by the Bishops and the Apostles who are then to sit on twelve Thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Israel were represented by the Ecclesiastical Presbyteries as Ignatius says they are and if the Angels who with their Voice and Trumpet were to gather the Elect from the Four Corners of the Earth plainly alluding to the Office of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who were to call and dismiss Sacred Assemblies with their Voices and Trumpets were represented by the Christian Deacons and withal so represented not as one Person is represented by another in a Theater who is not concerned in the Representation but as a Client is in Law represented by his Proxy who is thereupon thought obliged himself to ratifie whatever is done in his Person by such a Representative and if this Mystical Representation was by the appointment of God himself as the Legal Proxies were made by the Clients represented by them and the Mystical Representation was designed not for an entertainment of fancy but purposely to constitute a Legal Person and with a design of concerning himself consequentially in all the slights which may be put upon the Ecclesiastical Judicatories as the nature of these Mystical Representations were every where understood as Obligations to the Gods themselves to ratifie what was done in their name and persons by such appointed Representatives and as Christ himself has expresly promised to resent and punish affronts offered to such Representatives and to look on them as interpretatively designed against himself These things being thus understood there was no part of the future Judicatory which was not represented in the Ecclesiastical and being so they might be sure that the future Judicatory was obliged by the Act of the Church as we are sure every person is obliged by what his Proxy acts in his name in open Court He might well call it Futuri Judicii Praejudicium when upon these Supposals the same Judicatory who are to judge all things at the last day must be supposed already to have judged such Cases which were decided in the Ecclesiastical Judicatories God grant our Brethren may lay this seriously to heart Sect. 11 THESE things therefore being thus solidly laid down by the first Fathers in their Disputes against their contemporary Hereticks and SCHISMATICKS all the Inferences thence deduced against them will follow naturally and undenyably and withal so evidently as that the Inferences could not be disowned by any who owned the Premises and therefore must have been as much the sense of the whole Church of their Age as the Premises It will follow that Disunion from the Bishop was a Disunion from Christ and the Father and from all the Invisible Heavenly Priesthood and Sacrifice and Intercession It will follow that Disunion from any one Ordinary must consequently be a Disunion from the whole Catholick Church seeing it is impossible for any to continue a Member of Christ's Mystical Body who is disunited from the Mystical Head of it It will follow that Visible Disunion from the external Sacraments of the Bishop is in the Consequence a Disunion from the Bishop and from the whole Catholick Church in Communion with him who ought to ratifie each others Censures under pain of SCHISM if they do not For this visible Communion in Sacraments is proceeding on these Principles the only Means and Title to that Communion which was invisible and whoever received him to external Communion who had been thus validly disunited from the invisible Communion by the act of any one in whose Power it was validly to do it must thereby in effect disunite themselves from that invisible Communion by professing themselves one with him who had been validly disunited from it At least this Act would be interpretatively a Profession of Disunion which is also in consequence a Disunion seeing none can have this Union but by professing it Thus it appears how consequently they reasoned in proving such Persons disunited in all regards both of Visible and Invisible Communion Sect. 12 THIS therefore being also granted it thence appears further how consequentially they reasoned in proving them deprived also of the Benefits of this Union For it was impossible that they should have the Benefits of Union who wanted the Union it self from which those Benefits were to result They deny them to have any pardon of their Sins And how could they have it who had no portion in the Heavenly Sacrifice which Christ as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was supposed to offer in Heaven by which their Sins were to be attoned or in his Intercession by which his Father's Displeasure was to be appeased and which was grounded on that Sacrifice And this they must want who were cut off from the Mystical Representation and Transaction of that Sacrifice in the Eucharist They denyed them a Portion in their own Prayers And how could they do otherwise when they thought them to have no Interest in the Prayers and Intercession of Christ himself They could not expect to be heard but in such Prayers as were agreeable to his will For indeed the whole hope of having their own Prayers heard was in this way of Reasoning grounded on this that their own Prayers in Earth were Mystical Representations of what the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was supposed at the same time to be Praying for in Heaven And therefore such Prayers as were disagreeable to his mind could lay no claim to the Divine Acceptance because they could not truly pretend to be such Representations For indeed how could the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be supposed to be offering Covenant-Sacrifices for them who were no Members of that Covenant which was maintained by those Sacrifices I mean for the obtaining those special favors which were promised on God's part on his part of the Covenant Such are pardon of Sins the Holy Ghost Eternal Life c. which peculiarly related to the Spiritual Kingdom or the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As for other more general temporal Benefits which were not confined to the Covenant the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was supposed to pray for them for the whole World as being indeed himself the King and Governor of it in that general sense And accordingly the High Priest himself is said to represent the whole World in Philo by the Mystical Signification of his Vestments And so the Temple relating to the Sacrifices offered by the High Priest represented also the Great Temple of the World as not he only but Josephus also collects from the Hellenistical Interpretations of its Coverings And thus the Christian Eucharistical Sacrifices were also offered for all Mankind as appears not only from the several remaining Forms of the ancient Liturgies but also in the yet more ancient Offices which were used in the time of Tertullian And yet even as to this inferior sort of Prayers they have undoubtedly a worse Right who by their Misdemeanors are judged by their Superiors to have forfeited their Right in the other sort than they
to which these Copies are to correspond and without knowing that it is impossible to know when it does indeed correspond and when it ceases to do so especially for any Creature to do so without Actual Revelation which is not here pretended without the Scriptures If they consider it as the Great Seal of Heaven so tho it be communicable to such Subjects whose Office it is to use it yet either totally to lay it by or to frame a New Broad Seal without express Authority from the Prince whose Seal it is is counted Treason even in those very Subjects who are otherwise entrusted with the Power of administring it But considering it further as a Bond of Union so there can be less pretence to this Power of antiquating it in any Office that is purely Ecclesiastical For this Union of the Multitude of Believers as grounded on the external Administration of these Symbols as confined to a certain Order of Men is in Truth the Foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority in those Persons who are entrusted with the Power of administring them Because it is by this means put in their Power to admit to or exclude from this Society therefore it also consequently follows that it must be also in their Power to impose what Terms they please of such Admission And therefore there being no human Authority imaginable but what is thus built on it the Authority thus consequent to it cannot extend to what is antecedent to it self cannot subvert its own Foundations IT remains therefore that they prove Sect. 7 them antiquated from the design of the New Testament it self But yet neither will they I believe pretend to this when they thoroughly consider it For will they can they think that there is any future Dispensation to be expected to succeed the Gospel and to which the Gospel must give way or that any such Dispensation is in the least foretold by the Gospel it self as the Primitive Christians proved that the Gospel was predicted by the Law it self as that by which it should in course be antiquated and abolished Can they shew that the Institutions of the Gospel are Shadows and Resemblances of the Institutions of any such future Dispensation that so they may in reason be obliged to yield to the Substance represented by them when that shall appear as the Christians proved this true concerning the Legal Ceremonies from the Letter of the Law it self Can they prove in particular that there is or ever shall be any nearer Draught of that Archetypal Visible Sacrifice of our Saviour upon the Cross than this of the Eucharist as the Primitive Christians did prove that their Eucharist was a nearer draught of that same Sacrifice on the Cross than the Sacrifices of the Mosaick Law When they can prove any of these things they will indeed say something But if they can prove none of them how can they pretend to prove the antiquating of this Sacrament How much less can they pretend to do it by any Parity of Reasoning with those of the Primitive Christians Thus it appears how little reason we have even at present to depend on any Courtesie of our Adversaries in this particular IF therefore the Blessed Sacrament Sect. 8 be of a perpetual use and perpetually useful for the same designs as formerly it will then follow that it must be a Symbol of Unity And then it must still be understood not only as a Ceremony of Admission into the Society of the Church but as a Title to the Privileges of the Society into which men are so admitted By partaking of this visible Sacrifice they must be intitled to an Interest in the Invisible Sacrifice of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Heaven and by consequence to all the Benefits obtained and all the Evils expiated in that Sacrifice And on the contrary Exclusion from it must be a Forfeiture of all the Benefits so obtained and an exposing of the Person defenceless to all those Evils of which that Heavenly Sacrifice is an Expiation And if it still must have the same efficacy it ever has had in its Mystical Capacity it must not only unite or disunite to the Sacrifice but to all the Company which have here a Right of Communicating and not only to the Visible Company but to those Invisible Societies in Heaven represented by those in Earth By this Reasoning the partaking of this visible Sacrifice will unite us to all that do or may partake with us in it here on Earth that is to the whole Visible Church by an Act of External Communion because all who are by the Governors of any Communion taken to belong to the Catholick Church in what part soever of the World are for that reason granted to have a Right to their own Communion if they had been present and desired it And by the same Mystical Reasoning it must also unite us to the Invisible Society of Saints and Angels in Heaven not only as these are also confessed to make up that Mystical Body of which Christ is the Head who is the Head of Angels and Principalities and Powers and of every Creature but also as they make up the Invisible Church communicating in the Invisible Archetypal Sacrifice in Heaven For as in this Mystical way of Interpretation our communicating at the Visible Altar which represents the Invisible Altar is accounted a Communion with the Invisible Altar so represented by it so by the same Rule of Interpretation our Communicating with the Visible Assistants at this Visible Altar must be accounted a communicating with those Invisible Communicants in Heaven who are also represented by our Visible Communicants on Earth Besides the same thing will also follow from the other Supposition that our communicating with the Visible Altar is accounted as a communicating with that which is Invisible For if by this means we and they are accounted as Communicants at the same Invisible Altar we must on that account be the same way made One with them in Heaven as all who communicate at the same Visible Altar are made One on Earth BUT S. John makes communicating Sect. 9 with the Church to be a communicating with the Father and the Son But this particular cannot be understood in this Mystical Way of understanding things so conveniently of any thing as of Communion with the Bishop I have shewn how in the Mysteries the Hierophanta was to personate the God who was concerned in those Mysteries and that it was on account of this Personation that he who communicated with the Hierophanta was accounted to communicate with the Deity represented by him I have shewn that the Bishop alone answered the Hierophanta as the Supreme of all those Officers that were concerned in the Mysteries nay that he answered him in this very particular of personating the Father and the Son as the Comparisons were then made by those earliest Christians If therefore Communion with the Archetype was to be maintained by Communion with the Ectypal Representative then
into a Body Politick is as conducive to the perpetuating an External Ecclesiastical Unity Now as Then and for Ever ib. 6. The Means of confining the Benefits of the Covenant to the Solemnities of it by Sacrifice as conducive to the same purpose of erecting a Body-Politick Now also and for Ever § 5. 7. The Federal Sacrifice to which these Benefits of the Covenant are now confined is that of the Eucharist Proved 1. Our Christian Sacrifice of the Eucharist is of a perpetual Use. § 6. 2. It is perpetually useful for the same purposes as in the Apostles Times § 7. 3. It is therefore perpetually useful in order to the partaking in the Invisible Heavenly Sacrifice § 8. 8. No communicating with the Father and the Son but by Communion with the Bishop § 9. The same Reasoning more closely managed and in some things improved SAcred Unity to which SCHISM is opposed is to be derived from ONE ALTAR and ONE Presiding PRIEST as Principles of Unity This proved true 1. From Hellenistical Principles as urged by the Jews against the Samaritans 1. This Sacred Unity was designed originally to the Supreme Being as a Deity appropriated to the Segullah or peculiar People 2. This Sacred Unity to the Supreme Being was to be transacted by a Covenant to be made with him by Sacrifice 3. That Sacrifice which by the Principles of those Ages could unite with One God was to be received from ONE and the same ALTAR 4. The Affairs of that ONE ALTAR were according to the Customs of those Times generally managed by ONE Supreme Presiding PRIEST 5. This Unity as Mystical was transacted by the Sacraments principally as Mysteries 1. The Unity here designed is not barely an Rxternal One of this Life but as conducing to an Invisible Unity of the other Life as transacted and procured by this Visible One. 2. This Invisible Union which is here called Mystical was properly to be expected only from Mysteries as that for which Mysteries were principally designed 3. The way of transacting this Invisible Union in Mysteries was understood to be by Representing the Invisible Union by Visible Symbols and so obliging God by virtue of those Symbols as Legal Ones to ratifie invisibly what was transacted in their Visible Mysteries 4. This Mystical Union did most essentially consist in a Union to one common Head as a common Principle to all particulars so united of their Mystical Unity 5. The way of uniting to this Archetypal Head or Principle of Unity as transacted in Mysteries was by first uniting persons to an Image or Representative of the Archetypal Head which was to be a common Head to all subordinate Representatives as its Archetype was also a Head to it self and all united with it 6. In this Multitude of subordinate Representatives whoever was legally united to the last was in the same way of Interpretation of Law understood to be united to the first Archetypal Head of all 7. The first Archetypal Head or Principle of all this Mystical Unity was thought to be the Supreme Being the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Platonists called him the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Father as the Hellenists as well as the Primitive Christians called him in opposition to the Son 8. They who were united to the High Priest by the Principles of these Hellenists by being so united to the High Priest were united also to the Father 1. They who were united to the High Priest were also on that same account of this Mystical Reasoning united also to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of whom the High Priest was a designed Representative 2. They who were united to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were on the same Principles united to the Father who was taken for the Head of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of whom the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was supposed to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the express and lively Representative 9. They who communicated in the Sacrifices offered by the High Priest They and they alone were in this Legal way of Judging supposed united to the High Priest 10. They who communicated in Sacrifices offered by any of the Inferior Priests owning a dependence on the High Priest were for so doing judged to communicate in Sacrifices offered by the High Priest himself 11. They who did not communicate at the One great Altar where the High Priest was obliged to officiate in person and where every clean Male was obliged to attend in person at the three great Anniversary Festivals were on that account judged not to communicate in Sacrifices offered by the High Priest 12. They who communicated with other Altars owning no dependence on that one great Altar in reference to their Anniversary Solemnities were for so doing judged not to communicate in Sacrifices offered by the High Priest and they who communicated with Altars owning such a dependence as for Example with that of Heliopolis were therefore judged to communicate with the One great Altar on which they owned a dependence and accordingly accounted of as if they communicated in the Sacrifices offered by the High Priest himself in person 13. They who communicated in these Sacrifices and this ONE ALTAR were in some way of Legal Interpretation judged to communicate in the Archetypal Sacrifices and the Archetypal ALTAR relating to the Archetypal High Priest who was represented by the Visible One 14. They who thus communicated in the Archetypal Sacrifices and Altar were judged to be thereby united to the Archetypal High Priest as by communicating in the Visible Sacrifices and Altar they were united to him that was Visible I mean both to the immediate Archetypal the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to the Original the Father also 15. They who were thus united to the Archetypal High Priest became thereby intitled to all the Mystical Benefits of that Union 1. As united to his person so they were intitled to all those spiritual influences derived from Him as the Head to all his Mystical Body answering the derivation of vital Influences from the Head to each particular Member in the natural Body That is to the Spirit as a Principle of Spiritual or Mystical Life answering the Animal Spirits in the Natural Body both as it must assist them in the performance of their Duty and as it withal infuses Supernatural Comforts when they have done it 2. As united to his Sacrifice so they come to be in Covenant with him and to be intitled to all those Promises on God's part of the Covenant which by the Hellenists were thought Mystical as this New Covenant it self was so Such were 1. Remission of Sins which by the Apostles Reasoning on those Principles seems proper only to this Mystical Sacrifice 2. Heaven answering the Literal Canaan c. 3. The deliverance of their Souls from the Slavery of their Bodies and the Power of the Devil the Mystical Pharaoh and Aegypt 4. Especially with relation to their future State
must befal them who either were not in Communion with the High Priest or had separated themselves from him or were excluded by just Censures As by their being divided from him they were cut off from this Communication with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so they must consequently be deprived of all the benefits of that Communication They must want the benefit of his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 his Intercession they must want the benefit of his Mystical Sacrifice of Expiation of their Sins and of procuring Spiritual Blessings They must also be supposed to be left destitute in the condition wherein they were before to be detained in those Vehicles which would hinder them from mounting above the Moon and would confine them within the reach of their Enemy and most implacable Tormentor These were Consequences very natural and clear from the Principles and Reasonings of those Ages as I have now explained them AND further 3. As the High Priest Sect. 12 represented the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as to other things so particularly in relation to the Benefits of the Mystical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that as by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they were invisibly united to the Father and communicated in the Benefits following that Union so it was by a visible Union to the High Priesthood that they were to be united to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and to expect the Benefits of that Union and Communion The full proof of this will appear in these particulars That the Union and Communion with the Father was to be procured by Union and Communion with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whose Office it properly was to procure and promote this Union That Union and Communion with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was to be procured by external Communion with the High Priest as one who particularly represented the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this Office of mystically signifying and causing this internal Unity These things are to be made out from the received Principles of those Ages which will both explain and prove the Solidity of the Reasonings which were grounded on them 1. Then Union and Communion with the Father was to be procured by Union and Communion with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Mystical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was indeed grounded on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Commerce and Communication of Mystical Benefits did necessarily suppose a Union with those from whom the Benefits were expected as the Communication in vital influences supposes a vital Union of Members in the natural Body Whence the Reasoning will follow both ways That they who are united will have a Title to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Living Members must needs partake of the influences of the Head and negatively That they who are by any means whatsoever cut off from Union must also be cut off from Communion with the Father as whatever Member is cut off from the Body natural cannot any longer lay any claim to the influences of the Head PLAINLY the notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 13 seems to be taken immediately from the Sacrifices For thus the Apostle reasons from Notions and Principles which must have been received among the Heathens because in truth the aggravation of the Sin he disputes against must have been derived from their sense and understanding of the Fact he speaks of especially considering that he does professedly deny any intrinsick evil in the Fact abstracting from the Opinions of others and the scandal taken from their interpretation of it Rom. XIV 14 According therefore to those received opinions they who did eat the Sacrifices of the Altar are said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Altar 1 Cor. X. 18 And they who did eat of the things offered to Devils were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Verse 20. From hence in the way of Mystical Interpretation the mystical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be a participation in the Mystical Sacrifice offered by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as High Priest to the Father For so the Father being the Deity to whom those Mystical Sacrifices were immediately designed and addressed the communicating in those Sacrifices must be interpreted to be a Communion with the Father as communicating in the external Sacrifices was communicating both with the Father and the Son because both of them were worshiped in those external Sacrifices From thence results a further notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 usual in the Philosophy of that Age as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is taken for a participation in a Society for an Interessedness in the Wellfare of it and a Right to the Privileges and the other Benefits consequential to it And thus I have shewn that the Popular Sacrifices were designed for the confederation of Nations and a consequent intitling to the Deity of those Nations and the Protection and Favor expected from him Answerably hereunto the Invisible Mystical Sacrifices were also supposed to confederate a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Heavenly Jerusalem under a Mystical Priesthood of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Government and Protection of the Supreme Being And as the Rights of a Nation did most appear in a Right in their Panegyres a Right of partaking in their Suffrages and their Sacrifices so there were also supposed the General Assemblies of the First born who were with God the Judge of all to judge the Earth in allusion to the like Judicatories of the Cities of that Age which were generally Democratical where every free born Citizen had a Vote in their General Assemblies as among the Romans they had in their Comitia Centuriata and Tributa and it was counted one of the Rights of Citizenship to admit them to it and a Diminutio Capitis an Infringement of the same Right of Citizenship to deprive them of it in the same sense as the Capite censi are they whose Estates would not reach to any of the Classes and who were therefore only polled as free Citizens and as the Fees payed on this account of admitting into the City are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. XXII 28 Thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used as a known Term of Mystical Privilege in the Egyptian Philosophy intitled to Hermes from whence the Hellenists borrowed most of their Notions and in a sense very agreeable to that of the Apostle where he speaks of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Father and the Son 1 Joh. I. 3 The Passage is remarkable and not that I know of taken notice of to this purpose and therefore worthy the more particular Observation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And afterwards 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 WHETHERSOEVER of these Sect. 14 ways this Term be understood this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will be proper to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and will be grounded on the Mystical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as antecedent to it
with those which were at that time actually challenged by them which was of being the Supreme Metropolis of Religion which is by no means consistent with that Superiority which is challenged by the Roman Church over other Churches The most ancient Metropolitane Rights pretended to by the Primitive Christians were not of any real Jurisdiction but only of Rank and Order Now this Absoluteness of particular Bishops so much insisted on by S. Cyprian as it is inconsistent with these pretences of the Bishop of Rome so it is withal very consequent to the Notion I am speaking of that the Bishop succeeded into the Office of the High Priesthood For as the High Priesthood was so supreme as to have no sacred Power on Earth above it so also must the Christian Episcopacy if it succeeded the High Priesthood in the plenitude of Power And as the Reason insisted on for the One Altar of the Jews was that one only God was worshiped by it and that One only Mystical Altar and Sacrifice of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was represented by it and so proportionably the Reason requiring the Unity of the High Priesthood must also be because the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 represented by him was only One these are reasons also concerning Christianity and explain the Unity of the Catholick Church now as well as then For neither do we now pretend to any more than One Mystical Sacrifice performed by Christ tho represented in our several Eucharists nor to any more than One Invisible Bishop Christ himself as represented by all our Bishops So that this is a way to understand how all the true Churches in the World do notwithstanding make no more than One Church as all the Altars are only One Altar and all the Bishops only One Bishop Even the Jews themselves did not so insist on the Personal Unity of the High Priest as upon the Uniformity of their Solemn Assemblies It was by accident that the President of their visible Assemblies was but One because their publick Assemblies were confined to one place Otherwise even in that one place there might be more High Priests than One if they acted uniformly and with consent that is so that the same publick Assemblies were owned by them and managed so that One single Person presided in each of them So did Zadoc and Abiathar so did the first and second High Priest 2 Kings XXV 18 So seem Annas and Caiaphas to have enjoyed that same Office at the same time And the Rabbins tell us that the High Priests had in course their Segen who was to officiate for him in case of pollution or any such unexpected Incapacity in him whose principal Duty it was And in the same way neither did the Primitive Christians scruple the having several Bishops in the same Cities So were Narcissus and Alexander at the same time Bishops of Jerusalem and S. Augustine and his Predecessor Valerius at the same times Bishops of Hippo and it was proffered by the Catholick Bishops to the Donatists as an Expedient for Catholick Unity that during life both the Catholick and Donatist Bishops should both enjoy the Honor and Stile of Bishops where there were two already made in the same Sees on condition that both parties might own the Surviver And of this kind indeed are all the uncensured Instances produced by a late Author who has collected all the Instances he could think of of many Bishops in One City This therefore being supposed it easily appears how the Christians multiplying their High Priests in several places was justifiable from SCHISM by the very Reasonings of the Jews against the Samaritans It had not been more repugnant to Unity for the Samaritans to have had a distinct High Priest from the Jews if the High Priests Office might lawfully have been performed among the Samaritans than it was for the Jews to have two at once at Jerusalem So that the whole charge of SCHISM on both sides was grounded on that supposition which was also granted on both sides that those Assemblies in which the High Priest was to preside could not be lawful in any more than one place And therefore this was also the only scruple those first Judaizing Christians could have against the Christians multiplying their High Priests in several Cities When it once appeared that this Worship of God in Panegyres with Solemn Mystical Sacrifices was lawful in all other Cities as well as Jerusalem by the Rules of Mystical Israelitism it would also appear that such multiplying their High Priests were no more a violation of Unity or prejudicial to their representing the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Principle of Unity than it was that the same Face should be represented in different Glasses or the same Effigies taken off from the same Seal in different Impressions And therefore as those two Priests in Jerusalem were notwithstanding unprejudicial to their Unity whilst they acted by consent and without prejudice to the Right of presiding in the common Assemblies so neither could they charge the multitude of Bishops in several Cities with being injurious to the Unity of Christian Communion Sect. 10 BUT tho this Reasoning from the Legal Precedent of the Unity of the High Priesthood did not charge the difference or mutual independency of Christian High-Priesthoods in different Cities with SCHISM yet it does not thence follow but that it may hold as the Fathers of the first Centuries managed it against several or independent Presidents of the same Cities and Jurisdictions It is very true where the Multitudes are not obliged to meet in common Assemblies or not to maintain visible Communion in their own Persons there the same invisible 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be represented by several visible Bishops But it is withal as true and as true by the Consequent of this same Reasoning that where persons are obliged to the same common Assemblies there it must cut off from the Mystical Unity with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to disown their dependence on the same visible Representation of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Head of their visible Assemblies For here the same Reasoning holds exactly The Argument of the Jews against the Samaritans was plainly to prove their Obligation to the external Priesthood at Jerusalem and from their disunion from him to infer their disunion from the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also their invisible High Priest The Principles they proceeded on were as we have seen that the external Communion was the only ordinary means of attaining the internal Communion the external Altar of the Mystical Altar the external Priesthood of the Mystical Priesthood and that therefore they who were cut off from the external Communion with the external Altar and the external Priesthood must also be cut off from the internal Communion with the Mystical Altar and Priesthood Tho therefore it was not against Unity for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to have different persons to represent him yet it was