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 § II 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 unauthorized 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 whilest 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 whilest 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 Judgments concerning the design of God in instituting the Sacraments to neglect them This proved by several degreâ—â— 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 judg 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 Politick and the obliging Subjects in it to a dependence on their Governours 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 publick § 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 joyn 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
Solemnities is the only Ordinary Means whereby we may be particularly assured of our Interest in the Covenant But that I may more distinctly shew 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 applyed 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 whilest 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 heartily wish well to all good Men of what Party soever and that at least they Pray for Vs where they cannot Pray with Vs For these if they could in any propriety of Speech be stiled Acts of Communion which no good Christian can deny even to real Schismaticks 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 administred 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◠And therefore by this Visible Church I mean that Visible Society which is maintained by an acknowledgment 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 Vs otherwise than by our participation of these external Ordinances whereby we profess our Selves Members of such a Visible Society which is maintained by those Ordinances of which none can be partakers without consent of the Visible Ecclesiastical Governours which must therefore oblige all to a Subjection to those Governours This will be clear in discoursing concerning these particulars 1. That the only Ordinary Means whereby we may assure our Selves 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 our Selves 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 our Selves 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 our Selves 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 entring into Obligations to one another That it was Gods design that his Creatures should understand him as thus obliged is very easie to be understood from his using expressions plainly significative of a Legal conveyance with all its Circumstances according to the Customes 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 c. are plain terms of Law and allusions to the Customes 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 signifie 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
to believe that it was his design that we should judg of his proceedings 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 Counterfeits 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 Preachings of Pardon and Salvation upon the Conditions of Faith and Repentance which the Ministers are Obliged to declare in Gods 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 Gods 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 futher Presumption in our Case that though it had been graunted 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 shewing 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 practiced in the Church's Communion as when they are practiced out of it But the very Possibility of the saylour of their Title as considered separately is enough to show how much more secure it is to practice 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 shew 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 depâ—nd 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 § II.III. That all things here contrived are exactly fitted for a Visible Church and no other § IV.V. § 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 Judg 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 intire Notion of its being a Body Politick 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 clave â—rrante nay and all they who live where Communion cannot be had so that with them no Communion is mainteined even in the participation of the External Symbols themselves § II AND indeed how is it possible to maintein any Visible Communion with them who are not themselves visible Gods 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 Brethrens own Principles §
III BUT however it is certain that no Man can be assured of anothers Election And seeing the Persons themselves are thus incapable of being distinguished from others Seeing at least there are no visible distinctives of any Society of them how is it possible to maintein any visible Communion with them by visible Solemnities The Elect may indeed be capable of mainteining 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 maintein 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 maintein 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 Vs 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 Gods Obligation as it may be valid in Law and as it may be capable of appearing to Vs And therefore his Covenant is Transacted with Vs 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 Tryal depends are visible the Covenant it self 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 Tryal of the validity of these Solemnities into the Authority of the Persons administring them which will more directly prove that the visible Church here supposed must also be a Body Politick 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 § 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 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 whilest 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 Practice what they have thus received and believed § XXII XXIII.XXIV 7. This first Grace of Perswasion 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 whilest 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 thâ—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 § II 1. THEN 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 administred 3. That no other Ministers have this lawful Authority but only they of the Episcopal Communion § III 1. The Ordinary Means of Grace
And if either side prove guilty these men take the infallible way to make themselves accessary to the guilt whilest 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 acknowledg to have been once their lawful Ecclesiastical Governours when the Schisms first began nay for joyning in opposite Communions with the professed Adversaries of such Governours 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 it self 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 falshood 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 Schismaticks 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 it self 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 terrifie 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 Vnion with Christ and all the Mystical benefits consequent to that Vnion 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 Christs Mystical Body in a visible Communion Till then 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 publick 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 qualifie 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 Catholick Vnity Why should they censure us as uncharitable who force our selves 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 shew 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 heartily 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
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 Governours 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 our selves 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 our selves of our interest in this Covenant with him is by our partaking in these external Solemnities by which this Covenant is transacted and mainteined 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 whilest 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 indâ—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 Lords Supper Ch. XVI XVII II. That the validity of the Sacraments depends on the Authority of the persons by whom they are administred Ch. XVIII III. No other Ministers have the Authority of administring the Sacraments but only they who receive their Orders in the Episcopal Communion This proved by four Degrees 1. That the Authority of administring 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 joyn himself as he would enjoy the ordinary means of his own particular salvation is the Episcopal Communion of the place wherein he lives whilest 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 sence 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 it self 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 Non-Conforming Brethren How far the unpeaceableness of a Position of this kind may be urged as an Argument of its falshood 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 peace-maker § 30 31 32. How much the peace of the Church is concerned in this Controversie concerning SCHISM How differently the Notion of SCHISM must be stated by them who make the Church a Body Politick and by them who make it not so Our Adversaries Notions of SCHISM and of the duty of a peace-maker exactly fitted to the supposition of the Churches being no Body Politick and indeed very rational on that supposition What is to be thought of the Independent â—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 Politick § 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
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. anothers 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 it self or where humane frailty might fail of that for making the Errour Innocent and Excusable § 3 4 5 6 7. What influence this design of Peace would have particularly in those Controversies which are debated between Vs and our Non-Conforming Brethren How far the Unpeaceableness of a Position of this kind may be urged as an Argument of its Falshood 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 Peace-maker § 30 31 32. How much the Peace of the Church is concerned in this Controversie concerning SCHISM How differently the Notion of SCHISM must be stated by them who make the Church a Body Politick and by them who make it not so Our Adversaries Notions of SCHISM and of the Duty of a Peace-maker Exactly fitted to the Supposition of the Church's being no Body Politick 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 Politick § 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 intrinsick 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 Inhumane 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 Practicers 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 easie 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 Judgment 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 Judgment 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
a due respect to Governours 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 shewn that the great Ends of publick 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 it self what imaginable reason is there why we should be refractory § XXIV BESIDES the mistake if any were belong's not to our Province and consequently cannot be imputable to Vs 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 it self 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 it self 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 Churches Peace by a complyance 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 well-meaning Brethren whom they think mistaken And can they think the same condescention Sinful and Imprudent only when it connives at the equally-pardonable mistakes of a Lawful Authority If these Presumptions be not sufficient for Governours 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 satisfie all Inquisitive well-meaning Persons I confess I do not see how they can avoid making the Duty of Governours intricate and unpracticable which certainly is to make it otherwise than God has made it And if Governours acting bona fide on these Presumptions must necessarily interfere with the Consciences of the generality of their well-meaning and Inquisitive Subjects as I think it follows unavoidably from our dissenting Brethrens Principles this methinks would be sufficient to discover the Falshood of them For certainly the Catholick Peace of the Church as a Body Politick is Fundamentally grounded on this reconcileableness of the Duty of well-meaning Conscientious Governours with the Duty of the generality of their well-meaning 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 Governours 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 Governours 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 Governours § 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 our Selves do not believe them so nor consequently have we here that ordinary occasion of such mistakes of ascribing our own Sentiments to them We our Selves 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 our Selves 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 Practiced § 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 Vnlawful 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 it self is conceived sufficient to make it Vnlawful 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 Judg so freely for himself
therefore they who deny their Correspondence without submission to Terms unnecessary and humoursome cannot in any reason exact a complyance 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 justifie 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 Peace-maker not to perswade 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 Judg more intollerable 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 aware that their Discourses of this kind are founded on this Hypothesis of the Churches being no Body Politick 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 Perswasion which coordinate private Persons may as well challenge as Governours and concerning the Justice of their defending their Christian Liberty as they call it even in things Indifferent and in opposition to Ecclesiastical Governours which plainly overthrows the Duty of Submission in Subjects which necessarily answers Authority in Governours and the great Disparities which they always pretend when they are urged with any Parallel Instances wherein themselves acknowledg any Coercive Authority betwixt such an Authority and that which they will acknowledg 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 Non-Conformity § XXXIX AND from this Irreconcilableness of their Practices in urging the same Authority to their own Subjects which they have denyed to their Governours it comes to pass that they are unable to give any Positive consistent Hypothesis agreeable with it self 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 shewed 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 Communalty to whom they conceive the Officers themselves accountable § XL BUT besides that this Hypothesis is very Precarious and because that though the Communalty 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 Communalties 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 retrive 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 Vsurpations yet if this were granted to be the Peoples Right there are further very Just Exceptions against their Dissenting Brethrens Proceedings 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 Communalty 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 aware of to Justify their first Separation from any Regular Proceedings of the Communalties 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 perswade so many of the Communalty to joyn with him as may make a distinct Church that is according to them Seaven 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 Seaven and allow every Seditious Person who can Proselite 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 Vnity of the Church be supposed to be that of a Body Politick the true Notion of SCHISM must be this that it dissolves the Church's Vnity in such a sense as this And because this Vnity 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 withdrawes Subjects from the proper Legal Coercions 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 Politick and therefore that Separation which interrupts this Subordination and erects an Independent Government must consequently dissolve this Political Vnity 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 Politick 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 Vnity 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 avaylable 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 Vncertainty 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 Enquire 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 Politick it will follow that resistance to Ecclesiastical Governors must be actually comdemned 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 Politick 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 Politick 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 Governours 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 Politick 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 Gods 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 Priviledges 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 it self 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 Churches 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 Judgments may be taken as all the Coerciveness of such Censures as these are which are not Externally Coercive must be derived from the Judgments 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 Skillful 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 Governours 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
the Judgment 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 Judgments 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 it self 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 it self 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 avoydable 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 denyed 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 obteining 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 Saviours 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 Sinfullness 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 Politick 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 Reformed 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 hindred from the Peace of the Church or from her Communion by any Impositions not Sinful can be supposed thoroughly reformed 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 shew 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. II.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 extream 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 rendred more difficult since the establishment of Ordinaries § XXIV XXV.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 easie parts 1. That though our Salvation might be equally sure in it self 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 § II 1. THOVGH our Salvation might be equally sure in it self 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 misdemeanors 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 rigor with them so that even these Assistances
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 shew 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 shew 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 it self 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 Gods 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 it self § 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 § 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 Churches Communion rather than want it § II 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 Churches 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 judg of our Title and therefore that where we want them there we must at least want such Arguments as we can judg of Of these very briefly now because I have elsewhere discoursed something concerning them § III 1. THEN 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 Shipwrack 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 no 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 Mens Affections They will therefore not fear at all if all weighty and Probable Arguments perswade 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
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 it self 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 shew that this use of this Priviledg 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 publick Ordinances They plainly suppose that the most perfect as well as others stood in need of Church-Society They plainly formed the Church into a Body Politick 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 withall 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 joyning or continuing a Member in that Body They make the casting-out of the Churches 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 it self 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 indued 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 Aegyptian initiations were so extremely severe that they thought to have terrified Pythagoras himself from his curiosity to be acquainted with them and Appion Joseph cont Appion Nonn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nazianz. the Jews great Adversary died of his Circumcision which was only one of them Therefore the preparatory tryals of Mithras were so many and so rigorous that very many perished under them To this end were their frightful shapes their shewing their Images only with Torches not by day-light their tedious and solemn preparations only to advance the horrour of the Spectacle Therefore they were first expiated by all the Purgations proper in the respective Cases that so they might approach the Idol it self 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 Lords 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 inferiour Beings 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. Schol. in Homer Il. Theta in Tzetzes Lycophr Alex. Argonauts in the Samothraclan Apollon Rhod. Argon Castor and Pollux Plutarch Thes. Heroes the b Demetrius Policrates Plutarch Demetr Adrian Spartian Antoninus Capitolin Emperours 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 it self 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 shew 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
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 compleat Church who have no Power of admitting new Members At least 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 abstein 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 abstein 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 administred 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 perswaded 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 abstein from all Communion till they may recover that by lawful complyances which had been lost by having unlawful ones expected from them and in the mean time to observe punctually the Moral Duties which all acknowledg 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 perswaded even thus far two consequences would follow of very great importance for the preservation and maintenance of Catholick Peace The first is that even the absteining of Pious Persons from the lawful Communion would be very rare For nothing would oblige such to abstein 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 withall would take them off from all haughtiness and willfullness 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 heartily 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 sence 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 formed no Parties nor joyned with any which were already formed their differences must naturally extinguish with their Persons which would at least secure the Churches Communion intire 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 withall 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 it self 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 my self 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 publick Baptism of Infants and I think it might easily have been proved that the antienter Ages of the Primitive Church those of them at least which passed before the Pelagian Controversies were of the same mind And if we judg 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
present concerned to prove § II THIS therefore I shall endeavour to convince our Brethren of by two Topicks 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 tryal 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 tryal by which if they cannot justifie themselves they must immediately be supposed convicted of the falshood 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 intitled 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 Governours 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 Vnanimity 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 Governours 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 Governours when though the ordinary supreme visible Governours 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 Governours 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 Governours 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 Vsurpation and a perfect Nullity and therefore as they cannot think it antecedently obligatory so neither can they think themselves obliged in any equity to ratifie the acts of those whom they take for Enemies and Vsurpers Nay the very non-appearance of such a right is a very just reason to suspect them of falsly 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 Governours 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 Governours 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 Governours 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 Governours 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 knowledg of their Governours 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 Prophesie or of consulting God by lots not to speak now of the extraordinary manifestations of God
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 Vnion 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 ratifie what is done by himself in his name this being an act of Authority and of Authority visibly administred 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 satisfie her self 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 tryal does plainly resolve her judgment 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 tryal 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 tryed 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 it self 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 sence 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 tryal should be right or should be admitted by them because it is against the interests of all Government whatsoever and will justifie 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 it self secure if it were so easie to justifie 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
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 shew 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 Vnity of the Church be supposed such as may be culpably broken by them who hold the right side of the Controversie if the truth it self be not of that moment as to justifie 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 Vnity of particular Churches for which alone I am immediately concerned in this whole Discourse is that of Bodies Politick 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 owe 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 mainteining this Vnity of Bodies Politick 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 abstein from either erecting or abetting any opposite Societies I say if these things appear it will then follow that our Adversaries in mainteining opposite Assemblies to their lawful Ecclesiastical Governours on what pretence soever of mal-administration of the Government short of Heresie which can alone make Governours uncapable of the right of Government must become guilty of a culpable breach of the Churches Vnity 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 Governours and consequently that the Society for whose Vnity they are concerned is properly a Body Politick 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 then 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 administred that Subjects are induced or compelled to their duty and as it is impossible for Government to be administred 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 priviledges 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 priviledges 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 Governours 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 gratifie 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 gratifie 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 then all Members must think themselves obliged in Conscience to comply in order to the obteining 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
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 judgment of the Church who has ejected them than she is to stand to hers but is every way as competent a Judg 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 Catholick 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 Catholick Church to which alone the priviledges of the Church can be thought confined But for avoiding this whatever censures they lye under from particular Churches two excuses are obvious from our Adversaries Principles Either they make the Vnity of the Catholick Church such as that they may be conteined 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 Catholick yet they have been used to contein under the name of the Catholick 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 retein the Vnity of the Catholick Church whilest 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 Catholick but that excommunicated Members might not only as certainly be but also as certainly assure themselves that they are Members of the Catholick Church as they could before when they were Members of their own particular Church I should then acknowledg 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 intitled 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 priviledges different from the priviledges 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 ratifie 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 Vncanonical Communions they must consequently expect that God in doing so must disanul 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 Catholick 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 shew that the Vnity of particular Churches is in the ordinary constitution of things so inseparable from the Vnity of the Catholick Church as that whoever is cut off designedly from the Vnity 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 retein the Vnity of the Catholick Church Whence it will follow that as I have proved our Brethrens separation to divide them from the Vnity of their particular Churches of which they are Members respectively so it must consequently divide them from the Vnity of the Catholick 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 administred whether Monarchically or Aristocratically or Democratically All who maintein 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 easie terms as if he
respectively related And then as it is in the power of the Governours 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 Catholick Church to which they have no other title but that Membership This therefore I shall endeavour to prove from the Principles which I intend 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 ratifie the censures of particular Churches in order to the preservation of their Government then it must follow that the Person so deprived must lose his interest in the New-Covenant of the Gospel and all the priviledges 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 Catholick Church whose Vnion 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 Vnion to each other is grounded on their Vnion 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 Vnion 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 Vnion 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 Catholick Vnity if they think the Church from whence he is divided to be Catholick 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 Catholick he cannot continue his Vnity 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 Vnity of the Catholick Church as that was by which he was deprived only on supposition of the continuance of his invisible Vnity with the Catholick 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 Vnity which the Person so received is supposed to have invisibly even antecedently to such reception But if it be designed further not to testifie that Catholick Vnity 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 to Catholick Vnity 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 disanulling the Authority by which he was at first separated from the Church For if this later Church can restore such a Person to Catholick Vnity then it may also restore him to Vnity with that Church by which he was at first separated And if so then he may have a right to the Communion even of his own Church even whilest 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 disanul the one if he will ratifie the
by any one before he could be qualifyed for judging concerning them he must in the same prudence think it the safest course to relie on the judgment 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 well-meaning 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 truâ—â— sensible how much he must be a loser by living out of all 〈◊〉 so as to want those ordinary Assistances to which Communicants are intitled 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 intrinsick 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 c. 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 Laicks 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 Vnity and a due respect to Authority in it For the Church as a Body Politick 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 maintein 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 mainteining 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 vertue 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