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
Communion with the Bishop must be the only Means of maintaining a Communion with the Father and the Son because he only represents them And that he only could represent them as Principles of Unity appears from the Foundation of this Unity because it is grounded on Headship Christ is a Principle of Unity to Mankind because he is the Head of the Man and God is a Principle of Unity even to Christ himself because he is the Head of Christ. And because none that has Interest in the visible Government of the Church can represent God and Christ in this particular regard of Headship but the Bishop therefore none but he can represent them as Principles of Unity And therefore in this Mystical Way of Reasoning from Representations to Things none but the Bishop can unite us to the Father and the Son Whence it will further follow that whoever are disunited from the Visible Communion of the Church on Earth and particularly from that Visible Communion of the Bishop must consequently be disunited from the whole visible Catholick Church on Earth and not only so but from the Invisible Communion of the Holy Angels and Saints in Heaven and which is yet more from Christ and God himself and all the Benefits consequent to all these Unities whether Visible or Invisible which cannot in reason be thought communicable to him who is disunited from the Original from whence they flow THIS was good Reasoning in S. Sect. 10 Cyprian's time And what can our Adversaries pretend why it should not still be allowed for good Reasoning now and for ever Were these Instituted Representations understood then as Covenants on God's part obliging him to ratifie the things so Represented by his own Appointment and were they understood so by the most solid ways of judging that those Ages were capable of and can they yet think it possible that those very Ancients to whose Capacities these Institutions were originally fitted could be mistaken concerning God's mind when they used the most likely means for finding it that they were capable of Or if they cannot deny but it was solid then what can they say why it should not be so still Is not the Bishop as apt as ever to signifie a Principle of Unity and to represent God and Christ under the Notion of a Head Nay does not his Monarchical Presidency over his Brethren of the Clergy peculiarly fit him for such a Signification And does he not the more naturally represent God and Christ in the Notion of a Head by how much he is more like in their Monarchy I mean over that particular Body over which Bishops were at at first placed by Divine Institution Or do they think them less of Divine Institution now than formerly This would indeed weaken the Obligation on God's part For even in the use of Covenanting Symbols none is obliged by them but he that uses them and therefore neither would God be obliged to ratifie what is here represented in his name if the Representation had not been of his own Appointment He would not then be obliged to make them partakers of the Invisible Unity who are united to the Bishop nor to exclude them from that same Invisible Unity who are disunited from him But what can be requisite for deriving this appointment at a distance but an uninterrupted Succession from them who had it immediately What more had those earlyer Ages themselves to pretend for it What more can our Adversaries themselves pretend at least what more can they rationally account for without Enthusiastick Pretences to new Revelation And do not our Bishops plead the same Argument of Succession Nor is it any matter in Law for weakening the Claim at what distance this Succession be deduced so that it be still deduced through unquestionable hands No matter how long the Chain be so the Links be entire and equal to the burden supported by it IF those Symbolical Representations Sect. 11 were of Divine Institution and were withal to be interpreted according to the way of Interpretation of that Age I cannot see how they can avoid but that God will be obliged to ratifie a Union or Disunion with the Bishop on Earth by the like Union or Disunion in Heaven Will they therefore to avoid it say that we are not now to follow that way of Interpretation in expounding it particularly that we are not now to regard what were the received Notions concerning Mysteries in those Ages nor what Interpretations were inevitably consequent from these Notions and must therefore have been infallibly thought just and solid with them among whom these Notions were so received but that God intended the Scriptures intelligible in all Ages and therefore could not make the true sense of such Scriptures to depend on Notions antiquated so long agone and so little observed and known in our Modern Ages this may indeed seem more plausible at the first prospect than it will be found solid on a thorough and impartial Examination For can they indeed think that all those several and contradictory senses which may easily be raised of the several Terms and Expressions from the Usages of different times both of Words and Things and Notions to which those Words have relation could ever have been designed by God Could they think that the Sacred Writers themselves could possibly mean them in senses unknown to them and with Relation to Things and Notions not as yet in being Was not Providence at least as much concerned for Them as for Us And was it not as necessary that they should understand those Writings which were primarily designed for their Use as that we should understand them And was it not as harsh that they should be remitted to Senses and Notions not yet existent as that we should be obliged in order to the same design of understanding them to have recourse to those Senses and Notions then used and notoriously alluded to however since discontinued and antiquated in the many Changes and Revolutions that were in course to be expected in such a distance If so great a Variety of Senses be allowed of as may be gathered from the same Letter understood according to the Sentiments of different Ages it cannot be avoided but that every new Age may under pretence of New Expositions introduce a whole new Scheme of Christian Doctrines If to avoid this all must be confined to one certain Sense and way of expounding the Scriptures there can be nothing thought on more convenient than that this one Sense be that Sense in which it was understood by the Primitive Christians to whose Capacities it was peculiarly fitted by the Holy Ghost and the way of expounding the Scriptures be the very same which was and must have been made use of by the Inspired Writers themselves in expounding their own Prophesies which were not expounded to them by a Second Revelation Our Brethren themselves will easily grant that the Scripture was always clear in matters necessary to Salvation And certainly all
Damas Bishop of the Magnesians was a young man This might make his Clergy and People too bold with him But he warns them to have a care of abusing his Age but rather to shew him all respect as other holy Presbyters had done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Accordingly he adds that for the honor of him who had required this at their hands they ought to pay their duty without dissimulation If they should do otherwise he shews who would resent and punish it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The reasoning is no other than what I have elsewhere shewn was ordinarily used in that Age on the like occasions The deceit used by Ananias and Sapphira to the Apostles in not bringing the whole price of the Land they pretended to sell for charitable uses is called a lying to the Holy Ghost nay even as to the negative expression of Ignatius a lying not unto men but unto God As the like expression had been also used in the case of the Israelites murmuring against Moses and Aaron Thus therefore it appears that the Bishop was understood and designed to represent a Sacred Person after the custom of the Mysteries received in those times AND now the Comparisons of the Sect. 6 Bishops in Ignatius cannot seem so strange these things being considered as they did to Blondell who had considered none of them They are generally designed to express the Sacredness and excellency of the Persons which the Clergy bore in these Mystical Performances Nor is there any thing in them that is really affected or strained much less blasphemous no nor any extravagant flights of fancy as they who have read them without a kindness for them and much more who have read them without this Clew have hitherto conceived them When he was to express the correspondence between the Coelestial and Ecclesiastical Hierarchy as I have shewn that the virtue of all Mystical Performances was to be derived from this correspondence it was very proper sometimes to make the comparison sometimes with the Invisible Originals as I have shewn that the Jewish Sacrifices did not only answer the Invisible Sacrifice offered by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Heaven but also the visible one offered by the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as incarnate on the Cross and that the virtue of those visible Sacrifices was to be judged by the nearness of their approach not only to that invisible one but also to that first of those which were visible If he was to compare them with the first invisible Archetypes of Unity as that is indeed his great design in those Epistles in opposition to the SCHISMS then rising then it was very proper for him to take notice only of the two Orders which were then immediately concerned in the Office of Ministration and then to compare them with God the Father and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because as this Unity consists in the Unity of the Head and the Scripture tells us that the Head of every Man is Christ so also the same Scripture tells us that the Head of Christ is God Besides that the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is oftentimes ascribed to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in reference to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hypothesis of that Age not with any design of signifying any Inferiority of Nature but only of Office and Subordination If therefore by his Office he was a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who could be more fit than he to personate the Archetypal 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who was here Archetypal to that of the seven Angels themselves already mentioned And who fitter than the Father to represent the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as this Nor can it be thought strange that there should be several gradual intellectual Archetypes as there were among those which were sensible But when his design is to compare the Ecclesiastical Judicatory to the first which was sensible Deacons were not as yet instituted and therefore the only comparison remaining was between Christ and his Apostles and the Bishops with their Presbyteries And then who sees not how aptly the Bishops will answer Christ himself as presiding over their own Presbyteries the same way as Christ did over his Apostles In each of these comparisons one Order is omitted the Deacons in the later and the Presbyters in the former Why the Deacons are omitted the Reason is already given Why the Presbyters are the reason may be that they are sometimes reckoned as one Order with the Bishop by those who never thought of any Parity therein that is by such who do as expresly reckon three Orders upon other occasions Thus many of the most ancient Fathers as their Testimonies are produced by Blondell himself And thus Philo before them sometimes reckons the High Priest in the same Order with the common Priests sometimes he makes him a distinct Order by himself So that notwithstanding the Bishops being of the same Order with Presbyters he might however have as great a pre-eminence above them on account of his place as the High Priest had above the Ordinary Priests which is as much as they do or need desire However in the same Order the Bishop only as a Head is concerned as a Representative of the Mystical Unity which is the main thing designed in these Comparisons Which is a reason not agreeing to the common Presbyter HOWEVER because on other Sect. 7 occasions they reckoned them as distinct Orders therefore there are not wanting such Mystical Representations of the Heavenly Hierarchy as make it exactly answerable to the Ecclesiastical even in this paricular also Thus S. John in the Sixth Chapter of his Revelations represents him who sate upon the Throne the very expression used concerning the Bishops even in those Primitive Times Then as the Presbyters used to sit and to sit on Seats ordered in a Hemicycle about the Bishop within the Chancel or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so here are represented twenty four Elders sitting likewise on Thrones about the the Throne of the Lamb. That they were designed for Priests appears from the circumstances of their Representation They are cloathed in White Raiment answering the Linnen Ephod among the Jews Verse 4. They have also Vials full of Odors which are interpreted to be the Prayers of the Saints and Harps to sing the Hymns which were usually joyned with the Sacrifices Chap. V. 8 What is this else but exactly the Office of ordinary Priests in those Times That therefore they had also Crowns Chap. IV. 4 c. is only to intimate their being a Royal Priesthood which was one of the Glories pretended to by the Literal Israel and therefore by the Reasoning then used more justly claimable by that which was mystically so And it is thus expounded by those Elders themselves Chap. V. 10 that the Lamb had made them Kings and Priests to their God That the number is
Eucharist is of a perpetual Use. Sect. VI. And perpetually useful for the same purposes as in the Apostles Time Sect. VII And therefore perpetually useful in order to the partaking in the Invisible Heavenly Sacrifice Sect. VIII No communicating with the Father and the Son but by Communion with the Bishop Sect. IX This same Reasoning if it was good in S. Cyprian's time is still as good as it was then and will be so for ever Sect. X. These Symbolical Representations are not otherwise to be interpreted Now than they were in the Primitive Times Sect. XI Our Adversaries in their separate condition can lay no claim to the One Altar Sect. XII Nor to the One Priesthood Sect. XIII The sad condition of SCHISMATICKS Sect. XIV How little Friends they are to Souls who are for prejudging persons against our Reasons by Popular Arts of raising Odium against our Cause or our Persons Sect. XV.XVI. AND if this Reasoning was good Sect. 1 and solid as thus applyed by the Ancient Christians to the Case of their contemporary SCHISMATICKS what can our Adversaries pretend why it should not be as good and solid still Is it possible that the nature of things can be changed Can Truth cease to be Truth or SCHISM to be SCHISM Can SCHISM become less Criminal in our Age than it was formerly Or have they any assurance of being more indulgently dealt with if they should prove equally criminal These things alas to say no more are too ticklish for them to venture their immortal Souls on and I doubt not but the more considerable among them will not so much as pretend them What is it then that may be trusted that they can pretend Is it that tho the nature of SCHISM be eternally and equally criminal yet it may change in its imputation that the matter of Fact may be chargeable with SCHISM in one Age as the Samaritans were guilty of SCHISM for separating from the Jewish High Priest which yet the Apostles were not tho they were likewise chargeable with the same Separation But does it follow that because such Changes were allowable from the Positive Institutions of Moses therefore the like Change is also now allowable under the Gospel And have I not proved that the ancient Christians used this same Reasoning and used it solidly even under the Gospel That the Law had any Temporary Constitutions they concluded from the Praedictions of the Law it self which foretold a Change in the later times But can they pretend the like Change under the Gospel Does the Gospel foretel any further later Days wherein it s own Constitutions shall be antiquated also Nay do not the same persons stile the Gospel the Everlasting Gospel in opposition to the Temporariness of many of those Legal Constitutions Why so if its Constitutions were also Temporary BUT tho I should not take this general Sect. 2 Advantage from the designed Perpetuity of the Gospel Constitutions what is there that our Brethren can pretend to be Temporary to excuse themselves in the particulars of our present Dispute tho we had no other direction to judge by than the nature of the Things themselves Can they think Unity it self a Temporary thing especially that Unity which is invisible This I am confident they will not pretend and if they should I am yet more confident they could not produce any plausible ground of such pretence from any Words or Principles of the New Testament As the Mystical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was thought to be the proper Office of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Hellenistical Philosophy so the main design of our Saviour's coming is as plainly said in the New Testament to be that he might make all one And can they think that Temporary which is the main Office of our Saviour as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the main design of his Incarnation and which is then likely to be most perfect when all Temporary Things are antiquated in Heaven Sect. 3 But is Unity in this World at least a Temporary Design Was it not one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sung by the Angels at his Birth that he was to bring Peace on Earth Was this Blessing designed only for a while He is the Prince of Peace and his Kingdom may as well be made Temporary as his Designs of Peace The Prophecies concerning his Kingdom are that it should bring abundance of Peace so long as the Sun and Moon endureth And can this be any other than a secular Peace that was here spoken of And indeed if we will keep consonant to Principles there could be no Office more suitable to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 incarnate than to transact that visibly on Earth which he is supposed to perform invisibly in Heaven This was it alone which on the Principles already described could make his proceedings on Earth available The Power of them must be derived from their being true Representations of the invisible Transactions in Heaven This will make his Sacrifice on the Cross a true Sacrifice if it represented the Invisible Heavenly Sacrifice offered by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This will make the Man Jesus a true Priest if he personated the Lord from Heaven And this would argue him indeed to be the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Incarnate if all he did on Earth was in correspondence with the same designs which the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was driving on in Heaven And if so then as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Heaven was driving on Designs of Invisible Unity a Visible Unity must also have been the principal Design of the Incarnate 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as visible And as the Unity designed in Heaven was perpetual and designed that it should be so so also the Visible External Unity aimed at by our Saviour on Earth could have been no other than a Perpetual one as it was designed by him WELL then If this Unity thus Sect. 4 designed was both an external and a perpetual Peace where can they yet suspect whether themselves be unconcerned in the Consequence of those Discourses against those ancient Violaters of this external peace of the Christian Church Can they think that Christ made no Provision for the Preservation of this External Peace so designed by him Or can they think that his Provisions were designed but Temporary for an End which he designed should be perpetual They cannot have so mean thoughts of the Prudence of our Blessed Lord. Or if they should these very Discourses of those earliest Christians are sufficient to convince them whose very Age must qualifie them for knowing what Provision was actually made And not to urge them again too closely with the Prudence of our Saviour's Institution what is there that they can think temporary in that whole Constitution on which those Ancient Christians did proceed I may now confidently take it for granted that the Constitution so alluded to was indeed suitable to the Circumstances of those Ages because I