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
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
present Market Towns is so extremely incredible to one so versed in the Histories of those Cities as this Author is as that it is very hard on this account also to excuse him from another Charge of very great Servility to his Cause and Disingenuity in owning his Convictions I AM very sorry that I am obliged to take notice of such things in such persons and shall be heartily glad if they will for the future keep so close to the Cause as that we may on neither side either take or give occasion for such personal Digressions It will be undoubtedly our common Interest to do so We shall thereby keep our selves more innocent and be withal more serviceable to the Interest of Truth and of the publick to our secular and our eternal peace if instead of our other Contentions we would rather emulate each other in these things who shall most of all divest himself of prejudices and of the favor of his party who shall express the most sincere zeal for Truth and Conviction whithersoever they may lead him and withal who can manage the Cause himself thinks good with the least personal offence of Adversaries I mean such personal offence as is separable from the Cause How happy might our Nations and our Churches be if these things were the principal Objects of our disputing Emulations And how can any well meaning person answer it to God or his own Conscience if he will not contribute in his own proportion to such a publick and universal Happiness NEXT to the Observation of these now mentioned Rules all that I shall further desire from any who shall think fit hereafter to answer what I have written either here or elsewhere is that he would be pleased not to content hlmself with general and loose Objections but apply what he shall say distinctly to some particular Proposition of my Summaries and so apply it as to have regard to the Proofs produced for it This will better enable the Reader to judge where the Failing is whether in the Objection or in the Answer Certainly much better than the ordinary looser way wherein he must himself be at the pains to find out the Application I HAVE only one thing more with which I will at present trouble the Reader that is to observe how the Doctrine here promoted concerning the immediate Presidentship of the Supreme Being and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the general Mediator if it appear agreeable to the ancient Sentiments of the Primitive Christians must fundamentally overthrow all the pretences for Invocation either of Saints or Angels both in the Roman and the Eastern Liturgies If this be so then there will be no reason to believe these Tutelary Offices allotted to Saints or Angels on which their Invocation is necessarily grounded I mean such Offices as allowed to them over Christians If this be so then there will be no reason so much as to desire their Intercession in presenting our Prayers because even there whatever Power is allowed them is not permitted to their own Disposal but determined by particular Divine Appointment so that they can do neither more nor less than actually they do If this be so they cannot avoid the charge of Actual Idolatry who are guilty of that Invocation how so much soever it were otherwise in the power of created Beings to perform what is desired from them in such Forms of Invocation It will hence plainly follow that all things thus prayed for can be actually granted by none but the Supreme Being alone it will therefore follow that all Prayers for them before and all Thanksgivings for them after they are received are therefore actually due to him alone it will therefore follow further that all Prayers or Praises to Creatures for such Benefits as are usually mentioned in such Forms must be actually the robbing the Supreme Being of that Honor which on these Principles is in Justice due to him alone and giving it to his Creatures which is that we commonly understand by the notion of Idolatry it will follow that they must be liable to this Charge not only in the judgment of our Modern Reformed Churches for which they will no doubt be less concerned but in that also of those Primitive Churches who proceeded on those Principles from which these Consequences do so necessarily follow for which themselves pretend a Reverence And that which is the peculiar advantage of this above other popular Reasonings is that this will hold tho they should fail And for my own part I do not think it justifiable to charge any Adversaries no not even the Romanists themselves with any thing which even in my own Judgment I cannot undertake for THE CONTENTS Introduction How the Ancients reasoned for Unity of Communion from the Unity of the Priesthood and the Unity of the Altar Sect. I. Mr. Baxter makes them reason quite contrary to the Design and Interest of their Cause Sect. II. An account of his way of managing this same Reason Sect. III. This Reasoning of no force but as design'd by the Ancients who used it Who neither could design the Inferences deduced thence by Master Baxter Sect. IV. Nor could design the Premises true in such a sense as that the Inferences would follow from them whether they would or no. Sect. V. The Design of the present Discourse Sect. VI. p. 1 Chap. I. The Solidity of the way of Reasoning from Jewish Precedents in these very Instances of their Priesthood and Altar 1. This way of Reasoning for Unity from one Altar and one Priesthood was deduced from the nearest and freshest memory of the Apostles Sect. I. This being granted will be sufficient to shew that the condemnation of SCHISM on these Principles must needs have been agreeable to the Sense of the Apostles themselves Sect. II. 2. This way of Reasoning is more likely to have been taken up from Jewish Notions than Heathenish Sect. III. How usual it was for the Christians of that Age to reason from Jewish Precedents Sect. IV. Used in these very Particulars of their Priesthood and Altar by S. Clemens Romanus Sect. V. By S. Paul himself Sect. VI. Used not only as Arguments ad Homines but as such as were really conclusive of the Things they were designed to prove Sect. VII p. 13. Chap. II. The Solidity of the same Topick as to the Principles of this Unity 3. This way of Reasoning holds as to this particular Inference That this one Priesthood and one Altar ought now as well as formerly to be Principles of Unity 1. The Reasoning from Jewish Precedent to the State of Christianity holds tho not as to the same things yet to the same in proportion Sect. I II. 2. It holds particularly in matters of Privilege Sect. III. 3. As Unity is a Privilege common to the Mystical and Literal Judaism so the proportional Way of Reasoning holds also as to the Principles of that Unity Sect. IV V VI. 4. The Unity intended to be
of the Catholick Church who were accordingly obliged on account of the preservation of their common Correspondence and Unity to exclude him from their own particular Communions also respectively 15. The preservation of the Unity of each particular Church was the common Interest of all particulars 16. The Violation of the Unity of any one particular Church was in Consequence a Violation of the Unity of all particular Churches 17. The Violation of the Unity of all particular Churches is by a necessary Consequence the Violation of the Unity of the whole Catholick Church in general 3. From this same Reasoning as holding good still and as applicable also to the Case of our Modern SCHISMATICKS Proved as in the Former Summary THE INTRODUCTION THE CONTENTS How the Ancients reasoned for Unity of Communion from the Unity of the Priesthood and the Unity of the Altar Sect. I. Mr. Baxter makes them reason quite contrary to the Design and Interest of their Cause Sect. II. An account of his way of managing this same Reason Sect. III. This Reasoning of no force but as design'd by the Ancients who used it Who neither could design the Inferences deduced thence by Master Baxter Sect. IV. Nor could design the Premises true in such a sense as that the Inferences would follow from them whether they would or no. Sect. V. The Design of the present Discourse Sect. VI. THe Unity of the Catholick Church in Sect. 1 opposition to the separate Conventicles of SCHISMATICKS is in the Language of the most ancient and accurate Writers against SCHISM especially Ignatius and S. Cyprian from whom later Antiquity has received the same Terms expressed as grounded on the Unity of the Priest and the Altar In which way of Reasoning they conclude that they who partake at the same Altar and of the same mystical Sacrifices offered thereon and receive their portions of this Sacrifical Feast from the Ministry of the same Priest whose Office it is to offer those mystical Sacrifices on that same Altar that they and they alone are to be judged to belong to the same Society confederated by those Sacrifices And on the contrary that they who set up other Altars in opposition to that one Altar in order to the confederation of distinct Societies owning no correspondence with the Original Altar and they who set up a distinct Priesthood by themselves owning no dependence on the Priest related to that Altar cannot by virtue of this Sacrifical Confederation be judged to belong to the original Society nor can consequently be intitled to the Privileges of the Society from which they are so divided This One Altar those Ancients understand of the Original Communion and the one Priest of the Bishop who was possessed of the Church when the Separation was first made And accordingly conclude farther that whoever keep not to the original Communion and do not own the Authority of such a Bishop and his Canonical Successors within his own Jurisdiction are for these very Reasons cut off from the Original Churches and from all just and legal Claims to the spiritual Promises and Privileges of Churches THESE Things one would think Sect. 2 should be very plain as to the Case of our present Nonconforming Adversaries And yet it is strange to see how extremely partial men otherwise well meaning are when tempted by the Interest of a beloved Cause and Party And I know not whether we have a greater instance of this human Frailty than Mr. Baxter He it is that will needs perswade us that this very same Reasoning which was made use of by those Fathers for proving all those Diocesan Societies and Assemblies SCHISMATICAL which are maintained in opposition to the Diocesan Bishop does indeed prove the contrary That in that very same Case it proves that the Diocesan is the only SCHISMATICK This had indeed been more excusable if he had taken the Argument fingly and vindicated it from the unskilfullness of their management of it Then he might indeed pretend to shew with some consistency to his own undertakings that it did prove the contrary to that for which the Ancients had produced it But when he is not content with this but will needs pretend further that his Doctrine as well as his Reasoning is the Doctrine also of Ignatius and S. Cyprian That they as well as he were for defending subdivided Diocesan Assemblies against the Authority of their Diocesan That they as well as he charged the Diocesans that was themselves in the Cases concerned in their Disputes with the SCHISM of such Divisions That accordingly they as well he should unchurch the Diocesan Ordinaries for not allowing the Exercise of Discipline by Felicissimus and such like Presbyters independently on Ordinaries within their Ordinaries Jurisdiction for not owning such divided Factions and Assemblies headed by single Presbyters for proper Churches and intitled to the Privileges that were proper to truly Ecclesiastical Assemblies that is indeed that their whole Disputes were by themselves designed against themselves and in favour of their Adversaries it is very strange how he could be so confident of so weak Conjectures as those are which he uses in a Case of it self so extremely incredible But such gross mistakes as these they are usually guilty of who will venture rather to expound Authors by single Expressions not throughly understood than inquire into the true History of the Dispute and the matter of Fact that occasioned it and the Interest and true design of the Dispute it self as fitted to the Case for which it was designed A PARADOX so incredible Sect. 3 one would expect should be confirmed by very full and convincing Evidence Yet all he has to shew for it is that those Ancients limit this Unity by one Altar that is as he conceives by one single Communion-Table and by one Priest that is as he also understands it by one single Ordinary Minister Whence he concludes that the notion of a single united Church then included no more than could ordinarily maintain Personal Communion from the same Table that could ordinarily assist the Ministry of one single Minister and ordinarily meet in the same place even in those primitive Times of Persecution when it could not be safe for many to meet so He concludes that this being so whosoever were thus united in a single Congregation and under the persoanl care and inspection of a single Minister must consequently have been united to a Church and could not be judged SCHISMATICKS for want of any other Terms of Union He concludes that the Union of Diocesan Churches supposing many Congregations thus united among themselves cannot accordingly involve such Congregations in the Crime of SCHISM if they refuse those further Terms of Union whilst they yet retain the Union of one Altar and one Priest which was then thought Catholick and from which alone the Reasonings now mentioned made it SCHISMATICAL to depart That this being so the Diocesans themselves if they refuse Communion to Congregations so united or
know not what can be desired further for clearing the solidity of our present Applications CHAP. I. The Solidity of the way of Reasoning from Jewish Precedents in these very Instances of their Priesthood and Altar The Contents 1. This way of Reasoning for Unity from one Altar and one Priesthood was deduced from the nearest and freshest memory of the Apostles Sect. I. This being granted will be sufficient to shew that the condemnation of SCHISM on these Principles must needs have been agreeable to the Sense of the Apostles themselves Sect. II. 2. This way of Reasoning is more likely to have been taken up from Jewish Notions than Heathenish Sect. III. How usual it was for the Christians of that Age to reason from Jewish Precedents Sect. IV. Used in these very Particulars of their Priesthood and Altar by S. Clemens Romanus Sect. V. By S. Paul himself Sect. VI. Used not only as Arguments ad Homines but as such as were really conclusive of the Things they were designed to prove Sect. VII Sect. 1 FIRST therefore I observe that this way of reasoning for Unity from one Altar and one Priest was not first taken up in the later Ages of the Church but deduced from the nearest and freshest memory of the Apostles Ignatius himself who lived in their times and was conversant with them and was by them made Bishop of Antioch we see uses it Had it been taken up in Ecclesiastical Times the Reasoning would rather have been from the Terms that were more familiar and usual in the custom of the Church to others that were less familiar as from Principles more easily granted and better understood by the vulgar They would rather have proved the necessity of one Priest from the necessity of one Bishop because this later was in the later usage of the Church the much more usual name by which that Office was known That therefore they take the contrary way of Reasoning it is a plain sign that when this Argument was first taken up it was better known what was meant by Priest and Altar than what was meant by Bishop and Communion Table and that it was more easily granted that the Unity of the Priesthood and Altar did oblige to Unity of Communion than that the Unity of the Bishop and Communion Table did so This way of Reasoning is plainly accommodated to the first beginnings of Christianity when the Duties of Christianity were rather to be gathered from Concessions antecedent to Christianity than to be recommended by its own authority Which Observation will withal add much to the Validity of the Reasoning that it was first taken up before the extraordinary Gifts of Inspiration ceased and in fresh memory of the Apostles themselves upon the first appearing of the Case of actual SCHISM BEFORE the Case of actual SCHISM it is unreasonable to expect express Censures Sect. 2 of the sin of SCHISM And if immediately upon the first appearance of the Case they proceeded on these Principles in condemning it and withal the Case appeared before the memory of the Apostles Doctrine could have been forgotten then it will plainly follow that these were the Principles by which those earliest Ages were directed in judging concerning the sense of the Apostles Either therefore the Apostles left no certain Principles for preservation of Unity in the Churches instructed by them or we must suppose those Principles forgotten in so short a distance of time or we shall have reason to believe that these were the Principles and Reasonings on which the Apostles themselves would have proceeded in judging concerning this Case if it had fallen out in their own time and they had thereupon been obliged to give their own judgment concerning it This Consequence will hold tho the Apostles had delivered nothing concerning it from express Revelation For in such Cases the Providence of God plainly supposed that other means of human Information were sufficient when it did not undertake to secure them from the errors of such Popular Reasonings especially where the Errors would have proved of so dangerous Consequence as they must in such a Case as this concerning the obligation to Unity But in such a Case wherein the Apostles had been left to their own Reasonings we see it is usual for them to reason from Popular Notions received among the Hellenistical Jews And therefore all such Reasonings from Notions so received in the Apostles times must be granted to have been secure from actual Errors Whence it will further follow that the Reasonings of the next Age from Notions popularly received in the first Age must have been the same and therefore as certain as if they had been used by the Apostles themselves thus unassisted by actual Inspiration and indeed as infallible as Inspiration it self when this was the only reason why Inspiration was not given them because the Inspirer thought these Reasonings sufficient without it to secure them from actual Error in such a Case wherein he was so obliged to secure them SECONDLY therefore I observe Sect. 3 further That as this Reasoning was as I said taken from Notions antecedent to Christianity so much more probably from Judaism than Heathenism tho both of them had Altars and Priests among them For Heathenism was a Religion wholly condemned by the Christians and therefore utterly unfit to give any Authority to Reasonings for positive Constitutions But Judaism was a way of which the first Christians were always very cautious of speaking dishonorably Most of the first Converts were Jews by Nation and still retained a great reverence for the Constitutions of the Old Testament and therefore with them such Reasonings from Old Testament Precedents must have been very prevalent Besides the whole History of the New Testament Disputes S. James's Words are very full to this purpose Act. 21.20 not to trouble my self with naming more Accordingly the first Converters utterly disowned any design of abrogating the Law Our Saviour himself professed he came not to destroy but to fullfil it And one principal inducement made use to bring them over to the Christian Religion was indeed that Moses in whom they trusted had given Testimony to our Saviour that of him all the Prophets had born witness c. And therefore all the change they owned from the Ancient Establishments was not pretended to be from Judaism to another Religion but only from a Literal to a Mystical Judaism from a Circumcision in the Flesh to a Circumcision in the Spirit from being the Seed of Abraham's Flesh to being the Seed of his Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised And this state of mystical Judaism it self they prove from Testimonies of the Old Testament it self as proper to the New Covenant to be made with them in the later days in that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of which their so much expected Messias was to be Prince This they performed so fully as that upon the whole they made it appear that the Literal Judaism it self
was only design'd to shadow the Mystical as that which was principally designed by the Holy Ghost and the Sacred Writers themselves PURSUANT hereunto whatsoever Sect. 4 benefit was boasted of by the Jews in their Disputation they shew that the same also belonged to Christianity in a sense much more beneficial tho mystical as indeed more proper to a state of mystical Judaism Nor do they only accommodate their own Constitutions to the ancient Predictions that was easier tho there had been no relation between them but they also reason from them as often as they had any new occasion from the Controversies of that Age. And considering the Principles they proceeded on the Reasoning was indeed very solid and prudent For this being granted that the things which befel the Patriarchs happened to them as Ensamples and were written for the Admonition of the Age of the Apostles upon whom the Ends of the World so much spoken of by the Prophets were come That whatsoever was written was written designedly for the instruction of those later Ages That it was suitable to the way of Prophecy to foretel and command by way of mystical Representations That all the external Worship of the Jews was design'd by the Holy Ghost himself like so many Prophetick Visions to represent and shadow the Duties of those in whose times the Prophesies were to be fulfilled and understood It was indeed as proper and reasonable for them to infer their Duties from mystical Interpretations of the Levitical Worship as it was constant and customary for Prophets to gather their own Duties from their own Visions and from mystical Interpretations of their own Visions when together with the Visions themselves the Interpretations were also revealed to them However as to us it may suffice that these Principles are plainly supposed and this way of Reasoning plainly allowed and proceeded on in most of the Disputes of the New Testament not only for the Conviction of Adversaries but for Information of themselves as the Reasonings on which the credit of Christianity it self was recommended and received by most of the Converts of those Ages as those upon which the Apostles themselves believed it as those which were suggested to them by that Inspiration by which they were guided in their Preachings and therefore must have been solid if any thing was so I do not say in Christian but in any other sort of received Revelations I WILL not now digress to other Sect. 5 Instances having elsewhere given several I shall at present confine my self to those of the Priesthood and the Altar which are the more immediate Subject of my present Discourse Even these very Terms are mystically applyed to Christianity by Authors of Ignatius's Age who notwithstanding wrote before him and particularly so applyed when they had occasion to reason from the Levitical Patterns to deduce Obligations under the Christian Religion Thus Clemens Romanus reasons to the Corinthians From the budding of Aaron's Rod in Testimony of the Divine Election of Aaron and his Posterity to the Priesthood he proves the like Sacredness of the Episcopal Office among the Corinthians that the gifted Laicks might not presume to take that Calling upon them without the like Authority derived from Men impowered by God to give it them From the Subordinations of the Temple first of the High Priest then of the Ordinary Priests then of the Levites last of all of the People he infers a necessity of the like Subordination of the Corinthian Laity to their Bishops and Deacons From the set place and time of offering the Levitical Sacrifices in the Temple which it was piacular in any of them to transgress he urges a like Duty of observing the set times and places of Ecclesiastical Assemblies How very differently from our modern Adversaries who are so far from admitting such Consequences as these as that if any thing even of Decency or moral Prudence was observed under the Law they immediately disclaim it as Levitical and for no other Reason than it 's having been observed then decry it's obligation under the Gospel YET not S. Clemens only who yet Sect. 6 had incomparably more advantages for knowing the Apostles mind than these men but the Apostle himself allows and observes the same Reasoning and in the very same Instances for which I am at present concerned of Priest and Altar So he argues for the Right of maintenance That they who minister about holy things live of the things of the Temple and they which wait at the Altar are partakers with the Altar That even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel Plainly supposing that our Clergy answers the Levitical Priesthood our Churches their Temple our Communion-Table their Altar and that what was thought equal in their Case in the Provisions of the Old Testament is for that very reason to be taken for ordained in the Case of the Gospel-Minisry There is no other Evangelical Ordinance so much as pretended for it in that whole Chapter If there had there had been no need of so many Reasons to recommend it Yet this very Reasoning is rejected as Levitical in us by those Enthusiasts who oppose the Right of this worldly maintenance But so far is the Apostle from their mind in this particular as that he allows a higher obligation to this way of arguing from the Precedent of the Levitical Priesthood He reasons from the Aaronical to the Melchizedechian Priesthood from the Priesthood of mortal men to the immortal Priesthood of the Son of God No man took the honor of the Levitical Priesthood unto himself but he that was called of God as was Aaron So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an High Priest c. And every High Priest is ordained to offer Gifts and Sacrifices Wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer And as none had Right to eat of the Jewish Altar but Israelites so when he is to prove that Literal Israelitism is not the Israelitism that can challenge Privileges he does it by this Argument that We have an Altar whereof they have no right to eat which serve the Tabernacle Sect. 7 THUS customary it was in those earlier Times to reason from Levitical Precedents in these very Instances And if we consider what stress was laid on such Arguments there will be reason to believe them not only prudent ad homines considering the Concessions of those with whom they had to deal but solid as to the Reasons of the Things themselves They were the very inducements upon which most of the Jews received their very Christianity to which they had been disposed before by the mystical Expositions of the Essens and Hellenists very soon after the Scriptures of the Old Testament had been translated into the Greek by the procurement of Philadelphus and such inducements as that it is probable many of them had never been converted but
when the distance of the place hindered their real participation with it they yet intended to communicate with it in effigie that is as really as it was possible for them to communicate with it at a distance For as the external Participation at a visible Altar was not taken in this Mystical way of Communion for a multiplying an Altar distinct from the distinct Archetypal Altar by which their invisible Communion was to be maintained with their Deity but rather as a means of partaking of the invisible Altar from whence the visible Altar was supposed to be Copyed so neither for the same reason could a distant Communion with an Altar copyed from that which was Archetypal of all visible ones be taken for a distinct Communion with a distinct Altar but rather as a means of communicating with that original visible Altar from which that is also supposed to have been Copyed AND perhaps the reason of this Sect. 14 might have been that very ancient Custom mentioned before as these Sacred Rites are the clearest Footsteps of ancient Customs of entertainments that persons of great Quality treated their Guests tho sitting at other Tables with Portions sent to them from their own So it is plain in the case of Joseph's Brethren that they were not at the same Table with Joseph It is expresly said that his Servants did set on Bread for him by himself and for his Brethren by themselves and for the Egyptians which did eat with him by themselves Genesis XLIII 32 Yet the Messes that were sent them were sent them by his particular Order and from his own Table For it should seem that it was not the custom at first to set down any thing but Bread on the other Tables of the Guests and that the meat was left to the disposal of him who treated them according to the respect he was pleased to shew them Accordingly these Panegyres of the Gods were publick Entertainments of their Worshipers and the Altars were answerable to the Tables whereon the Gods themselves were served in their own Persons And as it was a piece of state that how many Tables soever any great person had for his Guests yet he never had any more than one for himself so it was consequently proper that the Worshipers should all be treated with Portions from the same Altar Besides it seems to be the praegustation if I may so call it of the Gods by which indeed the meat was thought to be consecrated so that till the Gods had their Portions first it was not fit to be feasted on by the rest as a Sacrifice This was therefore the sin of Ely's Sons that they would have their Portions before the fat was burnt to God 1 Sam. II. 15 16. And perhaps this civility of Praegustation and the honor done them by receiving what himself had first tasted and immediately from his own hand might have been the reason why in those secular Entertainments the Guests were to receive their meat from their Patron 's Table But considering the Sacrifices as the Solemnities of a Covenant and that between the Gods themselves and their Worshipers so it was proper that both Parties that covenanted should partake in the same Entertainment Otherwise their Feasting together could not have been a Symbol of their Unity But where multitude of Sacrifices were offered as there were always great multitudes offered on the occasions I am speaking of there was no possibility that all should partake of one and the same Sacrifice But it was reputed as one when all of them came from the same Table and for that reason and that alone all were judged to communicate with their God when they communicated from the same Altar with him Sect. 15 5. THEREFORE As these publick Sacrifices were received from the same Altar so the Affairs of that one Altar were always managed by one Chief Priest Tho matters of Council have indeed been administred in many places by Polyarchical Governments yet generally even there where they were so matters of Action have been thought best manageable by single Presidents But however they were managed in secular Causes yet the reason has been always thought so peculiar in Sacred Ones as that I believe there can hardly be given an instance where the administration of these publick Panegyres was not committed to a single Priest who presided over the rest If the Jews had their High Priests besides their ordinary Priests and Levites so also the Heathens had those who were answerable to them The Romans had their Pontifex Maximus besides their ordinary Pontifices and Aeditui the Greeks their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Manetho himself writes himself an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And these three Orders in their Sacred Rites were so extremely usual that the name of Tertia Sacra in Manilius is used for the Office of an Aedituus or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Accordingly Synesius describes the three Offices which they were to exercise in passing through those three degrees 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And I am apt to think that the Sacrifices could hardly have been otherwise performed rightly For this presiding Priest seems to have personated the God in whose Worship he was employed He was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Apostle expresses it And therefore as the God was one so must also his Representative Alluding to the similitude of Entertainments he was the Symposiarcha who was to administer all the management of them And being thus a Representative of the Deity they could not have received their Portions from the Deity but by receiving them from the hands of the Priest and therefore whoever received not from the Priest could not be said to communicate at the Altar where he officiated On which account it plainly appears that this Unity of the Priesthood was as well necessary for this mystical Unity of the Communicants as the Unity of his Altar CHAP. VIII The Jewish Sacrifices as Mysteries caused a Mystical Union and Communion with God dependent on their External Communion with their High Priest The CONTENTS The Jews before our Saviour's coming had taken up this way of mysticizing their Law Sect. I. The Jewish Sacrifices were most properly Mysteries Sect. II. How these Mystical Sacrifices promoted a Union with the Deity by a Union with the Priesthood 1. The admitting Persons to the Mysteries was the peculiar Office of the High Priesthood Sect. III. 2. In this Office the High Priests represented a more Sacred Person than their own Sect. IV. The Daemon peculiarly concerned in this affair of restoring Souls was the Demiurgus Sect. V. It was thought impious for any Creature to intermeddle in it as a Creature Sect. VI. The Jews understood their own Worship to perform the Office of Mysteries Sect. VII The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Demiurgus peculiarly concerned in Revealing the Heavenly Mysteries Sect. VIII The Jewish High Priest represented the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉
to a Jewish Priesthood But Valesius himself is of another opinion and conceives it to have been used ordinarily by the Bishops of those first times as equivalent to the High Priests of the Jews AND probably it is to this same Sect. 5 account that the Christian Episcopacy was then thought answerable to the High Priesthood of the Jews that we may most prudently ascribe that most ancient custom of chusing their first Bishops of the same Family with the first who had possessed the Chair at the time of their first Conversion And among the Jews themselves the Person was elective tho the Election was indeed confined to the Family of Aaron That the most ancient Christians who lived nearest to the Apostles did observe this way we have reason to believe from the most ancient Monuments we have of Ecclesiastical History In the Church of Jerusalem where our Saviour was himself in person the principal Converter the first Bishops were chosen of our Saviour's Family First S. James the Just who because of his Relation is in a general sense called The Brother of our Lord. Then Simeon Cleophae the Cousin German of our Saviour for Cleophas was the Brother of Joseph if we may believe the Tradition of Hegesippus And in this later Election it is particularly observed that the Apostles had a particular regard to the Counsel and Assistance of the surviving Kinsmen of our Saviour Among the Brethren of our Lord Judas is reckoned for one And his Posterity Hegesippus says presided over the whole Church as Witnesses and Kinsmen of our Lord His Words are very full 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seems then they were thought to have a Right to preside over the whole Church on account of their being Kinsmen to him by whom the Church was first constituted The same thing he has also elsewhere only there he says they did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and for the same Reasons as before Possibly Eusebius understood it of their being Bishops but he is there to be explained by the Words of Hegesippus which were as I have now transcribed them Nor was it only so in our Saviour's Case who had a Right over the whole Church There is reason to believe that the same Rule was also observed in other particular Churches besides that of Jerusalem The forementioned Polycrates derives his Tradition for their way of observing of Easter from his own Kinsmen of whom seven had been Bishops before him and himself the eighth In all likelyhood he means that they were his Predecessors in the same See and accordingly he mentions only some of them with whom he had conversed tho he was sixty five years old at the writing of the Epistle The Succession of those seven Bishops before him in the same See might very probably come near the time of the Apostles And considering that he insists on their Testimony as an Argument for proving an Apostolical Tradition it must needs have been that the first of them lived in fresh memory of the Apostles This way of Reasoning alone is agreeable to the Practice of the Churches of that Age in proving the Doctrine and Consent of the Apostles against their contemporary Hereticks They prove them indeed by the Testimony of Ecclesiastical Tradition But then they insist on no Testimony of any Church as competent for this purpose but of those alone which had at first received their Traditions immediately from the Apostles themselves in person and insist on no Succession of Bishops as competent for deducing such a Testimony to their own Times but only such Successions whereof the first were contemporary with the Apostles themselves that such Bishops might receive their Traditions immediately from the Apostles as well as their Churches lest otherwise their Adversaries might have had any plausible colour to except against the competency of their first Information Thus that Argument is managed by S. Irenaeus and Tertullian the best present Monuments we have of the way of Reasoning of those times So that this custom also of deriving the Succession in a Family seems also to have been derived from the times of the Apostles And this way of imputing it to a Jewish Original as an imitation of their way of deriving the High Priesthood seems to be the most probable way of giving an account of it AND indeed this Reasoning whereby Sect. 6 the Christian Episcopacy was made answerable to the High Priesthood of the Jews is no more than what is very agreeable to the Change our Saviour intended to make as we have an account of his Design in his own Discourse with the Woman of Samaria He there tells her that the time was coming when they should neither in that mountain of Gerizim nor yet in Jerusalem worship the Father How so That it should be unlawful to worship God at Mount Gerizim or at Jerusalem No but that according to the agreement of both Parties in that Dispute that the publick solemn Worship under the personal Management of the High Priest was confined as the Samaritans thought to Mount Gerizim as the Jews thought to Jerusalem the very Foundation of that Dispute should be quite taken away that Worship of the High Priesthood should be no more confined neither to Mount Gerizim nor yet to Jerusalem Plainly he must still be supposed to mean the thing he discourses of in the meaning of the Parties concerned in that Dispute allowing only the liberty of Mysticizing it so far as the Gospel it self required that it should be mystically understood The Question therefore between the Jews and the Samaritans being concerning the Confinement of the High Priesthood our Saviour's Answer must be understood to deny the Confinement of that which should be answerable to the High Priesthood under the Gospel This must be the meaning of the Reason drawn from the Spiritual Nature of God and the spiritual way of worshiping him Not as our Enthusiasts are apt to understand it that there should be no need of Priests nor Sacrifices that were to overthrow his own Constitutions under the Gospel it self elsewhere but supposing the continuance of the High Priesthood and such mystical Sacrifices as the Gospel allows of to let them know however that they should henceforth be so spiritual as that all who did communicate in the same spirit how distant soever their Residences were might notwithstanding communicate in them which they could not do before And still it is to be understood not of single Congregations but of the Congregations at least of whole Cities for those publick Sacrifices wherein the High Priests were concerned were never designed for less than the whole Cities how great and populous soever where they were performed that every City should have the same Privilege as Sichem and Jerusalem to have Mystical Sacrifices and High Priests of their own with whom they might communicate without such tedious Journies as they of the Dispersion were fain to make at the return of their solemn Anniversaries
at Jerusalem And tho then the Samaritans were guilty of SCHISM for erecting a new Temple and Altar and High Priest in a distinct City and at a distance from Jerusalem yet henceforward the like Charge should not hold Distant Cities might have their particular High Priests and Sacrifices without any such breach of Unity and Peace between them All this while this Dispute was between Cities not single Congregations And the liberty of having particular High Priests must therefore be understood at least of whole Cities in which nothing bore such a natural resemblance to the Jewish High Priest as their Bishops Sect. 7 PROBABLY this might have been the Reason why during the first times of the Apostles they did for a while forbear the setting any Bishop up in any considerable Superiority over his Brethren Tho by the most creditable accounts of the later times of the Apostles we have reason to believe that it was done by the last surviving Apostles yet we have here a prudent Reason why for some time it should be forborn If this Superiority of the Bishop were a substituting him in the place of the High Priest and the multiplying such Superiors in several Cities were the multiplying High Priests in the several Cities it plainly appears how this must have been interpreted by those who were Jewishly affected from the Principles already mentioned They must have looked on such persons as not only violaters of their Law but as Breakers of their Mystical Union and consequently obnoxious to the same Curses and Execrations which on the same account had been thundered against the Samaritans And therefore as in other Cases we find them very cautious of giving any Offence to the Jews tho otherwise justifiable by their own Principles till they found the Generality prepared for them or they were forced upon them by some Exigencies of their Circumstances so we have reason to believe that they proceeded with the measures of calm Prudence Whilst they could they kept in the Communion of the Jewish Church they worshiped in the Temple and attended their Anniversary Assemblies till the Jews themselves seem to have driven them from them which it should seem they did not till the later end of the Apostles times Whilst they kept this correspondence with them there was no reason to expect that they would raise up the jealousie of the Jewish High Priest by setting up a Rival against him Nay by S. Paul's behaviour to him whilst he was on the Tribunal judging him and provoking him by unbecoming and unequal behaviour it appears what a deference the Christians themselves payed to the Jewish High Priesthood of those times besides the express Command our Saviour himself gave to observe and do what should be required from them by those who sate on Moses seat Sect. 8 THUS far therefore they for a while exercised no Government at all but acted by the Principles then allowed in favor of Zealots and Prophets And it is observable how low that Passage concerning S. Paul reaches into the Apostles Times When they did find it requisite for their own sakes to set up an Ecclesiastical Government yet still they did it by Principles allowable by the Jews Among the Jews themselves the Synagogue-Way of Worship was allowed in all places at whatsoever distance from Jerusalem and among them they had their Rulers in common and some as it should seem over the rest whom they called their Archisynagogue which none understood to be done with the least design of emulation against the High Priest This therefore the Christians might imitate without offence without pretending any design of making themselves a distinct Body And this liberty they seem to have taken allowing their first Presbyters no more preheminence than what was allowed to the Archisynagogus Afterwards when the Old Testament Texts were thorowly understood which were applyed by them to the Eucharist by which it appeared to be not only a Commemoration of our Saviour's Death but also a Mystical Sacrifice the Sacrifice indeed that was prefigured and typified by the Jewish Sacrifices and which was to succeed and supersede them in the State of Mystical Israelitism and to take them off from all Obligations of attending and communicating in their bloody Sacrifices then it appeared to tend to a breach from those who still maintained the Obligation of the Levitical Sacrifices And when the Jewish Sacrifices and High Priesthood were taken away and past all hopes of restitution then the Jews themselves who had been proselyted to the Christian Religion upon those other Principles that were not condemnable by Judaism it self would now undoubtedly be more favorable and willing to receive Conviction by what their Brethren had to say for the continuance of the Mystical High Priesthood as well as their Mystical Sacrifices For this must have extremely conduced to the comforting them for the Ruine of their Temple and Priesthood when they might yet enjoy their Sacrifices and Priesthood which had been the greatest endearment of Jerusalem to them every where else more fully and effectually than they did at Jerusalem Nay so far would it be from being scandalous now that more than formerly must on these very accounts be favorably affected to Christianity And upon this account it was seasonable to advance the preheminence of the Bishop when he was to succeed in the Office of High Priesthood by the true Principles of Christianity as we have all the reason we can desire from the footsteps of those times to believe that it was indeed about this time considerably advanced AND this seems also very agreeable Sect. 9 with that absoluteness of Episcopacy so much insisted on by S. Cyprian who most of all insists on this Argument we are discoursing of against the SCHISMATICKS of his time He makes all Bishops equal to have the whole Power in solidum to be absolute Judges of their own Acts and to be accountable to none but God and that there was but one Episcopacy among them all which notwithstanding was possessed by each of them not in parcels but intirely It is easie to observe how inconsistent this is with that Supremacy which is challenged by the Pope over all the other Bishops of the World Had the Case been so the Pope alone had been the only Successor into the High Priesthood and there had been no other change under the Gospel but that of the Seat of the High Priesthood that it had been translated from Jerusalem to Rome Still the confinement had been continued whereas on the contrary it is the principal design of our Saviour's Discourse to overthrow the Perpetuity of that Confinement as well on the Jews side as on that of the Samaritans as well to Jerusalem as to Mount Gerizim and consequently as well to Rome as to Jerusalem And in order hereunto he shews in his Discourse with the Woman of Samaria that henceforward all other places like Samaria and Jerusalem that is all Cities should have equal Privileges
greater authority to his several Exhortations respectively he represents our Saviour in a human visible shape and that the rest of the Scene might be suitable that is sensible also as well as himself he personates the Angels by their Visible Bishops that so Christ might be apprehended as present with the Bishops as God was supposed to be where ever these seven Spirits were which were peculiarly deputed to represent the Majestatick Presence This I take to be the reason why he confines his number not that by any Geographical Distinction those seven Cities were incorporated into a Body more than others of that Province but that he had a particular regard to that number of those Angels of the Presence Therefore he makes seven Candlesticks alluding as I said to the like number of those in the Tabernacle as Emblems of these seven Churches Vers. 13. Therefore seven Stars alluding to the number of the Planets and the Angels who presided over them as Emblems of the Bishops of those Churches Therefore those Stars are in his Right Hand to signifie his care and concernment for their Protection and to conciliate a greater reverence for their Authority Thus it appears plainly that the Bishops are here represented in a Mystical Way and how particularly suitable it was in this way to personate them by the name of Angels They were indeed to perform the same Office under Christ as a visible human person which the Angels were under him as the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in reference to the Restitution of Souls to their Original Dignity The pretended Areopagite than whom perhaps none better understood the Mystical Language of the Hellenistical Philosophy of that Age uses the same Expressions concerning them as concerning those Angels that these are also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so also does Clemens Alexandrinus In one place he calls the three Orders of the Church Bishops Priests and Deacons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Imitations of the Angelical Glory And he elsewhere gives his Explication wherein that Imitation consisted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Church the Presbyters bear the resemblance of the bettering Office as the Deacons do of that of Service The Angels perform both these Services to God in the Administration of the Terrestrial World No doubt the Bishops in this Dichotomy are comprehended under the common name of Presbyters and comparing this later place with the former it must needs have been so But of this I have elsewhere given an account THIS was the properest way I think that could have been thought of Sect. 3 for representing Christ as the Invisible Bishop presiding among the Bishops But because even his human nature tho visible in it self is yet invisible to Us therefore another way was thought of for copying out that Heavenly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even in the ordinary external visible Government of the Church And here the Bishop was to personate Christ himself as the High Priest had formerly represented the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The seven Deacons were to represent the seven Mystical Angels as I am very apt to think they were designed from the very Original I cannot think it casual that the number first pitched on was exactly seven But that which more confirms me in this opinion is the real suitableness of the Office of the Deacons to the Bishop as representing the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in a visible way with that of those Angels to the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he was invisible The Office of the Angels in general is thus described by the Author to the Ebrews that they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These are exactly the very terms by which the Church would have expressed the Office of these Deacons if she had been to have described the same Office as vested in mortal men And I know not whether that expression concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not allude to this that even the Holy Ghost himself in distributing his Gifts did exercise the Office of one of those ordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And indeed the Office of those inferior Daemons was proportionably the same according to the Notions of the Hellenistical Philosophy As the first Institution of the Office of Deaconship was for the distributing the Treasures of the Church so it was also taken for the Office of those Angels to convey the spiritual Treasures those Gifts and Largesses which Christ bestowed on Men upon his Ascension in allusion to the Congiaria bestowed by the Roman Emperors in their Triumphal Ascent to the Capitol to Men as well as to offer and present the Sacrifices and Prayers of Men to God They were to stand before the Presence of God in a posture of readiness to be sent on Messages by him and so were the Deacons to stand before the Bishop to be sent by him on his Messages They were the eyes of the Lord which run to and fro through the whole earth Zach. III. 9 IV. 10 So also the Deacons are in the Language of the ancient Church called the Oculi Episcopi for the same reason They were to present the Prayers of the Faithful before God Tob. XII 15 Gr. Rev. VIII 3 And the same Office of presenting the Prayers was peculiarly the Deacons in the Primitive Church But of all Offices that of being sent on Errands seems to have been the most intrinsick to the notion of a Deacon in the notions of those times Thus it was synonymous with the name of Apostle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are exegetical of each other in the forementioned passage of the Epistle to the Hebrews Judas's Apostleship is called his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. I. 17 and not only so but his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Verse 20. as the very Episcopal Office was to be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in reference to Christ in the comparison now described The Apostles themselves were to give themselves to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. VI. 4 even after the institution of Deacons And S. Paul calls his Apostleship his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. XX. 24 Rom. XI 13 Archippus's Bishoprick is his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Col. IV. 17 So is that of S. Timothy 2 Tim. IV. 5 So is that of the Angel of the Church of Thyatira Rev. II. 19 That now we may not wonder why the Bishops are called Angels in the forementioned Mystical immediate Relation to our Saviour himself the chief Bishop of our Souls 1 S. Pet. XI 25 Because indeed in regard of him they bear no higher Office than that of Deacon And this same Office of being sent on Errands was indeed the principal employment of these Angels of the Presence especially in Affairs of so great importance and honor as this was of the Gospel ACCORDINGLY the Primitive Sect. 4 Church were extremely rigorous in insisting on this very number of their Deacons
in all places as I have elsewhere shewed The Council of Neocaesarea imposed it as a Universal Rule how great soever the Church were to which the Deacons were to serve Certainly they would not have ventured a Change of that Consequence in the Government in a Canon which tho it were at first designed only for their own Province of Cappadocia was notwithstanding afterwards extended first to the Eastern Empire by being taken into the Eastern Code composed between the times of the Councils of C.P. and Ephesus and quoted as a commonly received Authority in the Council of Chalcedon and afterwards to the Western Empire when it was also taken into the Roman Code by Dionysius Exiguus but by conforming the fewer Deviations to a Rule already more generally received And therefore even then it is much more probable that this number was already received in more Churches than otherwise But in the Reasoning now insisted on as most generally used in those Times of keeping close to Jewish Precedents excepting only such Instances whereof they could give an account of the Change from the Old Testament it self I cannot think of any Reason so probable why the numbers of the Christian Deacons was so limited whereas the Jewish Levites were so unrestrained as this of their being designed in imitation of the attendant Angels And on this supposition the account which may be given will be this When the Levites were first instituted there was as yet no knowledge of any particular number of Angels allotted to this purpose and therefore the number of the Levites might well be indefinite because by the Revelations then made the number of the Angels might have been so also But the same Analogy of Reasoning required that the number of the Christian Levites should answer the number of these Angels of the Presence as then received in the time of the Gospel Institution especially such as were so received on account of Old Testament Revelations tho later than the times of Moses yet ancienter than the Gospel and so actually understood then by the generality even of the Jews themselves This does therefore also most probably suppose that the Deacons were thought mystically to represent that number of the Seven Angels on the account now mentioned It may be the same thing also was alluded to in other the like Establishments in those Eastern Parts This very number was exactly observed in a Supreme Council of State among the Persians as appears not only from the famous Story of the Seven who conspired against the Magi who were all equal by the places which they already possessed the reason why they pitched upon that way of the Neighing of their Horses for chusing an Heir to the Crown but also from the Book of Esther There they are called the Wise Men who knew the times the seven Princes of Persia and Media who saw the King's Face an expression exactly answering that concerning those Angels S. Matth. XVIII 10 and in the Fragments of Orpheus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. and their Title of being Angels of the Presence And the same was the number of the Governors of the Jewish Cities if we may believe Josephus tho I know we are told other things by the Talmudical Jews AND this I take also to be the true Sect. 5 Original of the name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I know what other Notions are commonly taken notice of from the practices of that Age. The Athenian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were Itinerant Officers sent to oversee the Affairs of the Cities subject to their Jurisdiction answerable to the Lacedaemonian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Something of the like nature was that Episcopatus of the Sea-Coast of Campania which Tully says was committed to himself by Pompey It was no other than a care of guarding that Sea-Coast not fixed to any one certain place but obliging him to a readiness to defend all That which comes nearest to the Case of the Christian Episcopacy is that of Philopoemen who as Appian tells us was made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Mithridates Here seems to have been a particular Bishop of a City and the Jurisdiction of it to inspect the behaviour of the Citizens in relation to Mithridates But none of all these were Sacred but only Civil Officers None of them seem to have been received in all Cities but only in subject ones nor in all those neither but such only as had a Magistracy and Government of their own and a Power of the Sword within themselves and then especially even in those when their Superiors had some particular ground of Jealousie concerning them Much less was any of them so universally received in the Sacred Administration either of the Jewish Synagogues or the Heathen Temples at the times of the first beginnings of Christianity as to be any likely occasion why this name should have been universally imitated in the new Establishments of the Christian Church I therefore rather take it to have been a design of Mystically representing the Presence of God in the Government of his Church in the Person of his Bishop For thus as the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly signifies an Overseer so the Providence of God is expressed by his inspecting things below Thus the Eyes of the Lord are over the Righteous and an Eye was the Symbol of Providence in the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks By which it appears how suitably those Spirits which are made to be the Eyes of the Lord in Zachary are made the Symbols of the Bishops in the Revelations And as all the Heathen Deities especially the Supreme are as Macrobius has observed no doubt from the Stoicks reduced to the Sun so it is the Character of the Sun 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And in the Language of that Age the Tutelar Daemon was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Supreme Being is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Sibylline Oracles The Gods of the Pagi are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Halicarnassaeus and the Nymphs are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Aristides And to shew that this Title is indeed derived from God even when it is applyed to Men therefore it is oftentimes applyed to God himself and the whole obligation to reverence it even in Men is derived from the concernment of God for them as his Representatives So our Saviour himself is called the Bishop of our Souls And Polycarp in Ignatius is said to be not so much 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 implying God to be the Bishop to whom the Irreverences would by Interpretation redound which were offered to Polycarp himself A strange thing that Blondel should understand this as a reflection on Polycarp which was indeed designed to render his Authority more awful As for Ignatius he elsewhere uses it and uses this same notion for the same design not as a curb upon the Bishop but upon his Subjects that they might not presume upon him
have already proved the Prudence and Solidity of their Reasonings upon it What is therefore in that whole Scheme that for the same Reason that made it seasonable then will not be seasonable still and for ever Was it then thought expedient in order to the preservation of this External Unity to confederate them into a Body Politick And is not such a Constitution as naturally conducive still to the maintenance of an external Unity as it was then and will it not be so for ever Will not all their little Latitudinarian Objections proceed as effectually against the Prudence and Justice and Expedience for Unity of such a Provision in the Primitive Church as they do now against the same in ours Can they in earnest think that the same Principles they insist on for justifying their present contempt of the Ecclesiastical Government and their present Separation would not have obliged themselves to separate if they had lived in those times or would not have excused and justified those who did then separate I speak not of the particular Laws and Constitutions which are changeable with the change of Circumstances but of the Obligation of the Government it self and the Legislative Power which of their own nature are coeternal with the Societies to which they belong respectively And it is too great an Argument of their consciousness of Guilt in this particular that they are so forward to undertake the Patronage of those Ancient SCHISMATICKS Their late Church Historian is very kind to the Memory of the Novatians and Donatists Why so but that he seems sensible that his own Principles would have made him do as they did if he had lived in those Circumstances On the contrary there is nothing in those Reasonings which obliged persons to Submission to Government of the Church in those ancient times which will not do so still and for ever and we have no reason to believe but that they who upon those Reasons thought themselves obliged to Submission to their Ecclesiastical Governors under pain of SCHISM then would for the same Reasons have thought themselves obliged to it now under the same pain of SCHISM if they had refused it AS therefore an external Government Sect. 5 is still as naturally conducive as ever for the preservation of External Unity so also the Means then used are still as efficacious both for erecting a Society and supporting the Government of if when once erected and fitting it to the end of maintaining a Mystical Unity The Means we have seen then designed was the confining the Benefits of the Covenant to the Solemnities of the Covenant and transacting the Solemnities by Sacrifice and confining the Power of Sacrificing to a certain Order of Persons so that none could partake of those Sacrifices but from them and obliging every Individual to the Publick Panegyres that none might think himself secure without a participation in those Sacrifices and extending those Panegyres to whole Cities and confining the management of those Panegyres to a single Person Now what is there in all this that our Brethren can think temporary or not as conducive as ever to the obliging all to a dependence on a City Monarch Is it not still as reasonable as ever that the Benefits for which the Stipulation is made should be confined to those who are interessed in the Covenant If not what Obligation will remain for any to enter into the Covenant if they may enjoy the Benefits without it Or is it not still as reasonable to confine the Covenant to the Solemnities of it that the Obligation may be solid in form of Law and that there may be a notorious way of distinguishing truly interessed persons from false pretenders And is not this distinction as necessary as ever for the External Administration of things and the preservation of an external Unity Sect. 6 IF this be so what can be said to the way of maintaining this external Unity of transacting these external Solemnities of the Covenant by the Blessed Sacrament What can they say why this should not be a way as seasonable to the Circumstances of the present Age as it was in those of the Primitive Christians Is not the Sacrament it self of a perpetual Use and as seasonable now as formerly If it be as I think none of our Adversaries will deny except the Socinians and our lately Socinianiz'd Enthusiasts does it not perform the same Office as it did then This is indeed the only thing that can make it in this way of Reasoning from the Reason of the thing it self perpetual that the same Ends are perpetual and that no other Means but this are appointed or are ever to be expected for the future for the attaining of those Ends. And undoubtedly in the way of Reasoning on which the Primitive Christians took up the Use of this Sacrament they could not chuse but think that it must be perpetual For so I have shewn that in their Mystical Reasonings from the Old Testament as they took the New Testament Institutions to be Archetypal to those of the Old so in allusion to the Platonick Notions then received that made all Archetypal Beings eternal they use the same form of speaking concerning the Gospel it self and concerning all its Institutions that were taken up as typified in the Law And if the Eucharist were taken up as typified by the Bread of Melchizedec then it must by the consequence of that particular way of Reasoning be an Everlasting Sacrifice because it answered an Everlasting Priesthood that of Christ in opposition to the Levitical Priesthood as typified in the Priesthood of Melchizedeck But yet there is no need in this matter to insist much on Notions so little observed Those which are commonly received are sufficient to my purpose The Sacraments cannot be antiquated on that general account which is commonly taken for granted of antiquating the whole Old Testament because indeed neither of them tho taken up as some conceive in imitation of some unwritten Traditionary Observances were yet grounded on any express Old Testament Institution If therefore they will otherwise by Reasoning prove them antiquated they must either prove them such discretionary things as are included in the general power of those who are by God appointed to judge of Circumstances or they must prove it from the New Testament by the same way of Reasoning by which the Primitive Christians undertook to prove the antiquating of those Rites of Judaism discontinued by themselves from the very design of the Old Testament The former way they can hardly venture on if they would be pleased particularly to consider the nature and design of the Eucharist If they consider it as a Mystery that is as a Representation of the Heavenly Eucharist or of what is there transacted by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his own Person so none but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 himself is competent for determining any thing concerning it because none but he can know the Original Mystery