our Judgments were always so uncorrupt as that we might always be sensible of our own interests or all our Duties were accommodated not only to our greater and more solid Interests but to our humours also and we were likely always to continue in the same humour or at least secure from a frequent change there might then be some pretence that our Duty might generally be secured without contradiction of our humours But seeing none of these can be presumed certain and constant nay seeing all of them do most frequently fall out otherwise than it is requisite they should for securing the performance of our Duty that we are frequently either prejudiced against our Duty or changed from our former humours therefore it is necessary for securing performance that we do our Duty on constant and immutable reasons such as may not be obnoxious to the changes and vicissitudes of our humours And such is that and only that of doing our Duty with regard to the Authority of him who has required it § XIV NOW for discovering this whether Duty be performed on account of the Authority requiring it a visible Body Politick wherein Men may be invested with the Divine Authority and may therefore be allowed for Authentical Expositors of the Divine Will that so our Obedience to God may be known by our Obedience to Persons thus empowered by him is much better accommodated than if we confine the Divine Authority in matters of this nature to the Scriptures and allow the exposition of the Scriptures to the Consciences of particular Subjects as the measure of their Practice For as the Scriptures are now managed by them who reject all prudent use of Ecclesiastical Tradition for expounding them it is easy for them who will take their own fancies for the sense of the Scripture and then concern themselves not so much to prove what they have so presumed as to evade what may be objected against them to evade all possible confutation how false soever the Errors may be which on these terms they shall undertake to maintein For it is impossible on these terms so to assure any one sense of the Scripture in favour of any one side of a Controversy newly raised to be the true sense of the Holy Ghost as to exclude all other senses inconsistent with it especially in matters of Practice of a Temporary Obligation and such are the particulars controverted by our dissenting Brethren wherein whatever is pretended it can never appear that the Sacred Writers themselves designed to be so accurate and particular as our dissenting Brethren conceive And it is least of all credible that they should rightly understand the sense of the Scriptures in matters of this nature or assure any thing that may prevent licentious and dangerous expositions of others who wave the History of the Practice of the Church at or near those Ages wherein these Books were Written which must certainly be of most use for explaining the sense of the Sacred Writers in such matters § XV BESIDES though there had been even on their Principles better means for assuring a particular sense of the Holy Ghost in such particulars as these that might not be evaded by a Person desirous to practice otherwise yet how can we be assured that Persons act sincerely in following their convictions How shall we know that Persons of a violent temper and Seditious may not pretend the commands of God to be contrary to those of their ordinary Ecclesiastical Governours not that either they themselves believe them to be so or that they are at all solicitous for doing Gods will but meerly that so they may make use of a plausible pretence for gratifying their Seditious humours without the infamy of being thought Seditious It is certain many may do so who may either not be guilty of any inclination to any of those scandalous vices which are of ill repute with the Vulgar or if they be yet they may count it politick not only to conceal them but also to make an open solemn profession for the contrary in order to the gaining of a reputation to their ill designs And these are Cases which considering the humour of the Age and the haughty behaviour of many who are deeply engaged in the several Parties may without any uncharitableness be supposed likely to prove ordinary Now when we find Persons exceedingly pretending to be Religious impatient of all restraints that we can judg of either to be likely to proceed from God or to be thought by them to do so and only pretending to Subjection to God in such instances which may be as likely to be designed for their own gratification as for the service of God where we can either not be satisfied of their Sincerity that they do in earnest believe their own Practices to be warranted by Divine Authority or where though they were sincere yet the Evidence on which they proceed is of so ambiguous Interpretation as to be very capable of a compliance with their own desires whatever they be and so never likely to impose any thing on them contrary to their own Inclinations which is the only Case wherein we can conclude that what is performed by them is performed with regard to the Divine Authority how can we conclude that they have any real reverence for the Injunctions themselves or for the Authority by which they are imposed But further § XVI 2. HE is also as a Governour concerned to oblige us to the performance of our Duty by such Means as may prove most effectual with us for that purpose and certainly the external Solemnity of undertaking them is such a means and most likely to prove successful That he is as a Governour concerned to oblige us to the performance of our Duty by such means as may prove most likely to prevail with us for its actual performance will appear if it be considered that he is as a Governour concerned for such things as may make for the advantage of the Society in general And that withal it is much for the reputation of the goodness and Prudence of his Government to reconcile this publick benefit with the least prejudice to particular members of the Society And it is much more for its repute if it may prove advantageous to the interests of most of the particular Members And for both these purposes the performance of Duty by the particular Persons obliged is very useful § XVII IT is useful for the Publick For this is indeed to the commendation of the Prudence of any Government in general and particularly of the Divine Government to make the Duties of particular Subjects subservient to the good of the whole Community Nor is this only true of the Duty of Subordinate Ecclesiastical Governours whose peculiar Province it is to take care of the Publick though it be indeed most obviously and eminently true concerning them and God is as peculiarly concerned as a Governour to take care that such means may be used
And it cannot be reasonable for them to judg others to be undutiful unless they suppose their reasons such as may not only perswade themselves but may also prevail on all others who use that industry and ingenuity which the moment of the thing would require from them But the evidence must be much greater which may encourage men to judg of the industry or ingenuity of those who dissent from themselves than what may suffice for their own satisfaction Probable appearances of things to themselves may be very prudent reasons to incline men rather to one side of a disputable question But that cannot make it reasonable for them to believe that others who are more judicious and sagacious than themselves are all obliged to be of their mind and must either be wanting in their industry or ingenuity if they be not so Yet some cases there are which are so very evident as that men may judg concerning them for others how judicious soever as well as for themselves But then the evidence must be so great as may exceed all that whereby we may judg concerning the industry or ingenuity of others For in this case only it is reasonable to suspect the disingenuity or negligence of others rather than their want of conviction in case they dissent from us And therefore thus great the evidence must be by which Governours must judg concerning the punishableness of Dissenters But the evidence by which they must judg of the conviction their Subjects may have of the right of such Governours to govern them must yet be presumed by so much greater than the evidence of their particular Decrees by how much the evidence of Principles ought to be greater than that of the inferences deduced from those Principles For the knowledg of the Persons who are to govern us is indeed the first Principle of the practicableness of any visible Government § VII HENCE it follows 5. That those notorious and agreed means by which Subjects may be enabled to judg to whose Government they do particularly belong must be from God And if it be from him it is no matter whether it be from him immediately or whether it be derived from him by the Ministry of men empowered by him and who are empowered by virtue of their general Authority received from him to make provision even for this particular case It suffices that God will account resistance to Superiors whose right is discoverable by such notorious Rules as a resistance to Governours established by himself and I believe this is all of which our dissenting Brethren themselves will desire to be satisfied And that this is so will easily appear from the Principles already premised For if all must be presumed to come from God which is necessary for the practicableness of the Government established by him and the knowledg of their particular Governours be necessary for the practice of the duty of particular Subjects and no other means be proper for this knowledg of their Governours but such as are agreed and notorious it must then follow that God must have provided some such means And then considering that this distinction of Jurisdictions is such a means for Subjects to distinguish to whose Government they belong seeing that this was a means agreed on by all and notoriously in use long before the rise of them who first began to question Jurisdictions it cannot be denied to be very becoming the care of God that this should be settled by him But on the other side considering also that the means assigned by our Adversaries different from this of Jurisdiction are neither notorious nor agreed on by any but themselves or those who have innovated with them who cannot in any equity be allowed to be competent Judges in a matter of this nature wherein the whole Community is concerned even those also who dissent from them who have the advantage of Number as well as of Prescription against them I say these things being considered these cannot be taken for means of Gods appointment And therefore the settlement of Jurisdictions is not only a proper means but the only means by which all must be concluded in this matter And therefore they must either be acknowledged obligatory by divine right or God cannot be supposed to have made those provisions which are absolutely necessary for making the Government established by him practicable This must follow from their finding it already settâ—ed to their hands when they first began their Innovations that by whomsoever these Jurisdictions were first introduced yet they were not introduced without the Divine approbation Which is enough to oblige all them who find it grounded on such a right to submit to it But according to the Principles of those of our Adversaries who allow the Church a power to determine particular circumstances not expresly determined in the Scriptures but yet necessary for the practice of those general rules which are already prescribed there the institution it self must be acknowledged Divine not only providentially but also in regard of the Authority by which it was introduced not only because the Church's Authority in general proceeds from God but also because she is by these Principles authorized to exercise her power in this very matter which I am now discoursing of seeing this determination of Jurisdictions has appeared to be no other but a determination of particular circumstances requisite for the practicableness of Government in general § VIII NOR can they think it strange in reason that the right of these Jurisdictions should be Divine notwithstanding that the limitation of them depends on men especially when by these Principles those men must be supposed to be seconded by a Divine Authority There is hardly any instance of a Divine Authority which does not as to some particular requisite for practice need the accession of a Humane Authority Yet none thinks the obligation resulting from the complex of both to be therefore any thing the less Divine Who doubts but that the Authority even of these particular Books of Scripture which we now receive for Scripture is Divine Yet it is impossible to prove that these particular Books were written by those particular Authors whose names they bear on which notwithstanding the credit of their being Divinely inspired does necessarily depend but by the same way as we prove other matters of Fact that is by Humane Historical Testimony Many believe that the right of Secular Government is Divine and that the punishment of Rebellious Persons is accordingly such as those deserve who resist the Ordinance of God himself Nay this plainly seems to be the design of the Apostles reasoning Rom. xiii 2 Yet there is no present Government in our parts where the determination of the particular Persons who are to govern is not wholly performed by men by men not pretending to inspiration nor yet on that account expecting any extraordinary Revelation The use of Lots and Anguries which might look like consulting the Gods in the matter
God and the present sense of their Occidental Church the standard of Tradition without recourse to the monuments of the Primitive times and admitted withal so many incompetent ways of bringing in new opinions as new pretended revelations attested by justly-suspicious miracles not to mention the Authority of the Pope whereby it came to be in the power of a few to impose upon the whole it could not be admired that the further they pursued the consequences of these Principles the more they should prove mistaken and that meaner Persons who had the happiness to examine things by more certain Principles should discover many things which they had overseen And as to the means of information that those Ages of Popery wherein their errors were introduced wanted many such means with which God had blessed the World at the beginning of the Reformation Such were the edition of many of the unquestionable Records of the Primitive times the study of the tongues wherein the Scriptures and those Primitive Monuments were written the exacter skill in Ecclesiastical Antiquity by which they were better enabled to distinguish counterfeit from genuine Writers With these assistances it could not be admired if meaner Persons made greater discoveries than great multitudes of others who were otherwise more sagacious if they wanted them § XIV THE same plea I have to make against our present Adversaries both as to Principles and as to the means of information As to Principles that one great Principle by them opposed to the other extreme of the Romanists That the Scripture alone is the adaequate Digest of all Ecclesiastical Practices as well as of matters of belief was by rational consequence like to lead them into multitudes of errors into a contempt of Authority into a rejection of Ecclesiastical Constitutions prudently fitted to circumstances of present practice into an impossibility of Ecclesiastical Peace till all sorts of Persons Laicks as well as Clergymen may be agreed on which side the Scripture is clear in many things whereof if this Principle should prove false no account at all is to be expected in the Scripture Now the mistake of these men is not in any thing that concerns their abilities but meerly in their infelicity in lighting on such a very fallacious principle They judg of the consequences and judg rightly and I am so far of their mind that these and the like things are indeed just consequences from that Principle But the Principle it self they take up as a Principle that is precariously either without any reason at all or upon such reasons as could signifie nothing with any but such as are already possessed with a great favour to it They do not ordinarily dispute it without some indignation at the supposed impiety of him who questions it and by their whole behaviour clearly shew that it is rather their affection and the insensible prejudices of education that has engaged them in defence of it than any shew of reason either that it is true or that it is impious to question it And can we think it any reflection on the abilities of such to be insensibly carried away into a belief of such Principles when they make so little use of their abilities in judging concerning them § XV THE like may be also said concerning our means of information that our Adversaries generally use such means of understanding the Scripture as must necessarily leave them ignorant of many things which yet might certainly have been designed by the sacred Writers and by the Holy Ghost who inspired them Which is one general way of their making disputes endless by requiring a resolution in such cases wherein their own unwary stating of things have made them uncapable of a resolution They are for expounding the Scriptures only by themselves especially in matters doctrinal without allusion to the sense of those times in terms of Art which were plainly suited to the capacities of them who used those terms without allusion to the Notions and Doctrines of those times which were either confirmed or confuted by the sacred Writers without allusion to the whole Systemes of Principles then mainteined though they are very forward to expound difficult obscure passages by their modern Systemes without so much as offering to shew that any then mainteined them which yet they call expounding it by the Analogy of Faith without allusion to the Systemes of the immediately succeeding Ages of the Church who certainly took up their Systeme from what they understood of the Apostles minds from their Writings and Preachings and Conversations to whose capacities the Sacred Writings themselves were more immediately accommodated than they were to ours Upon these and the like Principles most of those things are grounded which may look like Paradoxes in my Expositions of the Scripture And I shall say no more at present in defence of them because something has been suggested to that purpose in several parts of this discourse but principally and professedly in my Prolegomena to my Tutors Book de Obstinatione whither I must again by all means refer my Reader who shall be curious to know what I have to say in favour of these seeming Novelties All that I shall at present remark to my present purpose is that by either not thinking on these things or by utterly neglecting them if they did think of them they must have deprived themselves of all possibility of understanding those Scriptures which were not intelligible without them And then what wonder is it that many things may be cleared by these assistances which they had never thought on nay that they should be cleared by one who had been incomparably less able to clear them if he as well as they had wanted these assistances § XVI BUT to give them all they can with any shew of reason desire Suppose I were as much mistaken as it the interest of their cause to wish I should be suppose their condition were not indeed so dangerous as I conceive it to be Yet why should they take it ill to be warned of a danger which I thought to be a danger though I were mistaken in thinking so Can I do otherwise if I would let them see my hearty well-wishes for their welfare Can I do it more fairly or with less suspicion of imposing on them than by tendring my reasons why I think their condition dangerous to their impartial consideration And what hurt is done them if my reasons should prove less convincing Must it not be a great satisfaction to themselves to be assured that those reasons are not convincing which make others think their condition dangerous Must it not be much more satisfactory even to themselves to know the uttermost of those reasons than only to be left to indefinite suspicions which usually in matters wherein mens fears are concerned make men apt to think they may be more solid than they appear to be upon enquiry No doubt they would think so who were as serious and sincere for their spiritual
of the reasons that required them § XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV The unreasonableness of this way of arguing § XXVI There were then circumstances proper to that Age which required particular condescension § XXVII Though the Negative Argument be not good yet the Positive is that the actual claim of Governours then is a good Presumption that they had a right to the Power so claimed by them § XXVIII Persons extraordinarily gifted at length made subject to the ordinary Governours of the Church § XXIX XXX XXXI This derivation of Power rather from Governours than from the People agreeable to those Precedents whom the Primitive Christians were mâ—st likely to imitate § XXXII XXXIII XXXIV XXXV A way proposed for accommodating the several interests concerned in Ordinations according to the practice of those times § XXXVI XXXVII The Apostles unlikely to confer this right of Government on the People if left by God to their own Liberty according to the Notions which then prevailed among the Christians § XXXVIII Remarks tending to the satisfaction of the lovers of Truth and Peace 1. This way of arguing from the actual establishments of God as it is much more modest so it is also more secure for finding out the right of Government than any conjectures we can make from the reason of the thing § XXXIX XL. 2. Though the People had this inherent right of Government originally yet it cannot exclude a right of God who may when be pleases resume this right into his own hands § XLI 3. If the people ever had such a right originally yet all that has been done since for alienating that right which could be done § XLII p. 423. CHAP. XX. 2. This Authority of administring the Sacraments must be derived from God by the Mediation of those men to whom it was at first committed by him The Negative to be proved That none can be presumed to have a call from God without at least an approbation from the Supreme visible Governours § I. 1. It is in reason and by the Principles of visible Government requisite that this Negative be granted for the Conviction of false Pretenders to a Power received from God 1. It is necessary that Pretenders should be discovered § II III IV. 2. It is also requisite that the means of discovering Pretenders be notorious to all even to ordinary capacities § V VI. 3. These notorious means for discovering Pretenders must be common to all Ages of the Church not proper only to that of the Apostles § VII 4. Hence it follows that God left them to the same ordinary means of judging concerning the right of Spiritual Governours as had been used in judging concerning the right of their temporal Superiors § VIII IX 5. By this Rule of judging concerning Spiritual right the same way as we judg concerning temporal none can be presumed to have this Power but they who have received it from them to whom it was at first committed § X XI 6. This Inference will especially hold when access to the Supreme is most difficult § XII XIII This is the case of Ecclesiastical Government § XIV Application to the Principles of a Modern Writer § XV XVI 2. Our Brethren must be obliged in equity to grant this way because they cannot pitch on a more certain way for the tryal of Pretenders § XVII 1. They cannot do it by deriving their Authority from God immediately § XVIII XIX XX. 2. They cannot do it by pretending to receive their Authority immediately from the Scriptures independently on the Act of their ordinary Superiors § XXI An Objection answered § XXII p. 438. CHAP. XXI 3. This Ecclesiastical Authority cannot be derived from those men to whom it was at first committed to the Age we live in without a continued Succession of Persons orderly receiving Authority from thâ—se who had Authority to give it them § I. 1. This Authority could not be derived from the Apostles themselves to any beyond their own times Neither by their own Persons nor by their deed of Gift nor by their Writings § II. 2. It hence follows that the only way they could use for conveying this Authority to others after their decease must be by appointing sufficient Substitutes who might act for them after their departure § III. 3. The same reasons which prove it impossible for the Apostles to convey this Power to any who did not live in their own Age do also prove it impossible for any of their Successors to do so § IV V. 4. This Negative Argument will only hold concerning the only substitutes of the Apostles and concerning them it will hold That they who have not received Power from them who are alone substituted by the Apostles to convey their power to others cannot at all receive any power from the Apostles § VI VII VIII IX 5. That this Negative Argument applied to any particular Age will hold concerning the only substitutes remaining in that particular Age. Bishops were the only substitutes of the Apostles then remaining when our Brethren began their Innovations § X. p. 476. CHAP. XXII 4. The Authority of administring the Sacraments is not now to be expected any where but in the Episcopal Communion § I. Hence it follows that all the Authority which can be pretended in any other form of Government now must be derived from the Episcopal Government of that Age wherein that form first began § II. The first Dividers of the several parties had never a Power given them of ordeining others by them who made them Presbyters § III IV. 1. They have actually received no more Power from God than they have received from their Ordeiners § V. 2. They have actually received no more from their Ordeiners than what their Ordeiners did actually intend to give them according to their presumable intention § VI. 3. That is to be presumed likely to be the intention of their Ordeiners which may be presumed likely to be thought becoming by Persons in their circumstances § VII 4. The securest way of judging what the Bishops who first ordeined these Dividers thought becoming must be by the Notions then prevailing when these first Dividers were ordeined § VIII p. 483. CHAP. XXIII The Objection concerning the Opinion prevailing in the modern Schools that Bishops and Presbyters differed not in Order but Degree Answ. 1. It seems rather to have been Interest than Conscience that inclined men to the belief of this Opinion This cleared from a short History of this Opinion § I II III IV V. Answ. 2. Though this Opinion had been received more universally than it appears it was by the Multitude yet it is not likely that it would be so received by the Bishops upon whose intention the validity of the Orders conferred by them must depend § VI. Answ. 3. Though the Bishops of those Ages had been universally of this Opinion yet it does not thence follow that they must have given the Presbyters ordeined by them the Power of
Scripture generally speaks of and that this Election to Grace does not so much imply an infallible and perpetual influence of Grace on the Person so elected as his actual introduction to the Ordinary Means of Grace which others had been permitted to reject which amounts exactly to our present design of admission into the Church as I have now explained it which though it be a Notion I think exceedingly defensible yet I would not engage the stress of my present Cause in a Discourse so seemingly exotical to our design any further than needs I must And it will not engage us to Answer that current of Scripture which seems directly opposite to the meaning imposed on these places by our Adversaries And less is requisite to justify our Sense than theirs who therefore ought to have more and greater proof for what they add beyond our Assertions § XIX THIS therefore being supposed that the Promises are confined to the Covenant I infer further 5. That he who would pretend any Title to the Promises must in order thereunto prove his Interest in the Covenant For if the Promises be Gods part of the Evangelical Covenant none can challenge them but he who has a Legal Title to them And none can have a Legal Title to them who has not an Interest in the Covenant on which such a Legal Title at least must be founded because the Covenant is indeed it self the Legal conveyance And it is only such a Legal challenge that can give us comfort and confidence that they belong to us And as by our Interest in the Covenant we may argue Positively that we have an Interest in the Promises not actual and absolute but upon performance of Conditions which is more than can be pleaded by Persons not yet admitted into the Covenant so the Negative way of Arguing for which we are at present concerned is much more certain That he who cannot prove his Interest in the Covenant whatever his performance of Conditions may be cannot challenge a Legal Title to the Promises And as I have shewn that even the things promised cannot be hoped for by one in such a Condition upon any grounds so secure as a Prudent Person might safely venture on with any comfort or confidence so indeed a Promise as a Promise is it self a Legal way of conveyance and therefore as it is the nature of all like conveyances cannot I do not say easily but not at all be challenged on any but a Legal Title But I proceed CHAP. IV. The same thing further Prosecuted THE CONTENTS 2. The only Ordinary Means whereby we may assure our Selves of our interest in this Covenant is by our partaking in the External Solemnities whereby this Covenant is transacted and mainteined This cleared in 2. Particulars 1. That the partaking of these External Solemnities of initiation into and maintenance of this Evangelical Covenant is the only Ordinary Means of procuring and mainteining a Legal Interest in it § I.II. An Objection urged and Answered The Assertion proved from Gods actual Establishment § III. IV.V.VI.VII.VIII.IX.X.XI The same proved from the reason of the thing 1. God is concerned to take care that these External Solemnities be punctually observed as he is a Covenanter § XII XIII.XIV.XV.XVI.XVII.XVIII.XIX.XX.XXI.XXII.XXIII.XXIV.XXV.XXVI § I 2. THEREFORE the only Ordinary Means whereby we may assure our Selves of our Interest in this Covenant with God is by our partaking in the external Solemnities whereby this Covenant is transacted and mainteined So that where we are either not solemnly initiated into this Covenant by the rites and observances that are necessary for such a purpose that is according to the Christian Religion by Baptism or where we aâ—e excluded from the Solemnities of mainteining it that is according to the same Christian Religion by the Lords Supper after we have been once admitted to it there we cannot ordinarily assure our Selves that we have any real Interest in it This will appear from two things that this partaking in these external Solemnities of this Covenant is indeed the Ordinary Means for procuring or mainteining our Interest in the Covenant it self 〈◊〉 and that though this participation had not indeed that influence on the thing it self but that we might obtein or maintein our Interest in the Covenant without it yet that it is at least the only Ordinary Means of assuring us of such an Interest so that though it were not so certain that we might not have this Interest yet certainly we could not be assured of it without this external participation § II 1. THEN The partaking of these external Solemnities of initiation into and maintenance of this Evangelical Covenant is the only Ordinary Means of procuring and mainteining an Interest in it I mean still such a Legal Interest as may immediately impower us to challenge the Promises on performance of the Duties of it This I conceive so clear from the nature and Obligation of Covenants in general as that I do not know whether our Brethren themselves can find in their hearts to Question it in instances wherein their Interest may not be Suspicious of tempting them to Partiality For even in ordinary Contracts we find that Promises however fully agreed on with all their restrictions and limitations that may prevent all future Cavils betwixt the contracting Parties have by the unanimous consent of all Prudent Legislators not been thought fit to be allowed as pleadable in a Legal way till they were mutually Sealed and solemnly confirmed before Witnesses and though some Courts of Conscience may oblige a Person to the performance of his private Promises yet not immediately and independently on the solemnity of doing it But the immediate method is first to oblige themselves in a solemn way to what they have agreed to privately and then to perform the Contents of that Obligation And particularly that I may give an instance parallel to our present Case wherein Inferiors are supposed to contract with their Superiors the Princes pardon though â—â—tested from his mouth by Persons never so Credible is not pleadable in Law till it has past the great Seal and other Solemnities requisite by Law And indeed this Solemnity of conveyance is generally insisted on with much greater rigor in graunts from supreme Governours than in Covenants betwixt private equal Persons And the reason is clear because what is transacted betwixt private Persons is only of private concernment and therefore can only be prejudicial in the particular Case if they should prove mistaken in it and of such particular prejudices to his own private Interest every one of ordinary Prudence is in reason to be permitted to judg as far as concerns his own particular Practice But the Acts of Superiors are likely to pass into Precedents and are therefore likely to prove of greater concernment in the consequence than the value of the interest of the particular Person who is immediately concerned And therefore as Governours are by their Office obliged to be more
may have leave to urge the Allegory further as the Apostle shews us a Precedent in other the like Arguments from and applications of the same Allegory that the dependence of other Members on the Governours of the Church must be as great as that of the Members of the natural Body on their Head this will both shew how extremely dangerous it must be for them to be cut off from the Communion of their Governours on any account That it must be in an ordinary way as impossible for such Members to live as it is for Members of the natural Body when they are deprived of those influences which they receive from their Head and how necessary it must be for them rather to submit to any Conditions short of Sin than to suffer themselves to be reduced to so dangerous a Condition § XIX I KNOW there is another notion of the word Head not for a Head of influence and Authority but of eminency and dignity only and I know that this is a Notion used in the Scripture also where the (b) Is. IX 14 15. Head and Tail are taken for the most worthy and unworthy places as here the Head and Feet may be taken for the same with the more noble and baser Members in the next verse and I know that this Notion is suitable enough to the Ebrew 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Syriack Idiome But withal when I consider how much (c) Numb XXV 15 Judg. X. 18 XI 8 9 11. 1 Sam. XV. 17 Ps. XVIII 43 Is. VII 8 9. Hos. I. 11 oftener it is used even in that stile it self for a Head of influence and Authority than of dignity only how much more natural it is in this particular Allegory where all things in this Mystical Body of Christ are so exactly parallelled with the like things in the natural Body nay where they are parallelled in this very instance of the derivation of influences from Member to Member by which mutual communication the whole Body Mystical is supposed to be mainteined the same way as the Body natural is When I consider that this communication of influences is that which is absolutely necessary to the Apostles design in this place to shew the mutual need that the Members have of each other and that a bare Priority and Posteriority of dignity would be utterly impertinent to this purpose and of the two would rather seem to prove the contrary When I consider further that according to the customes of those times it seems very probable that according to the greatness of their Gifts they were usually intitled to their several Offices that as their Gifts were generally given them for the service of the Publick not for themselves so they who were found to have the greatest Gifts were generally preferred to the most eminent Offices Nay when I consider that at first before the settlement of an ordinary Government in the Christian Societies that is while they concorporated themselves with the Jews and met together with them in their Synagogues and as to any external coercion depended also on the Government of the Synagogue and before there was an ordinary course taken for deriving Authority regularly to Posterity which was not so necessary at first till they were put upon it either by the gradual decay of these Gifts or at least of the Evidences of them and the multitude of false pretenders to them or by the disorderliness of the administration of them in their publick Assemblies the very Gifts themselves seem immediately without any further approbation of Man to have intitled them to the several Offices and accordingly the Offices themselves are reckoned as (d) 1 Cor. XII 28 Gifts as indeed the Case now described seems really to have been the Case of the Corinthians when this Epistle was written that they were not as yet under any settled establishment for Government and St. Paul proves his Apostleship among other things from his Gifts on which supposition this latter exposition that the Head and Feet signifying higher and inferior dignity of Gifts must infer the former that the same Persons who were so qualified for their Gifts were accordingly ranked in their Offices in the Church and the interest they had in the Government yet still with this advantage for the former Exposition that that does more immediately comply with the Apostles design in shewing the mutual necessity and usefulness of the Members to each other I say all these things being considered whatever may be thought of this latter Exposition otherwise yet it can hardly be thought so peculiar to the Apostles meaning as to exclude the former on which I have grounded my Argument § XX BUT supposing this were true as we have proved it false that some Men might be so perfect even in this Life as not to need the Society of others in regard of any advantage themselves were capable of receiving by such a Society yet still they might be obliged to it and to submit to all unsinful Conditions of being admitted into it on account of the benefit that others might be capable of receiving from them Even the Principles of that Philosophy which generally inclines Men to these Enthusiastick fancies I mean the Platonical would have taught them that they are (a) Tull. Somn. Scipion. not born for themselves and that all the good which they are able to do they are also bound to do by the great design of Societies and of God himself if he design the maintenance of them whose principal advantage is this that they who of themselves are weak may there expect the benefit of all the gifts of those which are more able But the Christian Religion does further assure us that all our Gifts are (b) S. Matth. xxv 15 Talents which we are bound to improve for the good of others as well as our Selves and that accordingly we must at length be accountable not only for the Principal it self which we have received but also for the (c) v. 27 improvements we might have made if we had used our utmost diligence in improving them and for those Gifts whose nature is rather to be useful for others than for the Possessor they are such wherein Men are principally obliged to use this diligence that all Men have some of these but that they who are perfect must be supposed to enjoy them in a more plentiful measure And indeed none are more capable of doing good to others than they who are perfect themselves They must be supposed to be best experienced their Examples would be more securely imitated and in matters of this nature Examples are more instructive than the most accurate Notions there would be that pretence which the vulgar are too apt to make use of to recommend the very failings of great Persons by the Authority of the Persons who are guilty of them These would approve the Practicableness of Virtue even in our present Age and circumstances and the very reverence which
clearest Predictions which might assure them of thus much that this was the time when the less clear ones were to be fulfilled also So that thus much being granted that all the Predictions of God whether by words or shadows were then to be fulfilled it followed thence that where the accommodation between the Prediction and the event was clear that was the very sence which God intended should come to pass § XII HOWEVER it is certain that the Primitive Christians did actually use this way of reasoning and that the multitude of such accommodations whereby it appeared that every thing which then befel the Novel Converts to Christianity was either predicted or prefigured in the Old Testament was not only a very great inducement with many of them to receive the Christian Religion but the only Apology they had to vindicate that Religion from the charge of innovation with which it was aspersed by the Jews And particularly the Sacraments were of that consequence as indeed would need a particular proof For if Mystical Judaism required no external Solemnities of worship we must suppose them ready to enquire why these externals were required If by our Saviours Authority alone then it would not look like a part of Mystical Judaism when no part of the Jewish Scriptures could be alledged in favour of it But if Mystical Judaism did indeed require these Solemnities then they would object against the abrogation of Circumcision and Sacrifices which had formerly been so expressly required by the Law as an abrogation of Judaism not as an introducing a more Spiritual Notion of it § XIII In answer hereunto the Christians did both shew that literal Circumcision and Sacrifices had been disapproved in the Old Testament it self and that their own Rituals had been predicted or prefigured as proper to that state of Mystical Judaism which they endeavoured to introduce Particularly as to prefiguration Baptism they supposed to have been prefigured in the cloud of the Israelites in which they are said to have been baptized into Moses that is were made Disciples unto Moses as by Christs Baptism men are admitted to be Disciples to Christ 1 Cor. x. 2 and in the water of the deluge by which those who were in the Ark were saved 1 Pet. iii. 21 1 Cor. x. 4 That of Melchizedec Clem. Alex. Strom. iv prope fin Cyprian Ep. 62. ad Caecilium Euseb Dem. Eu. v. 3 to which our Baptism is expressly called an Antitype And the rock which followed them the Bread of Melchizedeck whom they took for a Type of Christ and this Manna in the Wilderness were taken for prefigurations of the Eucharist and these later two even as to the Element of Bread that even in that Christ might appear to have innovated nothing but to have done that which God had long before designed that it should be done by him And considering how necessary these things were for that great design of the Apostles we have reason to look on them not barely as Arguments ad bomines but as real Truths requisite for the satisfaction of the Christians themselves as well as for the conviction of their Adversaries And considering withal their close connection with this great design of the Apostles in their Controversies with the Jews we have reason to suppose that these were the sence of the Apostles themselves in whose times principally it was that these Controversies with the Jews were debated and in whose times the ordinary Converts from Judaism were most likely to desire satisfaction in those particulars Which will make these Mystical Expositions of the most antient Fathers much more considerable than they are commonly esteemed if not for the solidity of the Expositions themselves yet at least for the credit of the first conversion to Christianity and of the Apostles who for the propagation of the Christian Religion thought it so necessary to insist on these Expositions And this prefiguration of the Eucharist by the Manna being so necessary for the Apostles design to defend the institution of the Eucharist from the charge of innovation and so early insisted on by the Primitive Christians we have very just reason to suppose that it came from the Apostles though we could not trace it in their writings At least we have reason to believe that it was the meaning of our Saviour and the Apostle in this place where on other accounts it appears so likely to have been so § XIV THIS therefore being thus supposed it will plainly follow that by the Eucharistical Bread the Ideal Manna is communicated to us And as all particular derivations from the Ideas can perform nothing but by vertue of the impressions which they are supposed to receive from the Ideas themselves but it is impossible that any derivation can be as efficacious as the Original so it will be also on the same Principles ordinarily impossible that the want of this Ideal Manna thus communicated to us by the Eucharist can be any other way supplyed And as immortality that is a happy immortality to which the Scripture does frequently appropriate the name of immortality does on the same Hypothesis only agree to these Ideal Prototypes themselves not to any resemblances derived from them so this immortality of our Body and our consequent Title to the Resurrection of our Body resulting from it can only be expected from our participation of the Eucharistical Bread if that be the only ordinary means appointed for our participation of this Archetypal Manna § XV AND supposing that this whole Discourse of St. Joh. VI. has relation to the Eucharist at least as it was to be instituted by him for the future nothing can be more plain than that which I am at present concerned for the great mischief men have ordinarily reason to fear when they are deprived of the Eucharist So our Saviour tells them Verily verily Joh. vi 53 I say unto you Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you And the flesh here spoken of was immediately before made the Bread that Archetypal Manna which he was to give them The Bread which I will give is my flesh Ver. 51. Which two attributes of Bread and Flesh ascribed to the same thing are not so naturally capable of being ascribed to any thing else as they are to this Eucharistical Bread of which I am now speaking God grant that our dissenting Brethren may be as sensible of the consequence of this Discourse as they are concerned in it § XVI I AM very unwilling to lay any stress of the Principles of my present Discourse on any thing that might look like a Paradox especially in my expositions of the Scripture But as I have already prevented this Exception by warning how sufficient the necessity of valid Baptism as an ordinary means for Salvation is to my design Chap. 15. so really I conceive the things here delivered of that very great importance for preventing and
the present possessors of the power of Government yet that would give no title to the discoverers of that failure and therefore cannot justifie their proceedings on presumption of such a title from Vsurpation and that even in this Case there is no reason to expect that God should supply in equity what they cannot justifie by a Legal claim § XX 1. THEN It is necessary for the security of visible Government as such that a presumptive title be not rejected but on very evident proofs to the contrary By a presumptive title I mean such a one as the first Innovators found settled when they began their Innovations especially if they themselves had formerly submitted to it and found all who might pretend competition with it submitting to it also nay if they found it unanimously received without any accountable appearance of force or fraud in the first Originals of it This was plainly the Case of our Dissenters in relation to Episcopal Government from which they made their Separation They cannot so much as pretend any other place where any other form of Government had been derived in a Succession from the Apostles to those times They can mention no place where the Bishops were not actually possessed of their § V Power with the consent and submission of the Presbyters themselves nay and the people also and indeed of all those who may be pretended to have been injured by them and who had therefore been concerned to interrupt the peaceableness of the prescription which might in time go far to legitimate their enjoyments before so long a time might pass them as might serve for a prescription All Laws of all Societies do presume in favour of such a title § XXI AND allowing it no more than the force of a presumption yet so it self it is the interest of all Government that want of evidence of its original Right be not allowed alone for a sufficient reason for any to call the Justice of it in Question at least not so far to question it as to venture to oppose it in practice It is otherwise Morally impossible that any Government should pass unquestionable to many successions and by how much the more men usually think it better grounded by its long continuance it must indeed be more liable to exception if the inevidence of its original Right be allowed to be a just exception against it Length of time will either obliterate the original Records or make them accidentally obscure in things wherein they were very clear when they were first written by making alterations in the Tongue and Customs and Opinions of the Age then alluded to Which changes though they be insensible in the particular degrees by which they were made yet it cannot be expected otherwise but that they must grow extremely considerable in the process of a long time In this regard it is for the interest of all Societies whatsoever that want of evidence be not allowed for sufficient to question any part of the challenge of the present supreme visible Governours of the Societies without very evident proof to the contrary § XXII AND it cannot be supposed agreeable to Gods will that when God was founding a Society which was to continue through all ages of the World he should make the conveyance of Authority in it to depend on such means as should be Morally impossible to be so conveyed or that the right of Government should in course grow more questionable in those times which should need its being more unquestionable when both Subjects would grow more unruly and a coercive power should be therefore more necessary than it was at first when they were of themselves more dutifully disposed and when withal the ordinary Governours should want those extraordinary Credentials which recommended the Authority of the Apostles and Apostolical Ages Yet this very presumption if it hold will overthrow all that our Adversaries can say to clear themselves from the guilt of Schism They cannot say that the Scripture forbad them the use of their Authority in things indifferent but only that it does not appear to them that it allowed them to use it § XXIII BUT though this inevidence be not allowable by the fundamental principles of Government to question any part of the Authority in those who are truly invested with it yet why will they say may not the inevidence of particular Persons being lawfully invested in the right of Government excuse us from duty to such Persons concerning whom it does not appear that they are our lawful Governours This will serve their purpose For they need not be solicitous concerning their Duty to Government if they may be excused from Duty to all Persons pretending to a right to govern them and there will be no Persons to whom they will be obliged to pay any Duty if this inevidence of the Legal manner of their coming by their Office may be allowed as sufficient to excuse them from their Duty For this the Scripture will not do but it will be further necessary to be acquainted with the History of every particular Persons Ordination and not only of all in this Age but of all in all the Ages which might have passed between this and that of the Apostles especially of all those Persons in each of them from whom our present Orders are derived But this is a thing which no Records are kept of nor if any had been kept are we secure of their conveyance to us at such a distance in an ordinary way or do we think Providence obliged to secure them to us by an extraordinary one It must therefore be granted further by those Principles whereby the conveyance of any Government to Posterity is secured that no inevidence of this kind can excuse Subjects from their Duty even to present Governours especially when it is otherwise known in general that if the Canons and Constitutions of the Church were observed the Persons ordained according to such Canons must have been validly ordained and that all the Ordained as well as the Ordainers were obliged in interest to have the Canons observed without which they must have weakened their title to the benefits and Priviledges of their Orders so uncanonically received § XXIV THESE are such presumptions on which the Successions of all Government and all the Authority of future Governours in the several Ages of Succession do subsist and which no Society allows to be questionable in the Case of any particular Governour without particular express proof of a failure in his particular Case Mat. xxiii 2 3. And certainly the Scribes and Pharisees who in our Saviours time sate in Moses's Chair and are therefore supposed by him to have the Authority of Moses could not possibly make out their Succession at that distance and after so many revolutions of their state and so great miscarriage both of their Discipline and Records which must needs have been occasioned by those Revolutions by greater assurances than these are § XXV I CONFESS
Name whatever could be done by a long and uninterrupted peaceable prescription against them Whatever could be done by these or by any other means that are by Humane Laws thought sufficient to make a valid conveyance all this has actually been done to deprive the People of this right if ever they had it And therefore no other right could be challenged by them but an unalienable one by any act of men not alienable even by the Apostles themselves as Ecclesiastical Governours This alone can justifie their resuming such a right though they once had it after so many presumptions of a Legal conveyance of it from them If they could lose it all was done that could be to make them lose it And if they challenged it when they had lost it they challenged it when they had no right to it and therefore all that was done pursuant to such a claim must not only have been injurious to their Superiors but a perfect Nullity in it self And therefore if they will needs decline Historical Testimonies and argue only from the reason of the thing it were well they would take care that their reasons proved not only that it was once the Peoples right to dispose of the Government Ecclesiastical but that it is their unalienable right For if they grant it to have been alienable they will then be obliged to enquire into matter of Fact to know what has been done towards an actual Alienation And I cannot foresee what our Adversaries themselves could desire for an Alienation for whose validity they were concerned which they can find missing in the Case proposed for alienating this supposed right of the People CHAP. XX. This Authority of administring the Sacraments must be derived from God by the Mediation of those men to whom it was at first committed by him THE CONTENTS 2. This Authority of administring the Sacraments must be derived from God by the Mediation of those men to whom it was at first committed by him The Negative to be proved That none can be presumed to have a Call from God without at least an approbation from the Supreme visible Governours § I. 1. It is in reason and by the Principles of visible Government requisite that this Negative be granted for the Conviction of false Pretenders to a Power received from God 1. It is necessary that Pretenders should be discovered § II III IV. 2. It is also requisite that the means of discovering Pretenders be notorious to all even to ordinary capacities § V VI. 3. These notorious means for discovering Pretenders must be common to all Ages of the Church not proper only to that of the Apostles § VII 4. Hence it follows that God left them to the same ordinary means of judging concerning the right of Spiritual Governours as had been used in judging concerning the right of their Temporal Superiors § VIII IX 5. By this Rule of judging concerning Spiritual right the same way as we judg concerning Temporal none can be presumed to have this Power but they who have received it from them to whom it was at first committed § X XI 6. This Inference will especially hold when access to the Supreme is most difficult § XII XIII This is the Case of Ecclesiastical Government § XIV Application to the Principles of a Modern Writer § XV XVII 2. Our Brethren must be obliged in equity to grant this way because they cannot pitch on a more certain way for the tryal of Pretenders § XVII 1. They cannot do it by deriving their Authority from God immediately § XVIII XIX XX. 2. They cannot do it by pretending to receive their Authority immediately from the Scriptures independently on the act of their ordinary Superiors § XXI An Objection answered § XXII § I 2. THOVGH this Authority of administring the Sacraments be such as must be derived from God yet it is not so derived without the Mediation of those men to whom it was at first committed By the former Proposition it appeared that no Humane right alone was sufficient to secure a valid administration of the Sacraments Which must therefore oblige all who would expect a blessing on their Ministry and a ratification of the Offices of it as not to assume it to themselves without a Call so not to venture on it without a Call from God himself who only has the power of calling them and particularly not to trust any right whatsoever that is purely Humane But because this Call from God is easily pretended by Enthusiastick Persons not only by such of them as are justly suspicious of a design of deceiving others but also by such of them as may be supposed to be themselves deceived considering the weakness of those Arguments by which these Persons judg concerning such matters and because it is impossible for Governours to prove directly the Negative opposed to such pretences if their non-appearance to them upon such grounds by which they are enabled to judg of these things be not allowed to be a sufficient Argument against them and because no Government in this World can possibly be mainteined nor any order preserved if such pretences be allowed which are not capable of being convicted in this Life therefore I conceive this second Proposition to be also very necessary to settle such a way of proving an Authority derived from God as may at once secure the respect due to such Persons as are truly Authorized by him and yet withal secure the practicableness of a visible Government which cannot be reconciled without a dependance of such Persons on men who have the office of Government This will sufficiently prejudg against all such Enthusiastical pretenders and prevent all the encroachments they might otherwise make on Ecclesiaastical Authority if notwithstanding that the Authority it self is derived from God yet it be also proved that the ordinary Ecclesiastical Governours be the only Persons by whose mediation God is pleased to derive this Ecclesiastical â—ower and therefore that none ought to be supposed to have a Call from God who cannot prove that they have received it from those Persons who are intrusted with a power of calling them And indeed the whole security of Government depends on the truth of this Negative Nor is it alone sufficient for that purpose that they who derive their Authority from those men who were at first Authorized by God do as properly receive their Authority from God as if they received it from him immediately but it is also requisite that no Persons be admitted into Office without the approbation of the supreme visible Governours of the Church without this they cannot undertake nor be responsible for the inconveniences which might follow upon such an obtrusion and without the truth of this Negative that none are to be presumed to have a Call from God without at least an approbation of the supreme visible Governours it will be impossible for them to prevent such obtrusions This Negative therefore is the thing which I am at
have received no Power at all Which in reference to Subjects already under Government will disoblige such Subjects from Submission to them and will consequently make their Authority as unpracticable antecedently to this approbation of the ordinary Governours as if they had none antecedently And because it is not probable by the Principles of Government that God would give an Authority that should be useless and unpracticable as to all the proper uses of Authority this will also make it suspicious that God does not indeed give this Authority it self antecedently to the approbation of ordinary Superiors Especially considering that though these ordinary fallible Superiors should be mistaken in thinking such Persons not Authorized when really they are so yet still their Authority must continue unpracticable by these Principles and that for ever if ordinary Superiors should for ever continue in their mistakes § XV THIS I note against the Opinion of a very ingenious and candid Person who conceives that the Authority is grounded on those gifts of the Spirit which he supposes to be in Persons antecedently to Ordination Mr. Humphreys and which he therefore conceives not given but approved by their Ordeiners so that according to this Hypothesis Ordination does not give this Power but only declares that they have it and gives them a liberty to exercise it within the Jurisdiction of the Ordeiners without which himself conceives it irreconcilable with any Order or Discipline that they should be permitted to exercise their gifts within those Jurisdictions and is sensible how impossible it is to secure the Church from the mischiefs which may be occasioned by the pretences of assuming Enthusiasts if Subjects may be allowed immediately to judg of their gifts and to receive them as the measures of their Practice antecedently to the declaration of their ordinary Superiors If this were true it would indeed follow that Acts of this Authority would indeed be valid before God antecedently to the Declarations of ordinary Superiors and even after them contrary to the Declarations of fallible Superiors in case they should prove actually mistaken which is no hard supposition concerning Superiors who are acknowledged fallible especially in their Declarations concerning things which are true or false antecedently to their Declarations though they might be obnoxious to Canonical Penalties for exercising their gifts antecedently to this Canonical approbation § XVI BUT in reference to Practice the Question will not be what is really valid before God but what may be known to be valid by men And if men presume that to be invalid which is really valid they cannot look on any thing done by them as valid whilest they are supposed to doubt of the validity of the Authority by which it is done And if Subjects be obliged to stand to the judgment of ordinary Superiors concerning the validity of the Authority to which men pretend it plainly follows that even where their Superiors are actually mistaken in judging Persons to have no Authority who really have it yet Subjects must in that Case presume they have none at least presume so in reference to Practice Which will as much discourage them from joining in Communion with such Persons disapproved by Superiors and will consequently oblige them to as near a dependence on Superiors for the practicableness of their Authority as if they had really received it from them which presumed invalidity is sufficient for all that I am concerned for in this Question Besides the unpracticableness of such an Authority independently on Superiors I have shewn to be a great and prudent Presumption from the Principles of Government that no such Authority is given independently on Superiors § XVII BUT 2. Our Brethren must be obliged in equity to grant this Negative way of arguing that men cannot be supposed to have an Authority from God which they cannot shew their title to by the mediation of ordinary Superiors because they cannot pitch on a more certain way of proving that such Persons have received Authority from God than that they have received it from them who were at first Authorized by God and Authorized to give their Authority I cannot conceive how such Persons can pretend to come by their Authority from God otherwise than either that they must have received it from him immediately or that they must have received it from him mediately with dependence on the Scriptures But neither of these Pretences can satisfie others or prevent the mischiefs which may follow from false pretences which I have shewn how much it is the common interest of all Governments of what nature soever to have prevented § XVIII 1. THEN They cannot pretend to receive their Authority from God immediately For they neither can give any solid reason for satisfying themselves that God will call any immediately in these modern Ages much less that they in particular are so called by him nor much less can they satisfie others that they are called God has never promised that he will call any in such an extraordinary way in these modern Ages nor have we any reason to believe that he ever intended it All the extraordinary manifestations which alone made these extraordinary Calls seasonable and useful all confess to have been long since discontinued And it is no way likely that he would continue his extraordinary Calls without his extraordinary manifestations without which they must be so useless And if it neither appear in general that God has actually promised it nor that it is probable that he would ever have intended it how can they satisfie themselves that they in particular are however actually called by him Will they or can they say that God has spoken to them immediately No doubt some Enthusiasts will say so But it is sufficient for my purpose if this cannot be said without Enthusiasm § XIX AND if they will avoid this charge let them consider the differences made between true Prophets and Enthusiasts the secret evidences not only of the Revelations themselves but also of their proceeding from God which appeared to the Prophets themselves either those that are mentioned by the Jews or any others that may be rational Let them consider how dangerous it must prove to themselves as well as others seduced by them if they should prove mistaken how highly responsible they must be to God if they run in his name when they are not sent by him and whether the evidence of their Mission be great enough either to prevent or countervail that danger Let them judg themselves in this particular with the same severity wherewith they would judg others who would pretend Authority for messages contrary to their own and with the same wherewith they must expect to be judged by God if they should prove mistaken and I am confident they will find the evidence necessary for satisfying them in this particular not only much greater than they have but also than they can rationally expect in this present Age. Nay if they would consider how
impossible it is to justifie their Mission in this way without such a particular Revelation as must make them properly Prophets and how themselves grant the discontinuance of that gift I cannot but think if these things were throughly considered that there would be very few if any who would notwithstanding all this pretend to this Authority or think they had that evidence for it as might really satisfie themselves for pretending to it § XX BUT when it is considered further how much others would be concerned in this gift indeed more so than the Person himself who had it and therefore how insufficient it is that they satisfie themselves concerning it unless they be able to satisfie others also how impossible it is to expect that others should believe them extraordinarily called whilest they do not so much as pretend to extraordinary Credentials how little God himself ever expected this who when this sending of Prophets was more ordinary than it can be now pretended yet never sent a Prophet without signs or Miracles to confirm his Mission and appointed Rules for judging between true and false Prophets allowed the judgment of them according to those Rules to their fallible Superiors Considering also that the same reasons hold still for making the same things prudent now and fit to be expected as well as formerly This would not only prove a very just presumption against such a pretence with all others besides the pretender himself but might also shame the pretender himself from pretending it without better evidences than are pretended for the satisfaction of others of the truth of such pretences § XXI NOR 2. Can they pretend to receive this Authority from God from the Scriptures but so as to receive it independently on the act of any of their ordinary Superiors Charters indeed do impower and direct ordinary Governours to continue a Succession of their Power but never empower any particular Person without the concurrence of Governours never without dependependence on them much less ever in opposition to them If they did the Persons so Authorized could not be thought extraordinary Authorized if they received their Authority from the same perpetual standing Rule by which ordinary Governours may be thought capable of receiving it Either therefore they must not pretend to receive their Authority immediately from the Scriptures or if they do they must allow that way of receiving it as an ordinary way And then it will concern them to explain how it is possible to maintain a dependence of the inferior Governours on the supreme visible ones if they receive their Authority thus independently on them or how it is possible to maintain Government in any visible Society without this visible dependence I am sure this supposition is extremely different from all Precedents of humane Politicks which is no great recommendation of its likelihood But how is it possible for them to explain how particular Persons can be Authorized by a Writing immediately where their particular names are not so much as mentioned when they were not in being when the Writings were made and so could not have been known by any humane ways of knowledge by the Writers themselves Can any Precedent be given for this that ever any prudent humane Legislators have thought so small an evidence as this sufficient for the proof of a thing which it is the publick interest that it should be so very notorious Nay in a way of humane proof would it not be presumed on the contrary that such Persons could never have been particularly designed by the Writers whom it was so impossible for them in a humane way to know But they may say that God who inspired the sacred Writers knew all particular Persons to be Authorized by them through all succeeding generations No doubt he did so But it is not his secret but his revealed knowledg that is to be the measure of our Practices And how can it appear to us that he was pleased to reveal to the sacred Writers the Persons who should succeed in the Ecclesiastical Authority in latter generations when he has not been pleased to reveal their names nor indeed to describe any particular Persons by any such peculiar Characters as might in prudence be sufficient to distinguish them from false pretenders If they had been so described as that we might have known them certainly by humane means why might not the Writers have known them who were as able to know what might by humane means be collected from their own words as we are If they be so described as that yet they cannot be known by any humane means short of Revelation how can they be said to have been revealed at all how can they be said to be revealed to us who are to expect no new Revelation from that by which it is so impossible to know them certainly § XXII THE uttermost that I can foresee as possible to be pretended in this Case without gross Enthusiasm is that the Scripture may describe the qualifications of Persons to be Authorized and that we may know who have those qualifications in the several succeeding Ages independently on the judgment of the present respective Governours But where there is any difference in mens judgments concerning these qualifications of Persons that some Persons judg those men qualified whom others judg not to be so this is a Controversie which as it cannot be pretended to be decided by the Scriptures which if they indeed tell us what qualifications are requisite for the Ministry yet they cannot be thought withal to tell us what particular Persons are indued with those qualifications So neither is the thing it self always so notorious as to assure that unanimity of Judgment even between candid and judicious Persons that is altogether necessary for the preservation of the publick Peace Much less when many are likely to be concerned in it who are neither judicious nor candid such as the Persons who set up themselves as Candidates for this Election and the interests and Parties they may make So that still there will be need of an Authoritative decision in this matter and this in a thing which the Scripture cannot be pretended to have decided But neither is it agreeable with the Principles of any policy that all Persons who are qualified themselves should for that reason be supposed to have Authority nor that none should have Authority who cannot appear certainly to be so qualified The publick service requires a certain number which if it be considerably exceeded or failed of the excess or defect will be so far from being serviceable as that it will prove prejudicial to the publick And what security have we that the number of Persons qualified shall be always such as may answer that due proportion which may be useful And yet if qualifications give the Authority and all that Church Governours can do be not to give the Authority to Persons qualified but to judg who have the Authority already by their having the
qualifications whatever proportion be requisite for publick service they must admit all those whom they judg qualified and admit none but such if the qualifications alone be supposed to intitle to the Authority But if any may be rejected whom they think qualified or any admitted whom they do not judg qualified either of these are sufficient to shew that qualifications alone cannot be conceived sufficient to intitle to Authority And yet this is all that can be thought of how the Scriptures can be thought to design particular Persons for Authority that they may indeed describe and particularize those qualifications which may fit a Person when he is known to have them for Authority CHAP. XXI Ecclesiastical Authority cannot be derived to this Age without a continued Succession THE CONTENTS 3. This Ecclesiastical Authority cannot be derived from those men to whom it was at first committed to the age we live in without a continued Succession of Persons orderly receiving Authority from those who had Authority to give it them § I. 1. This Authority could not be derived from the Apostles themselves to any beyond their own time Neither by them in their own Persons nor by their Deed of Gift nor by their Writings § II. 2. It hence follows that the only way they could use for conveying this Authority to others after their decease must be by appointing sufficient substitutes who might act for them after their departure § III. 3. The same reasons which prove it impossible for the Apostles to convey this Power to any who did not live in their own Age do also prove it impossible for any of their Successors to do so § IV V. 4. This Negative Argument will only hold concerning the only substitutes of the Apostles and concerning them it will hold That they who have not received Power from them who are alone substituted by the Apostles to convey their Power to others cannot at all receive any Power from the Apostles § VI VII VIII IX 5. That this Negative Argument applied to any particular Age will hold concerning the only substitutes remaining in that particular Age. Bishops were the only substitutes of the Apostles then remaining when our Brethren began their innovations § X. § I 3. THIS Ecclesiastical Authority cannot be derived in this Age we live in from those men to whom it was at first committed that is from the Apostles without a continued succession of Persons orderly receiving Authority from those who had Authority to give it them from those first times of the Apostles to ours at present § II FOR it is plain 1. That this Authority cannot be derived from the Apostles themselves to any beyond their own time There are but three ways conceivable how this might be possible that they themselves might convey Authority to others either by their Persons or by their Deed of Gift or by their Writings But by none of these means are they capable of receiving Authority from them who did not live in their time Not from them in their own Persons because they were dead before the Persons of whom we speak were born or were capable of receiving Authority from them For it is impossible to understand by the nature of any Humane contracts how a personal right can be devolved to another without a personal act or how any personal act can be between Persons who are not supposed coexistent at the same time Not by their Deed of Gift because this also could only convey their Power to Persons of their own Age. Especially considering that Power is that which is the original security of all other Gifts Indeed where a standing Power is supposed and a constant orderly Succession into that Power there a Gift may be made to future Persons which may both be determined by Persons so empowered and the Gift secured to Persons so determined by them But all are so sensible of the unpracticableness of a Gift to future Persons without a Power both to determine the Persons and secure the Gift to them as that it is ordinary in Wills to appoint Executors who may secure the performance where the standing Power cannot descend minutely to take care of the performance in particular cases And it were certainly in vain to make Testaments if none were empowered to determine the Controversies which rise in execution of them and if the publick Authority did not confirm the Act of the Testator in nominating an Executor and the Power of the Executor for performing the trust committed to him It is therefore absolutely necessary that a Power be first established by which the Will may be performed and a Succession in that Power ascertained for so long at least as any particular of the will remains unperformed before any one can in prudence think such a will performable And therefore the Power of the Apostles being the Supreme and only Power by which the Church as a Body Politick does subsist must be first secured and secured in a regular constant Succession so that none ought to be supposed in future Ages to receive any Power from them but they who receive it in that Succession by the hands of Persons empowered to give it them And because their Legacies are not confined to any certain Age therefore the Power of their Executors must not expire for ever and so much the rather because there is no superior Power to take care of the execution in case the Persons should fail who are immediately intrusted with the Execution Not by their Writings though they indeed continued extant after the decease of the Writers for what has been said in the future Chapter § III HENCE it follows 2. That if they would convey any Power to Persons not living in their own Age seeing they could not do it by themselves they must do it by appointing sufficient substitutes to act in their name after their decease that is they must give such Persons whom they would substitute the same Power themselves had received from Christ I mean as to these ordinary exercises of Power for which I am at present concerned and not only so but the same Power also which themselves had received of communicating this Power to others Where both of these were present the act of such substitutes was to be taken for the Act of the Apostles themselves and as validly obliging them as if it had been performed by themselves in their own Persons by all the Laws then received concerning Delegation and substitution And the want of either of them was sufficient by the same Laws to invalidate a conveyance from the Apostles by so imperfectly-Authorized substitutes And I have already shewn that the Laws then received were punctually observed by the Apostles in these their Legal conveyances I cannot foresee what other means our Adversaries can think of to avoid this consequence Chap. iii. §. 5 6 7 8. When they shall think of any it will then be time enough to consider it § IV AND 3. The very same reasons
this Opinion could not think themselves obliged to give this Power to simple Presbyters As to the Canonical exercise of their Power Presbyters still depended on their Bishops even in things not exceeding their Power as Presbyters But when a simple Presbyter was licensed to Preach or hear Confessions this was not properly called an extension of his Character By which it seems most likely that by this extension of the Character they did not only mean a Canonical Liberty to exercise more Acts of the same Power which they supposed them to have received before but an addition of a new branch of Power which because Presbyters want if they presume to exercise it their doing so must prove not only Vncanonical but invalid Though they believed the substance of the Power to have been the same yet certainly the least that could have been meant by the difference of Degree between Bishops and Presbyters must have been that Bishops had that same Power independently which the Presbyters had dependently on the Bishops as to the exercise of it Undoubtedly this they did grant who held this Opinion of St. Hierome in the greatest rigor in those Ages I am speaking of if they did not grant something more And yet this is sufficient for my present design both to shew why these very Persons might not have thought it fit to give this power of Ordination to simple Presbyters and why it is very rational for us also to presume that they did not actually give it them § IX FOR by the fundamental Principles of all Societies the Power of giving Power to others is still reserved as a Prerogative of him who has that same Power independently And the reason of it is very plain as to both parts as to him that has the Power dependently and as to him who has it independently He who has the Power of administring the Sacraments yet so as to depend on the Authority of another in the exercising of that Power cannot therefore with any Justice make a valid conveyance of that Power to another because he cannot himself be taken for an absolute Master of that Power Though the Power it self be given irrevocably yet while it is given with the condition of dependence is cannot be alienable by the Person to whom it is given without the givers consent because the right of alienation supposes a property of our own and dependence implies a reservation of right to him on whom we do depend which right as it is absolutely necessary to an intire alienation so it cannot with any Justice or validity be disposed of without the consent of him whose property it is Besides that giving of Power does plainly belong to the exercise of Power and to a higher degree of exercise of it than that of the exercise of the Power so given as it implies a greater Power to give a Power which includes a capacity of all the Acts belonging to it than only to give a liberty to exercise a particular Act. And therefore he who has not a just title to give way to the exercise of the Power so given can be much less supposed to have one to that higher exercise of Power by which the Power it self is disposed of It is also clear as to him that has the Power independently It is necessary for Government that all others do depend on those who are themselves supposed independent But this cannot be understood unless the independent Power alone be allowed the Power of admitting to Office whom he pleases If others may be allowed to give their Power they will soon make themselves independent if they were not so at first by making a party and perpetuating it But because this whole Power of giving Power in the Persons I am speaking of is so eternally irreconcilable with the safety of Societies therefore it is fit it should never be given them and therefore in the way of presumption for which I am at present concerned it is to be presumed that it never was intended for them § X BUT if our Brethren would be pleased to reflect on the Principles on which these Persons proceeded in making one Order of Episcopacy and Presbytery they would find that they did not in the least oblige them to believe that this Power of ordeining others was a right of simple Presbyters The plain reason was that they made their distinction of Orders only in relation to the Sacrament of the Eucharist And because simple Priests had the full Power of this Sacrament of consecrating as well as of administring it so that there was nothing higher requisite for the completion of this solemnity reserved to the Bishop nor capable of being reserved to him therefore there was on this account no room left for any Order above Priesthood And because this Power of transubstantiating the Eucharistical Elements was then looked on as the highest instance of Power that could be communicated to Mortals because this was thought sufficient to exempt from all Subjection to temporal Princes nay to place the Spiritual Power above the Princes and yet in this instance of Power which had been so extremely extolled in the Disputes of those Ages between the Popes and Princes the Bishops could pretend to do no more than what was performable by every ordinary Priest therefore it can be no wonder if in this regard many of them could not allow any Order superior to that of simple Priesthood He that is but a little conversant in the writings of that Age will find that as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was very eagerly mainteined as the great recommendation of the Sacred Power in those Disputes which were then raised concerning it so it is particularly urged for the honour of Presbytery as often as they were put upon magnifying their Office And this I therefore take in earnest to have been the true reason that inclined those of the Writers of that Age that followed this Opinion rather than the pretended instances of Scripture or even the Authority of St. Hierome himself For these were Principles for which as they were more firmly interested so I believe they were also much more heartily believed in that Age than any on◠particular controverted sense of Scripture recommended on the Authority of one particular Father And therefore whatever Superiority of Bishops over Priests was reconcilable with this allowance of a Power of consecrating the Eucharist to simple Priests all this might have been acknowledged by these very Persons notwithstanding their making them the same Order And considering that this Power of Ordination was thus reconcilable this Opinion could not hinder those Persons from appropriating it to the Bishops § XI FOR notwithstanding this Power of the Priesthood over the Corpus Christi verum was thought common to them with the Bishops yet the Power over the Corpus Christi Mysticum this was the language of those Ages was then acknowledged for the peculiar right of the Bishops And what can our Adversaries think themselves gainers
the Scripture sense any otherwise than as they thought the Presbyters in the modern sense justified by the Scripture If this was the reason as in all likelihood it must according to the sense of those times then certainly their prime design was only to give that power which was then granted to Presbyters which will not include the power of ordeining others as I have already shewn Besides it cannot be presumed that their design was to make Presbyters in the Scripture sense any farther than as they thought Scripture precedent obliging to their own times If they thought it lawful for them to alienate the right which originally belonged to them if at least they thought such an Alienation valid when done however unlawful to be done why should they rather think of retrieving the Scripture-practice in this particular than in those of the Deaconesses and the feasts of Love c. to which no parties think themselves obliged at present § XXI I CANNOT but think that this was really St. Hieromes sense of this matter Ad Euagr. who never thought himself obliged by his singular opinion concerning the Primitive form of Ecclesiastical Government to make any disturbance in the present settlement And the reason he gives for the change that it was for the avoiding Schism was a commendable reason and as much concerning his own and all future times as it did those wherein this change was first supposed to have been made Schism is still as dangerous to the Church and Episcopacy is still as prudent an expedient for preventing the occasion of Schism arising from parity now and for ever as it was then And the decree of the whole World which he mentions as the Authority by which this change was made if it do not include the Apostles or some such extraordinary Officers who in those times had alone the power of making such a Decree as he there speaks of which might oblige the whole World and in whose time the expressions he makes use of for expressing this Schism that one said he was of Paul another of Cephas another of Apollos were first and most literally fulfilled and it is unlikely that they would defer the remedy so long after the occasion as our Adversaries suppose besides that the mistake of mens thinking that the Disciples baptized by them were their own is not likely to have continued so long and to have prevailed so universally as to occasion a general Decree against it after the death of all the Apostles when St. Paul himself had so expresly condemned it so long before If I say the whole World concerned in this business did not include the Apostles and it is most certain that it cannot exclude them yet certainly it must have included all those extraordinary persons of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who besides their intimate acquaintance with the Apostles were themselves indued with great and Apostolical gifts and as they cannot be presumed ignorant of the Apostles mind in a matter of fact so notorious as this was of Government so they cannot be presumed unfaithful to their trust in a matter of this consequence as to make a Decree directly contrary to an establishment of the Apostles designed by them to be unalterable and this Decree an universal one without contradiction of any one of these Apostolical Persons § XXII WHATEVER our Brethren may think of these things now yet certainly St. Hierome could not on these terms think this change invalid Nor consequently could any of them think so who were in this matter guided by St. Hierome And if so we have no reason to presume that they must have intended to restore the antiquated Scripture-right of Presbyters which if it prove true must overthrow all our Adversaries Arguments for proving that Ordination was a right of Scripture-Presbyters in order to the proving the like right in Presbyters now Though it was their right then yet if it be alienable it may cease to be their right now If it were unalienable from those who once had it yet without defending the validity of any alienation they may want it now not because they alienated it but because they never had it However though it had been their design to give our present Presbyters all that right which belonged to Presbyters in the Apostles times yet certainly they who made these Presbyters are the most competent Judges of their own intentions if we will deal fairly not captiously And therefore even in this case our Adversaries should not immediately conclude that to be the right of modern Presbyters because themselves think that Presbyters in the Apostles time had it unless they could prove our modern Ordeiners to have been of their mind in this particular It suffices at present that I have shewn that it is not from the Scriptures as a Charter but from their Ordeiners as Persons Authorized by that Charter and as Authentick Expositors of it if not as to truth yet at least as to practice that they receive their Orders and therefore that the power actually received by them must not be measured by the true sence of the Scriptures but from that wherein their Ordeiners understood them But I have already proved that they who intended to make them Presbyters in the Scripture-sence did not could not suppose that the power of Ordination was the right of Scripture-Presbyters § XXIII BUT they may object further that the rights united by God are inseparable by any Humane Authority and that the power of Ordination is by God united to the other rights of Scripture Presbyters so that it was impossible to give them any one right without giving them all or to retein one without reteining all and therefore that if our present Presbyters have the power of administring the Sacraments they must not be denied the power of Ordination If our Adversaries mean that those Presbyters who had both those powers united in them by God could not be deprived of the one power without the other nor indeed of any by any Humane Authority this if it should prove true yet is a case wherein our present Ordinations are not concerned which were not received in those times wherein our Adversaries pretend to prove that these two powers were so inseparably united If further they say that de jure they ought not to be separated as they will find the bare Argument from Scripture-precedent very unconcluding to this purpose they neither can prove that ever Scripture-Presbyters did ordein in separation from a President much less that smaller over-voted parts of any particular Presbyteries or any Presbyteries made up of fugitives from many did so nor if they could can they prove the precedent obliging now without some more inforcing considerations from the nature of the thing so they will not find it easie to produce better And it is at present sufficient for my purpose that they may be separated de facto though they who separate them be to blame for doing so § XXIV NOR