useless and unpracticable) for without a coercive power over Subjects no Government properly so called can be maintained, and there can be no coercion, if Subjects be permitted to do only what they think fit themselves.  
§ XXII AND, 3. These Impressions of conscience must be such as may oblige them, not only to perform such external actions as otherwise they would not, if they had been left to their own liberty; but also, to perform such actions in compliance to visible Superiors. So that in order to the maintaining the Authority of this Government on their consciences, it is requisite that the Authority commanding be judged to be a reason obliging them in conscience to perform whatsoever is so commanded, and that these visible Superiors are to be taken for authentic Judges of their obedience or disobedience, so that though they may not always be obliged to believe their Judgements concerning their own behaviour true, yet they must always externally acquiesce in their determinations, believing themselves obliged in conscience to give them active obedience in things lawful, and passive in things that are not so. For external Authority cannot be maintained over the conscience without an obligation, even in conscience, to obedience; and the act cannot be obedience, if it be not performed for the sake of the Authority requiring it, and no obedience short of this now mentioned can reach the ends of a visible external Authority. And therefore it must needs be extremely vain for them to think to satisfy their consciences▪ of their obedience, by appealing from their Governors to God as the Judge of their consciences. This were indeed an acknowledgement of the Authority of God, if God had instituted no external Society of men. But having done so, it is plainly a refusal of their duty to their Ecclesiastical Superiors, when their Authority is not admitted, neither for its own sake, nor as an authentic Expositor of the mind of God, as the reason of their actions▪ but the Divine Authority is appealed to independently on them; and plainly a resisting of the Divine Authority as vested in them, as God has required that they should be obeyed for his sake, and as, by leaving no remedy for Appellants in this World, (wherein alone it is that this Authority can be useful) he has sufficiently intimated it to be his pleasure that their Authority should be unappealable here, in order to the forementioned obedience.  
§ XXIII AND, 4. This Authority over conscience must be such as may awe even wicked men themselves who are not altogether of a profligate and feared conscience. And therefore the mischief attending disobedience must be very great, as it must needs be, that it may by them be conceived sufficient to oversway the mischief they apprehend in wanting the gratification of their vicious appetites; and very clear and unobnoxious to disputes on the acknowledged Principles of Christianity, that it may be owned for such, even by them who are so strongly interested, and therefore prejudiced, against it, For wicked men are they who constitute the greatest part of all great Societies, and it is principally for them that all coercive Government is settled, not only that men of different Judgements, but also of different affections, may be necessitated to an external compliance. Now in order to the establishing such a Government as this, what can be more conducive or more becoming the Divine Wisdom than this Systeme of Principles on which I have been hitherto insisting?  
§ XXIV FOR it is certain, 1. That they cannot oblige their Subjects thus in conscience to comply with them against their wills, unless there were some benefit to their consciences to be gained by their obedience, and some prejudice also to their consciences to be incurred by their disobedience. Possibly some few good Subjects might be moved by the command of God, and the general indefinite expectation of rewards from his good will, or punishments from his displeasure, as some few good Subjects would be moved by those constitutions of their Prince which were ratified by no other penalty than that of his displeasure. But as in seculars this is very rarely found sufficient, in experience, for the Government of great Communities, without specification of the immediate reward or punishment which should attend their obedience or disobedience to particular commands; so it will be as necessary to observe this same method, for a Government of this nature, even in Spirituals. For the nature of those Persons who are apt to transgress is usually so dull as not to be very apprehensive of spiritual and future inconveniences, if there be not something particularly to be feared at present upon the neglect of their duty, some advantage to their consciences that may, even at present, prove more considerable to them than the pleasure of their sins, and some disadvantages of the same kind that may at present oversway the loss of their sinful pleasures and the contradiction of their appetites in such performance of their duty.  
§ XXV AND, 2. In order to the obliging Subjects to this compliance to their Spiritual Superiors, it is also further necessary that the distribution of these Spiritual rewards, and the infliction of these spiritual punishments be some way at the disposal of these spiritual Governors; and therefore that God do not so immediately and arbitrarily give the one, or inflict the other; but that the Church may have an influence on the actual determination of the Divine pleasure in these affairs, so that it may be presumed that God will bestow his spiritual blessings, or inflict his spiritual punishments, according to the Church●s censures or recommendations. For this is the only way to determine men's respect to Ecclesiastical Officers. For as no Governor can awe, without he have the disposal of the rewards and punishments belonging to his respective Jurisdiction, so neither can Ecclesiastical Officers compel any by their spiritual Authority, without the disposal of these spiritual rewards and punishments.  
§ XXVI AND, 3. It is necessary that evidence be given to convince Subjects that they may expect spiritual rewards by their obedience to Ecclesiastical Officers, and fear spiritual punishments upon their disobedience; and that this evidence be suited to the capacities of the Persons to be affected with it. For unless they can be convinced of it, it can never awe them, and unless it be suited to their capacities, it can never convince them. Now it is plain that the immediate disposal of these spiritual rewards and punishments cannot be entrusted to the Ecclesiastical Officers as the power of temporal rewards and punishments may be to the seculars, who when they have the power of the Sword once committed to them, need no further assistance of the power that gave it them for rewarding their obedient, and punishing their refractory Subjects. But Spiritual rewards and punishments, are not immediately capable of being given to men in this Life; and though they were, yet Subjects are not capable of being assured of them, because they are not obnoxious to the discovery of sense. And therefore the only way for Subjects to be convinced that the rewards promised, and the punishments denounced by the Church shall be performed accordingly, must be to assure them that God, in whose power alone they are immediately, will oblige himself to act in these particulars according to the Church's determination. And yet because Church-Officers are fallible, and, like other men, obnoxious to humane frailties; and there is therefore an extreme on the other hand to be avoided in the Divine Government of the Church; that in case of error of the Keys many very innocent Persons must miscarry (many times only for acting according to their own more-rightly-informed consciences; and therein only for preserving their Loyalty only to their Supreme, in opposition to their subordinate Governors, that is indeed, for doing that which if they had neglected, had made them obnoxious to punishment) if God should peremptorily have obliged himself to have conformed his own actings to the Church's determinations:  
§ XXVII THEREFORE, 4. The most prudent expedient, so to provide for these harder and rarer cases, as yet not to deprive the Church of that assurance of the validity of her Sentences as may terrify her Subjects from disobedience, is this, to give much better assurance that the Church's promises shall be ratified by God, and a greater fear that the Church's threats shall be inflicted than otherwise. For this, as I have shown, will oblige men, in prudence, to presume for the Church as the safest way, and never to disobey her, but on extremely hard and evident danger of sin, and where they do so, to be wary of transgressing their own bounds, not to deny passive where they cannot give active obedience, for fear of weakening their title to the equity of God, and making their already-uncomfortable condition yet more hazardous. And as by this means the condition of such Dissenters is not made desperate, so it is very fit it should lie under some discouragement, both because the instances are comparatively but very rare and unlikely, and the Persons very few that were requisite for managing such a breach conscientiously (and it is a constant rule of prudence to frame general provisions by general cases, and to be less solicitous for the rarer) and to discourage others from such attempts who might not be likely to manage them with the like good design and moderation, and to oblige even such good Persons themselves to a greater wariness in making the breach at first, and a constant industry and calmness of Spirit, to be always ready to be reconciled on any tolerable terms. And these are certainly designs very necessary for such a Government as this we speak of.  
§ XXVIII AND, 5. As wise a way as can be taken for securing the assurance of Salvation greater in the Communion of the Church than out of it, is to confine a Legal Title to the promises, even on performance of the moral conditions, to the Communion of the Church; and to allow no other Plea but that of equity without it. And this has appeared, from our Principles, to be not only wise, but just too.  
§ XXIX AND, 6. The best way of putting it in the Church's power to admit to, or exclude from a Legal Title to the promises is to put the Covenant in her power, by virtue of which God is, in a Legal way, obliged to fulfil his promises.  
§ XXX AND, 7. The only way of putting this Covenant in her power, is to confine all its Legal obligation to some external Solemnities which may be capable of being confined, and being known to be so, to the Governors of the Church. For it is only of these externals that Subjects can judge, and these are indeed the only things which are capable of being obnoxious to Ecclesiastical power. And therefore it is only by Gods confining his own influences on the spiritual rewards to these external solemnities that he can put the rewards themselves in the power of Ecclesiastical Governors. At least this is the only way we know of, which is sufficient to show that we have no reason to expect any other.  
§ XXXI AND, 8. The best way of appropriating these Solemnities to Church-governors is by giving, them only, a Legal power of acting in the name of God (the want of which Legal power will invalidate a Legal obligation in what is done in supposition of it) either as subordinate Governors, or as persons peculiarly consecrated for that purpose. And for our present design it is very sufficient that God do, on the performance of these external Solemnities, admit us to an actual Legal Title to the promises (as far as the Covenant itself is capable of giving us a Legal Title to them, that is, no otherwise than on performance of obedience) and that the Church's exclusion from these Solemnities do also exclude men from such a Legal Title. But neither of these do oblige God to any unequal dealing to Persons wrongfully excommunicate. For still there is no Covenant to condemn whom the Church condemns, though the Person so condemned cannot plead any Legal Interest in the Divine Covenant for his Salvation. So that, by these Principles, God is under no Legal Obligation to punish him. Yet his loss of a Legal Title to the promises may be indeed a great discomfort to him in this Life. Which as I have already shown to be sufficient for maintaining the Government of the Church, which is only a Government for this Life; so it may justly be inflicted even on particular innocent Persons for so great an advantage of the Society by the same Principles of Justice by which all great Societies are governed, who never think it unequal to suffer some few innocents', in rarer cases, to suffer some inconveniences for the benefit of the whole. And it makes amends to them for all that, even by our Principles, God is still at liberty to be as bountiful as he pleases to them in the other Life. He may there give them those Blessings to which they had indeed no Legal Title, much more of which they could not in this Life assure themselves by any Legal Claim in case they really had a Legal Title. However this may suffice to show how this contrivance of things will secure the Church as great a coercive power over her own Subjects as she can be supposed capable of, even in times of the severest persecutions. Which will, by the Principles now laid down, show how very likely it is that this is the true Notion of Ecclesiastical Unity, and therefore withal, how very probable it is that in violating this Unity they must prove guilty of that which will properly deserve the name of SCHISM.  
§ XXXII I NOW proceed, 2. To show how that, by the same Principles, the best account may be given of the real danger and mischievousness of the sin of SCHISM. The ordinary ways of stating it, have either extremely obscured the thing, or the danger of it. To resolve the blame of a Separation (as our Brethren do) into the merit of the particular things for which the Separation is made; and to make no further mischief in abetting the wrong side of the controversy, or advantage in following the right, than that of believing a false or disbelieving a true Proposition, which yet is disputed among good wise men whether it be true or false; must leave the generality of illiterate Persons in an indifferency with what Communion they join (which is in truth the case we generally find them in) or involve them in inextricable perplexities in choosing the right one. For how can they think purely intellectual mistakes very piacular in the eyes of God, especially where they are so very reconcilable with a good meaning, and an innocent practice? Or if they were so in questions of a clear resolution, and to learned and judicious Persons who might be supposed to have such abilities and opportunities for resolving them as that they could hardly be mistaken in them without being extremely wanting to themselves; yet how can they think it credible that God should be so extremely severe, to exact a belief of the true side in matters so extremely disputable? to exact it even from unskilful Laics? and that even where their guides (whom they must needs trust who find themselves so unqualified to guide themselves in such disputes) are themselves so extremely divided? Where opinions are so very different and contradictory, the most illiterate Person that is, who has but common sense, must needs think some of them mistaken. And can he, at the same time, find in his heart to believe that God will treat himself with any severity for not discovering those truths concerning which he finds Persons incomparably more qualified than himself, to be mistaken? This I am verily persuaded, not only to be suitable to the condition of the generality of this sort of Persons, but also to be their actual discourse, whenever they allow themselves the liberty of any serious thoughts concerning this matter, it is so very agreeable to their practice. We see them go indifferently to Churches or Conventicles according as they are affected to the Ministers, not on any constant Principles concerning the Communions.  
§ XXXIII I KNOW they do endeavour to charge heavier accusations on the practice of SCHISM than barely the wrong belief or disbelief of a disputable proposition. But when they come to be examined closely, either they will prove so small, or be again resolved into such nice and intricate disputes in order to the charging any with their actual guilt, as that no particular consciences can be moved with any great horror of them, either to believe them criminal in any high degree, or that themselves, in any particular case, are guilty of them. They pretend that charity requires forbearance, and a keeping in mutual Communion as far as is possible; and therefore that SCHISM is a violation of this grace which is indeed the sum of practical Christianity. But when again both these particulars are examined by their Principles, no Person need to be very apprehensive of this danger. For what great crime can it be to separate from the Communion of men, for the cause of God? What great horror can they have at it, supposing they should prove mistaken in the event? Nay, is not their Charity to God pretended as the reason why they conceive themselves obliged to separate from their Brethren? This is a thing they have not yet endeavoured to explain by any Principles, how their love to God (to use the Apostles expression) obliges them to love their Brethren also, and to communicate with them whose Communion is with the Father and the Son. Nay, according to them it is very hard to reconcile their love to God with their love to Ecclesiastical Communion. Even a probable persuasion of their consciences is, according to their Principles, sufficient to excuse their separations. And, besides that this does again resolve the debate into disputable Prepositions, it must needs be an extremely barren cause indeed that can be destitute of so much as probable Arguments for its support.  
§ XXXIV BUT wherein can this great uncharitableness consist? Not in any great mischief done to themselves by their separation. They do not much value the loss of the Sacramental Elements, though they should be forced to lose them. The same reasons, which made them believe that their separation from men was for God's sake, will also incline them to believe that (if they had a greater opinion of the advantage of the Sacraments than it appears they have) yet the spiritual advantages of the Sacraments should be supplied by him for whose cause they had made the separation; and in that case the want of the external Elements could be no great loss indeed. Nor are they, by their Principles, obliged, even in that case, to lose the Elements themselves. For they can easily join in a Confederacy among themselves; and when they have done so, this very necessity is either thought a sufficient Call itself, or at least a sufficient Justification of it from its other illegalities and invalidities. So that they are thus conceived to enjoy all the means, ordinary as well as extraordinary, to enjoy the conveniences as well as the necessaries, the comfort as well as the hopes of Salvation, as freely out of the Church's Communion as in it; and suppose all these as efficacious to them, whilst they act according to their probable consciences, though they should prove erroneous, as if they were never so certain. And, upon these supposals, to what prejudice can they conceive themselves obnoxious by their separations.  
§ XXXV IS it therefore so prejudicial to the Communion from which they withdraw? But as for any duty owing to them which they might rob them of by this withdrawing of their own Persons from them, they acknowledge none. And this being supposed, no Charity obliges them to beware of prejudicing others by promoting their own conveniences, when one of them is unavoidable; and for any further prosecutions of those whom they have thus deserted, they are very separable from the cause of separation in general.  
§ XXXVI AND as there can, upon these terms, appear no great reason to oblige an ignorant Laic to any great caution in enquiring or resolving on the right Communion, from any considerable inconvenience that might attend the consequence of his being mistaken (and indeed the whole obligation to diligence in enquiring after the truth of any Propositions is only rationally derivable from their influence upon our practice) so, though the crime had been more piacular, yet, upon these Principles, there is so little evidence in proving any particular Person's guilt, as that, upon that very account, there can appear no great obligation to cautiousness. For supposing that the violation of the Church's Communion had been indeed in a high degree uncharitable; and supposing that uncharitableness in as high a degree criminal: Yet how can it appear that any ignorant Laic is guilty of that uncharitableness in his separation?  
§ XXXVII FOR, 1. He may be conscious to himself of hearty wishes of their conversion from whom he separates, and of all welfare when they are converted. Nay indeed it is hard to suppose otherwise. For this is a charity which all Communions, how Schismatical soever, have for those from whom they are divided, to wish them of their own party, and wish them well when they are so; and it is the interest of their Faction, how little regard soever they had to God, or the welfare of their Brethren as Christians. And this is indeed the utmost Charity which most of them conceive to be actually due to those who are not in external Communion with themselves. And as every ignorant Laic may be conscious to himself of this charitable affection (if it deserve so good a name) how Schismatical soever he may be really; so it will not be easy, on their Principles, for such a Person to know when his act of separation is uncharitable, at least not without resolving all again into disputable Propositions.  
§ XXXVIII FOR, 2. His being the first Author of his own departure is so far from being an Argument, as that it is not, by their Doctrine, so much as a pregnant presumption, that it is on his part uncharitable, and therefore Schismatical; no not though he go so far as not only to refuse active obedience to his ordinary Superiors, but also to resist them, and either to set up or abet other Communions in opposition to them. For it is not the actual separation, but the cause of it that will make it uncharitable and Schismatical; and that may, on our brethren's Principles, be as easily supposed to have been given by his Superiors as by himself, though he have been the first actual divider. For I have elsewhere shown that our Brethren consider Superiors here as plainly acting on equal terms in these matters with their Subjects. And upon these terms there cannot so much as a presumption lie on their side, that his separation may therefore be presumed likely to be uncharitable on his side because himself was the first Author of it.  
§ XXXIX FOR, 1. Upon their Principles, he will have reason to believe his Superiors as fallible as himself; considering that even in matters of disputable evidence, and depending on some things not so obnoxious to his cognizance, they yet encourage such an ignorant Laic to descent from them on his own Judgement.  
§ XL AND, 2. They do not only encourage him to believe otherwise than they (which might indeed be more tolerable and rational, if he did not so only in such cases wherein he had a full prospect of what learned men could inform him) but also to differ in his practice too, even where his compliance in practice need not signify any Hypocritical dissimulation of his Judgement, that is, not only to forbear the practice of what he should judge to be unlawful, (which is no more than honest dealing) but also to forbear the practice of what he judges unfit and oppressive in compliance to the will of his otherwise lawful Superiors. Whereas such compliance as this is very lawful, to pleasure another in that which he otherwise himself believes imprudent, and is daily practised by themselves without any fear of Hypocrisy in their Oeconomical or Political relations, and indeed every where, where they acknowledge such a right of Government as may be worthy of that name. For this is the plain meaning of our distinction between obligation in Practice, and in Judgement; and even in this sense they oppose it. Besides their refusing even passive obedience to the Church, even in this case, does plainly signify how little they ascribe to Ecclesiastical Authority.  
§ XLI AND, 3. wherever any compliance is necessary for accommodating these differences, they do as much require it from the Church as themselves, and do as confidently charge her with Schism, as long as she does not yield her impositions to them, as we charge them with it for not complying with those impositions. And upon these terms what presumption can be for Authority, if Authority be as much obliged to yield as her Subjects, and if Persons be in no greater probability of avoiding this uncharitableness by yielding than by opposing it? So that the ultimate recourse here must be had to the merit of the cause, and of how little horror that can be to such a Person I have already shown. Thus insufficient our Adversaries Notions are for explaining any thing in the guilt of SCHISM that might prove terrible to popular capacities.  
§ XLII BUT, upon our Principles, such a Notion of SCHISM is given as the most incultivated Laic may understand to be extremely mischievous, by the same rules of prudence whereby he manages his worldly affairs. Not to mention the dreadful punishments it deserves from God's hand, and the great obligation, incumbent on him from his own attributes, and the reasons of his Government, to inflict those so deserved severities on Persons truly criminal; not to mention the great displeasure he has actually declared against sins of this nature (especially if what has been said concerning the sin against the Holy Ghost, and the sin unto death, etc. should prove true) and the difficulty of being excused by any pretence of ignorance whatsoever in our brethren's circumstances: I say, not to mention these things, our Hypothesis does give a particular account of its intrinsic mischievousness, of the good things it deprives them of, and the evils to which it exposes Persons guilty of it, in the nature of the things themselves, as God has made them by his general institution. It hence appears to be a forfeiture of all right to the Evangelical Covenant, at least of all the comfort that may be reaped from an assurance of such a right; and a consequent exposing the criminal to all those other mischiefs from which he could not expect deliverance but by the Evangelical Covenant. And the giving an account of this intrinsic mischievousness of SCHISM will be a great probability that the Hypothesis is true, by which so intelligible an account is given of it, because it is so suitable to God's contrivances in his other providences, whereby he has made every sin to carry its own mischief with it, besides the punishments which may be feared for it from the Divine displeasure against sin in general.  
§ XLIII BESIDES this will be a consideration which may seriously concern even them who, in other regards, may think themselves most secure of God's Indulgence in remitting his own right to punish them, unless they can also hope that this indulgence shall be so great as may, not only pardon their omissions, but also provide them extraordinaries, where their own neglect has deprived them, in the natural course of things, of all ordinary means of safety. Which is certainly a favour to be expected by very few Persons, and in very rarely-occurring circumstances, and therefore no way fit to be trusted, in any prudence, where better may be had on any tolerable, that is, unsinful, terms.  
§ XLIV AND my desire is to pitch only on such benefits of Church-Communion, and such disadvantages of losing it as may, not only be valued for real benefits and disadvantages in the judgement of pious and spiritual Persons, but may also be most hearty adhered to or most heavily resented by all whose affections are rightly disposed, that is, such only as are spiritual, and judge of things by spiritual relishes. This will make pious Persons seriously sensible how much it is their interest to beware of being mistaken in a case where their mistake may prove so hurtful to them on a spiritual account. Which will also oblige them to that accurateness in examining such reasons for which they are apt not to be so solicitous where the mistake is not like to prove of so dangerous consequence; and to that favour in judging, and that cautiousness in practising, on the securer side, which all account not only prudent, but conscientious, where their more suspicious interests does not make them partial.  
§ XLV NOW this kind of reasoning to the affections, as well as the judgements, of Persons concerned is most agreeable to Humane Nature, who are not ordinarily affected with truth considered barely as it is truth, but as it is their interest; nor do ordinarily take truth as truth to be their interest, but as it may prevent some practices which may prove dangerous, or as it may produce or direct some which may prove advantageous. And in this regard it is also further likely to prove most agreeable with the design of God, who, as he is best acquainted with the nature of his creatures, and is most compassionately careful that his creatures may not fail of the favours he had designed for them, so he is most likely to suit his contrivances for their good to that nature of the generality of mankind, and even of those of popular, as well as those of extraordinary, and more exquisite, capacities. And particularly this kind of reasons is most proper in matters of practice, and withal is more certain and solid when the affections complied with are themselves rational, (which is undoubtedly the case of these religious affections) for what is agreeable with a rational affection cannot be dissonant to that reason which makes it so. Only it is more likely to prevail with Humane Nature, which is more influence by them, as they are affections than as they are rational.  
§ XLVI AND lest that any who would be extremely fearful of so great a danger of so great a mischief, if they knew it, might fall into it, against their wills, for want of knowledge of it; I have endeavoured to suit those Notions of the mischief of SCHISM to the meanest understandings, as far as the subject matter would bear. This I have endeavoured, by avoiding most of those disputes which are matters of Learning, and beyond the reach of the Persons I am speaking of, on which most of our Adversaries most elaborate volumes have been hitherto employed; and by reducing those which I insist on to the same way of trial in which even such Persons themselves have reason to be experienced, even in their worldly affairs, and wherein therefore the same degree of prudence, which may make them able to secure their worldly concerns, may also qualify them to judge of those which are greater, and of more importance to them; nay, by proceeding on such Principles which are not denied by our Adversaries themselves, so free they are from disputes on all hands. And I cannot tell what even such illiterate Persons could desire more for their assurance in a matter that is actually so much disputed.  
§ XLVII 1. I AVOID most of those disputes which are matters of Learning, and concerning which most of our Adversaries Volumes have been hitherto written, and concerning which they who are in prudence obliged to trust others, for want of skill in themselves in those parts of Learning which can only inform them in matters of this nature, might pretend (that which, if truly pretended, would indeed prove very considerable to such Persons) that men of skill and candour are of different minds. I need on this occasion only to recapitulate what has been said concerning the disputes relating to Government, because the Principles of Government and Schism are, in our way of stating them, exactly the same. I have therefore not concerned my Reader in the Primitive form of Government, nor in the truth or falsehood of any thing that has been written on that subject. I have not concerned him in the particular disputes concerning the Antiquity or Novelty, concerning the convenience or inconvenience of the particular impositions to which his compliance is expected. I have not concerned him in those many other disputes which prove things false which themselves do and must acknowledge to be true, which make that power of Government unpracticable which themselves confess to be just, and which they are therefore as much obliged to answer as we are; which disprove things whose truth appears by Principles much more notorious and more confessed, and more certain than those are by which they are disproved, nay, which go against those general presumptions for practice which the prudence of the generality of the unconcerned part of mankind have agreed on, as much more certain than any evidence that can be pretended to the contrary, and which therefore all, that own those Principles, must acknowledge to be false, though they do not as yet understand the particular Sophism. Nay, it is no more thought prudent to be scrupulous in practice on subtleties pretending to disprove what appears true upon such Principles than Diogenes thought himself concerned to forbear motion because Zeno offered to prove it impossible, or to vouchsafe such Objections a serious answer. And when these disputes are cut off, how few will there remain that can perplex the illiterate Reader? What numbers of our Adversaries Volumes will he find himself unconcerned in? how easy will it be to find the Truth in these matters in comparison of what it is commonly understood, and must be so by him who has not considered the things here suggested? But besides the multitude of disputes which are here avoided,  
§ XLVIII 2. ANOTHER thing that will very much facilitate the Judgement concerning these things to an illiterate Reader, is, that the remaining disputes are reduced to such things which even illiterate Persons must be supposed experienced in even in their worldly affairs. It is hardly possible, even for such a Person to be ignorant of the nature of Contracts in general, and of the general equity and measures of their obligation, they are of so familiar inevitable use to him in his worldly conversation. He cannot but even there find it reputed very ill in any to put another seal to a Covenant without his Authority. If himself were served so, he would not only think himself in no equity obliged to stand to such a Covenant, but would certainly resent it as a great injury done to him. He finds this yet more severely thought of by all communities in conveyances of power, that it is Treason by the fundamental Laws of all Societies, not only for a Person to presume to seal himself either a Pardon or a Patent for Authority without leave from the supreme visible Magistrates, but also for all such as abet or defend him in it, or own any Authority in him by virtue of such an invalid patent. He knows himself, how illiterate soever, would be proceeded against as a Traitor, if he should offend in either of these kinds against the Community wherein he lives. He knows conveyances of power ought to be notorious, and are every where presumed to be so, because no pretence of ignorance is accepted of by any community to excuse any who are found guilty of any irregularities of this kind. He knows Succession is the way every where agreed on for conveyances of power, especially of the supreme visible power. And he may find how impossible it is to think of any other notorious way for the satisfaction of others, how Ecclesiastical power could be derived from Christ or the Apostles through the distance of seventeen Ages, especially where it is acknowledged that God does not now give any power immediately. He will find that by the same rules of equity, a presumptive title is sufficient in present Governors, where it cannot be certainly disproved; and that what we have said concerning the equity of Gods dealing with men will make it more particularly credible in the conveyance of Ecclesiastical Government; that therefore as in a disputable title to secular Government none thinks it necessary to be informed of all past ages, (for example to prove the title of our present Princes from the Caesars, who were once rightfully possessed of these parts of the World) but thinks it reasonable to rest satisfied with the original of the last innovation, so neither can it be necessary for knowing the want of Ecclesiastical power in present pretenders to it to inquire into the times of the Apostles; that succession is as perfectly ruined by a failure of 200 as by one of 1600 years standing; that by this means he is concerned to know as little History for the title of the present Nonconformist Ministers as he is obliged to know for knowing which part to join with, where different parties are made for an ambiguous title to secular Government. I would not on this occasion recapitulate the Heads of my whole discourse. These general Heads are sufficient to show that the materials are generally such as even ordinary illiterate Persons who have but that prudence which is requisite for managing their secular affairs are competent Judges of them, and are supposed to be so by the general proceed of all Societies and disinteressed Judges, They can neither be assured of the secular Government they live under, nor of several Tenors of their Lands and Charters, nor of their unrepealed Laws without recourse to Originals of as difficult enquiry as these are which will suffice for the question of SCHISM, upon the Principles here promoted.  
§ XLIX AND this same experience in their worldly affairs will enable them to judge of the unexcusableness of the sin of SCHISM, as well as of the Persons who are guilty of it. It is undoubtedly a great mischief, even to such capacities, to be deprived of all title to those advantages which we enjoy by virtue of the Evangelical Contract. And to such as these who are led generally by sense, and are therefore very inclinable to disbelieve the being of that which does not appear to them, it must be a prevailing Argument to distrust their interest in the Covenant when they see themselves deprived of the external Solemnities by which this interest in the Covenant itself is ordinarily gotten and maintained. The equity of the Covenant is too subtle a thing for these to judge or to be confident of, when they find themselves uncapable of a Legal claim. And yet if they were to judge of the obligation of the Divine equity by those rules which they should think equal for themselves, if they were obliged as God is, they could not think God obliged, even in equity, in the matter we are speaking of. If themselves had made a Covenant upon condition of the performance of the solemnities of it by the Persons, with whom they had been pleased thus to Covenant, they will not think themselves obliged to give the gift upon non-performance of the condition, though the performance had in the event proved impossible. And of such a nature the Covenant of God with mankind appears to be upon our Principles. His promises are mere gifts, and therefore upon non-performance he must be supposed to return to the same freedom, whether he will give them again, wherein he was before the Covenant was made. Nay, though the condition to be performed had been a valuable consideration, and so had been a ground of equity upon non-performance of the Solemnities; yet if they had never Covenanted without the Solemnities, and had expressly declared these Solemnities to be the only instruments by which they would oblige themselves, they would not think themselves obliged, so much as in equity, to performance on their own part, unless the Person concerned had used all possible diligence for performance on his proportionable to the benefits expected. Which must let them see their own obligation to yield all things short of sin rather than fail of these Solemnities, because the benefits here expected are sufficient to countervail such concessions, if they would hope for any equity in this case. Not now to mention the presumption of sealing Covenants to themselves when they cannot procure the seals from them who are authorized by God to seal them, which is not only a Nullity to God considered as a Covenanter, but a provocation highly punishable by him as a Governor, and which themselves would think so, if they were in his Case. So far are Persons who are thus far guilty from a claim to equity, even by those general rules of equity by which these illiterate Persons are guided in their worldly deal. But if these illiterate Persons should be yet too solicitous for Authorities (though that be a thing which their Teachers are not too forward to recommend to them where they are not evidently swayed by interest to do so,) yet,  
§ L 3. THE main Principles of my Discourse are such as are already granted by our Adversaries themselves. That the Gospel is transacted in way of a Covenant, and that the Sacraments are the seals of that Covenant, though, as to the substance of the things, they may have been granted by several ancienter than the separation of our Brethren, yet none were then so zealous for these Notions, nor so accurate in the properties of speech resulting from them. I am sure it was not so ordinary either in the primitive Church, or in the Western Churches, for many Centuries before the Reformation, to write so many professed Volumes on this Subject of the Covenants, or to call the Sacraments seals in ordinary discourse concerning them, as it is now among the generality of our separating Brethren of whatsoever denominations. I think there are very few, if any, among them who are at all for Sacraments, but they have entertained these Notions concerning them. And these are the fundamental Principles of the precedent discourse, though I have also provided less doubtful Principles for those who might doubt of them. What is asserted further is only in consequence to these Principles, and therefore must be admitted by them who grant the Principles from whence these consequences are deduced. And yet, even of these consequences themselves, some of the chief and of greatest importance to my design, are also generally granted by those parties whom ignorant Persons have reason to regard as equal and competent guides in affairs of this nature, that is, by such of them as are not led by professed Principles of Enthusiasm, but by sober and prudent considerations of the nature of a Church, and the necessity and nature of that Government which themselves find necessary by their own experience when they come to practise it, that is, indeed, when they find themselves obliged, by their own interests, to consider it soberly and impartially. And it is only in such a case as that is that it can be prudent for ignorant Persons to trust them, when they are considering positively, what is true, rather than when they are thinking only how they may avoid an Adversary.  
§ LI FROM these Notions of Gods proceeding with us in way of a Covenant, and the Sacraments being the seals of that Covenant, I infer the necessity of a lawful Mission for a valid administration of the Sacraments. This is also admitted by the generality of those parties now mentioned. Even they who say that gifted Brethren may preach, yet do not so ordinarily allow that such Persons may administer the Sacraments, till their gifts be at least solemnly approved by such as have, at least, that power of solemnly approving them. And they who derive their Authority from the people, yet either do so upon that general popular mistake, whereby they take the power of preaching the word for more essential to the Ministry, and for an exercise of the supreme Authority wherewith they are invested (which supreme act of Authority infers and includes the inferior exercises and branches of it) than that of administering the Sacraments: Or, if they derive even their Jurisdiction from their power in admitting to, or excluding from the Sacraments; yet the reason is, because they then consider them as Ceremonies of admitting to, or excluding from their Society, rather than as seals of the Covenant. And then the reason why they derive the power of administering them from the Multitude is from that general power which every individual of the multitude has to choose his own company, which he may give away if he pleases: Or, if, yet further, they consider them even as seals, yet they rather consider them as seals on their own part, what conditions they are pleased to submit to, and the Minister as the common Procurator Authorized by every particular Person to promise and seal the Covenant in his name, than as seals on God's part conveying a legal right to promises on the performance of conditions. And it is undoubtedly the right of every particular Person, to enter into what Covenants he pleases, and to delegate whom he pleases to act for him in sealing them. But i● they had considered them as seals on God's part, there could have been no pretence of a power in the people to assign delegates for him, on any Principles that I know of, that are maintained among them. Very few of them, if any, do so much as pretend that the Multitude has a right to administer the Sacraments in their own persons. Nor can they have colour, on the Principles here proposed, to lay claim to any such right. The Spiritual benefits here conferred, as pardon of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and supernatural rewards on the performance of duty, are plainly not originally at their disposal. Nor can they pretend to any general conveyance of this power from any who had any right to dispose of them, neither from God himself, nor from the Apostles, nor any of their Successors empowered by them.  
§ LII NOR indeed is it so regular, according to the nature of Covenants in general, that one party should be allowed the liberty of allotting delegates for the other. Though the same Persons may be chosen to mediate and transact the Covenant between both parties, yet it is proper that this common power be conferred on them by the distinct suffrages of the parties themselves, who must first act for themselves before any third Person can be empowered to act for them. This is certainly just and equal where Covenants are transacted on equal terms between equal parties. But where they are mediated between Superiors and Subjects; where the obligation lies wholly on one side, and it is to be accounted a great favour that the other is to be admitted to it, as it is plainly in the case for which I am at present concerned; though it be very just and reasonable that the obliging party may impose whom he pleases on the other to be their common representative, and oblige the other, to accept the Person so imposed, both by the interest which he is already supposed to have in them, and the interest which the other party may expect by being admitted into such a Covenant; yet it is in no regard reasonable that the obliged party should expect this liberty in dealing with their Superiors. Supposing therefore this true state of this whole dispute, I think I may have reason to hope that I shall not meet with very stiff opposition from my considering Adversaries, even in this second fundamental Principle of my discourse, concerning the confinement of a valid administration of these seals to ordained Persons. And if they do, in earnest, lay so great stress on these Principles as they seem to do by the zeal they express in defending them; I shall then further hope that they will stand by their consequences, and rather return to Ecclesiastical Unity, when they shall find themselves obliged to do so by just consequences from these beloved Principles, than quit the Principles, when they shall understand how naturally such consequences follow from them. Which would argue a greater aversation in them to peace than the kindness which they have entertained for those Principles.  
§ LIII NOW though it be certain, that every pious person is obliged to submit his very principles themselves to an impartial examination, as well as the inferences deduced from them; and especially then to do so when he sees Persons of known integrity, and withal more judicious than himself, not only to doubt of them, but also to believe them erroneous (because he has reason to distrust their being self-evident, when he sees Persons so perspicacious dissatisfied concerning them, and nothing but self-evidence, at least, so far as the matter will bear, and that self-evidence, at least, examined fairly by his own faculties, can be a prudent reason for any to take up any proposition as a self-evident Principle) yet it is certainly the easiest and the most taking way to argue consequentially from Principles already admitted by the Persons to be persuaded. It is the easiest, because it cuts off as many disputes as there are Principles granted, none of which could otherwise have been unsettled without a very exact and particular confutation, and a particular answer to all those prejudices, as well as appearances of reason, which have induced such Persons to take up such Principles. It is also the most taking way: For the greater part of the vulgar are not sensible of this their obligation, but as they take up their Principles precariously, so they stick to them as unaccountable measures of all consequential reasonings.  
§ LIV AND even among them who know better, yet the custom of believing them, and many consequences following from them; and the great disappointment which must follow if they prove questionable; and the multitude of errors that must follow from one error of this nature, which very few have the ingenuity to own, though they were convicted of them; and the multitude of other Principles which have been hitherto believed on as little reason as these, and will therefore prove as justly questionable; and the consequent obligation which will follow hereupon, of examining all things over again to their first Principles before they can trust any thing; and the anxiety and unsettledness which they must hereupon be exposed to, till they can get through the ambages of this new enquiry, and find new and secure Principles which they will be apt to despair of ever finding, if their present Principles should fail them; not to mention the many interests of their affairs and combinations which are undiscernibly riveted into the belief of customary Principles: These things, I say, and many more, make such a change as this is, extremely difficult in Multitudes. I do not say that these reasons are solid and justifiable, for refusing to admit of a trial of received Principles: But they are certainly popular, and such as usually take with Humane nature in its usual frailties, and not only with the unskilful vulgar, but even with the generality of the wisest. I think he must be very much unacquainted with mankind who does not discern how rare it is, even for such, to change from the Principles of their education. And therefore such reasonings as offer the least violence to such Principles may consequently expect to meet with the least difficult reception.  
§ LV I MIGHT add further that an accommodation of our differences with the consent of the several parties, is most likely to be hoped from such discourses as proceed on Principles already granted. And certainly this way of accommodation with consent is not only the most desirable, but the most practicable, expedient for retrieving Catholic peace. But where this accommodation cannot be made, in the conditions of peace, without a yielding on one side, (which is certainly the case in our Ecclesiastical differences, for no wise man can think all the disputes which now divide considerable Communions, to be either only verbal, or of little consequence, but some must needs be granted to be both real and momentous, and wherein one side must necessarily yield before they can be capable of entering into a secure and solid peace) a yielding in consequential errors may be much more easily expected from the several parties concerned, than in such which immediately reach their avowed Principles: For errors of this kind are most general. Even they who maintain true Principles may be mistaken in their consequences, so that, on an impartial examination, there may, on every side, be found just reason for yielding something of this nature. And every party will be more willing to yield something for themselves when they find others willing to yield something to them. Men will be less averse to the ingenuity of acknowledging themselves mistaken, when they shall find that they themselves are not the only Persons who have been mistaken, and that even their Adversaries to whom they yield can have no reason to triumph over them for it, as not being themselves so innocent as to deserve the confidence of throwing the first stone at them. The retreat is honourable whilst they may appear to have been always right in their main Principles, and that their mistakes have been only such as are liable to humane nature. And as the world is now, it is hardly to be expected that any one sect will universally yield, but where their retreat may, at least, not prove dishonourable. Besides, the evidence to be expected in Principles, is so great, as that it will not leave that pretence for ingenuity for Persons mistaken concerning them as in Consequences, which may frequently prove uncertain and obscure, how clear or certain soever the Principles are from which they are deduced. And men may appear more pardonable for not having pursued every Principle home to its remotest consequences, than if they have taken up their first Principles themselves precariously. They cannot be presumed to have used any diligence at all who appear unacquainted with the first beginnings of their work, and especially in things so evident of their own nature, and wherein so little diligence might therefore be sufficient for their satisfaction. And these many conveniences of such an Hypothesis do make it likely to have been designed by God, and therefore to be true, being so fit for the use designed by him, according to the Principles already mentioned.   
FINIS.  

A Catalogue of some Books sold by Benjamin took at the Ship in St. Paul● Church-yard.  

SKinneri Etymologicon Linguae Anglicanae, fol.  
Archbishop Bramhall's Works, fol.  
Bishop Sanderson's Sermons, fol.  
Mr. Farindon's Sermons, 3 Vol. fol.  
Thorndicius de Ratione ac Jure finiendi Controversias Ecclesiae, fol.  
The true Intellectual System of the Universe, wherein all the reason and Philosophy of Atheism is confuted, by R. Cudworth. D. D.  
Bishop Tailor's Life of the Holy Jesus, with Doctor Cave's Lives of the Apostles, fol.  
F. Walsh's History of the Irish Remonstrance, fol.  
The Collection of all the Statutes now in use in Ireland, fol.  
Caussin's Holy Court, fol.  
Bishop Tailor's Sermons, fol.  
Doctor Brown's Travels with Cutts, in quarto.  
Batei Elenchus motuum in Anglia, octavo.  
Langhorne Elenchus Antiquitatum Albionensium, octavo.  
— Chronica Regum Anglorum insignia omnia eorum gesta ab Hengisto rege primo usque ad finem Heptarchiae cum catalogo  
Regio & Schemate Genealogico, octavo.  
Dodwell's two Letters of Advice, 1. for taking Holy Orders. 2. for studies Theological, with a Catalogue of the ancient Fathers. 8.  
— Some considerations of present concernment how far the Romanists may be trusted by Princes of another persuasion, 8.  
— Two short discourses against the Romanists, 12.  
Stern de obstinatione, praefixa sunt Prolegomena Apologetica de usu Dogmatum Stoicorum in Theologia. H. Dodwell, 8.  
Poems and Songs by Tho. Flatman.  
Poems by N. Tate.  
Herbert's Life and Character of a Country Parson, 12.  
The French Gardener, 8.  
Aero-Chalinos: Or, a Register for the Air, by N. Henshaw M. D. Fellow of the Royal Society, 12.