A discourse concerning the one altar and the one priesthood insisted on by the ancients in their disputes against schism wherein the ground and solidity of that way of reasoning is explained, as also its applicableness to the case of our modern schismaticks, with particular regard to some late treatises of Mr. Richard Baxter ... / by H. Dodwell.

THE INTRODUCTION . THE CONTENTS .

How the Ancients reasoned for Unity of Communion from the Unity of the Priesthood , and the Unity of the Altar . Sect. I. Mr. Baxter makes them reason quite contrary to the Design and Interest of their Cause . Sect. II. An account of his way of managing this same Reason . Sect. III. This Reasoning of no force , but as design'd by the Ancients , who used it . Who neither could design the Inferences deduced thence by Master Baxter . Sect. IV. Nor could design the Premises true in such a sense as that the Inferences would follow from them whether they would or no. Sect. V. The Design of the present Discourse . Sect. VI.

THe Unity of the Catholick Church in Sect. 1 opposition to the separate Conventicles of SCHISMATICKS , is ( in the Language of the most ancient and accurate Writers against SCHISM , especially Ignatius and S. Cyprian , from whom later Antiquity has received the same Terms ) expressed as grounded on the Unity of the Priest and the Altar . In which way of Reasoning they conclude , that they who partake at the same Altar , and of the same mystical Sacrifices offered thereon , and receive their portions of this Sacrifical Feast from the Ministry of the same Priest , whose Office it is to offer those mystical Sacrifices on that same Altar , that they , and they alone , are to be judged to belong to the same Society , confederated by those Sacrifices . And on the contrary , that they who set up other Altars in opposition to that one Altar , in order to the confederation of distinct Societies , owning no correspondence with the Original Altar : and they who set up a distinct Priesthood by themselves , owning no dependence on the Priest related to that Altar , cannot , by virtue of this Sacrifical Confederation be judged to belong to the original Society , nor can consequently be intitled to the Privileges of the Society from which they are so divided . This One Altar those Ancients understand of the Original Communion , and the one Priest of the Bishop who was possessed of the Church when the Separation was first made ; And accordingly conclude farther , that whoever keep not to the original Communion , and do not own the Authority of such a Bishop and his Canonical Successors within his own Jurisdiction , are , for these very Reasons , cut off from the Original Churches , and from all just and legal Claims to the spiritual Promises and Privileges of Churches .

THESE Things , one would think , Sect. 2 should be very plain , as to the Case of our present Nonconforming Adversaries . And yet it is strange to see how extremely partial men , otherwise well meaning , are , when tempted by the Interest of a beloved Cause and Party . And I know not whether we have a greater instance of this human Frailty than Mr. Baxter . He it is that will needs perswade us , that this very same Reasoning which was made use of by those Fathers , for proving all those Diocesan Societies and Assemblies SCHISMATICAL , which are maintained in opposition to the Diocesan Bishop , does indeed prove the contrary ; That in that very same Case it proves that the Diocesan is the only SCHISMATICK . This had indeed been more excusable , if he had taken the Argument fingly , and vindicated it from the unskilfullness of their management of it . Then he might indeed pretend to shew , with some consistency to his own undertakings , that it did prove the contrary to that for which the Ancients had produced it . But when he is not content with this , but will needs pretend further , that his Doctrine , as well as his Reasoning , is the Doctrine also of Ignatius , and S. Cyprian ; That they as well as he , were for defending subdivided Diocesan Assemblies against the Authority of their Diocesan ; That they as well as he , charged the Diocesans ( that was themselves , in the Cases concerned in their Disputes ) with the SCHISM of such Divisions ; That accordingly they , as well he , should unchurch the Diocesan Ordinaries for not allowing the Exercise of Discipline by Felicissimus , and such like Presbyters independently on Ordinaries , within their Ordinaries Jurisdiction , for not owning such divided Factions and Assemblies headed by single Presbyters for proper Churches , and intitled to the Privileges that were proper to truly Ecclesiastical Assemblies ; that is indeed that their whole Disputes were by themselves designed against themselves , and in favour of their Adversaries : it is very strange how he could be so confident of so weak Conjectures as those are which he uses in a Case , of it self , so extremely incredible . But such gross mistakes as these they are usually guilty of , who will venture rather to expound Authors by single Expressions , not throughly understood , than inquire into the true History of the Dispute , and the matter of Fact that occasioned it , and the Interest and true design of the Dispute it self , as fitted to the Case for which it was designed .

A PARADOX so incredible Sect. 3 one would expect should be confirmed by very full and convincing Evidence . Yet all he has to shew for it , is , that those Ancients limit this Unity by one Altar , that is , as he conceives , by one single Communion-Table ; and by one Priest , that is , as he also understands it , by one single Ordinary Minister . Whence he concludes , that the notion of a single united Church then included no more than could ordinarily maintain Personal Communion from the same Table that could ordinarily assist the Ministry of one single Minister , and ordinarily meet in the same place , even in those primitive Times of Persecution , when it could not be safe for many to meet so . He concludes , that this being so , whosoever were thus united in a single Congregation , and under the persoanl care and inspection of a single Minister , must consequently have been united to a Church , and could not be judged SCHISMATICKS for want of any other Terms of Union . He concludes , that the Union of Diocesan Churches , supposing many Congregations thus united among themselves , cannot accordingly involve such Congregations in the Crime of SCHISM , if they refuse those further Terms of Union , whilst they yet retain the Union of one Altar and one Priest , which was then thought Catholick , and from which alone the Reasonings now mentioned made it SCHISMATICAL to depart . That this being so , the Diocesans themselves , if they refuse Communion to Congregations so united , or , which amounts to the same thing , impose their own Terms of Union on them ( which on these suppositions , cannot be Catholick ) must themselves be judged to be the Violators of Catholick Unity , and SCHISMATICKS , not those Congregations whom he supposes to do no more than assert their own just Liberty against Usurpation and Uncatholick Impositions ; That this being the present Case of our Nonconformists : they are also justifiable , on the same Principles , from the Guilt of SCHISM .

BUT enough has been already said Sect. 4 for overthrowing the force of this Argument . I design not to repeat any more of it than what is absolutely necessary for preparing the way to my present undertaking . It is first plain , that this whole Argument can have no other force than what it must derive from the Authority of those ancient Authors who first used it . The very expressing of the notion of Catholick Unity by one Altar , and one Priest , is not taken from the Language of the New Testament . Hence it follows further , that this whole Reasoning depending wholly on the Authority of them who first used it , cannot consequently hold in any Cases but those for which they design'd it , & must undoubtedly be false in all such other Cases for which it was impossible that they could design it . These things therefore being thus premised , several things have been already suggested to shew , that in the Judgment of the Ancients no such Consequences could be designed , as our Adversaries are in interest concerned to draw from this way of Reasoning . It has been shewn that they could not possibly oppose , or defend the same things that are hence opposed and defended by our Adversaries . They could not possibly oppose Diocesan Churches , because their own were so , as properly as ours are now . They took in whole Cities , how populous soever , and how full soever of Christians , together with the whole Jurisdictions belonging to those Cities . Those Cities were as great and populous , and as full of Converts to one Communion as ours are now ; nor can our Adversaries produce one single instance wherein the numbers of Converts made them subdivide one City into several Churches independent on the Jurisdiction of the whole , as they must have been by the Principles on which our Adversaries proceed in this Case . And which is very considerable in this matter , See my second Letter , Sect. 7. those very Cities of those Countries , which were first converted by the Apostles , of Palestine , and Syria , and the lesser Asia , and Greece , were generally very great and populous , and suddenly filled with multitudes of Christians . Yet even there we never find that the Apostles themselves thought that multitude a sufficient reason for multitudes of independent Jurisdictions ; nor can we find the least Footsteps of any such original Constitutions , even in those Churches themselves , as far as any warrantable Histories can inform us . Nor could they possibly defend the independence of particular Congregations on Diocesan Jurisdiction , that being the very case of the Adversaries which whom they had to deal . Second Letter against Mr. Baxter . Sect. 2. Ignatius plainly disputes against all Sacraments , without the consent of the Bishop , and does as plainly include Presbyters in the number of those whom he makes subject to the Bishop . How then is it possible , by his Principles , that there could be any Priest or Altar in a City independent on the Bishop ? Ib. Sect. 32. S. Cyprian does not only ( from these Principles ) condemn the opposite Assemblies of Presbyters against their Bishops , but even of Anti-Bishops themselves . What greater assurance can we desire that he thought all City Altars , and all City Priests , of what rank soever , obliged to a strict dependence on the common Church of the City , and on their common Bishop , who already was canonically possessed of the City Jurisdiction ? That was generally the Case with the Novatians and the Donatists . And why should they interpret the separate Assemblies of such persons to be an erecting an Altar against an Altar , if they had thought them to stand on equal Terms , if they had not thought all City Assemblies obliged to a dependence on the common City Altar and Bishop ? Where no Duty is owing , the erection of a new Altar cannot be interpreted as an opposition to the old one . Thus Mr. Baxter and his Brethren argue . And thus would those Fathers also have argued , if they had been of Mr. Baxter's mind .

THUS impossible it was , that those Sect. 5 Fathers could design the Consequences deduced from their Principles by our present Separatists . Nor could they understand the Principles themselves in any such meaning as that the Consequences should naturally follow from them , whether they would or no. When this appears , there will no pretence remain for our Adversaries misunderstanding them . They mention indeed but one Priest in a Church , but they make him assisted with Colleges of Presbyters and Deacons . Who sees not that by the one Priest they could not mean ordinary Ministers , but only the City-Bishop ? Yet these very expressions Mr. B. can occasionally quote , without observing how they make against him . Their mentioning such Colleges plainly implies , that they did not think the one Priest obliged to perform all his care in his own person . If that had been possible for him , and they had thought him so obliged ; what need had there been of so many Assistants ? And what will then become of the greatest part of Mr. Baxter's Reasonings ? They mention One Altar , yet at the same time they mention several Communion Tables , which will utterly overthrow their Inference , that they must therefore have consisted of single Assemblies . This has been lately proved against them by a most Learned Adversary . He proves it from S. Augustine , than whom , Dr. Stlling . Unreason . of Separat . Part 3. S. 9. none does more largely insist on this Argument in his Disputes against his contemporary Donatists . I have also elsewhere shewn , Second Letter against Mr. Baxter . Sect. 53. that even by the Principles of Ignatius , and others of the first Ages , Presbyters were also also allowed the power of administring the Lord's Supper by the Bishop's leave . What matter is it whether there were standing Altars in the several places of such Administrations ? Tho there had been none , it will not thence follow that there were no different Assemblies . I have shewn how great multitudes might have communicated from the same Altar , See . Let. ib. greater than could ordinarily meet in the same Assemblies , especially in such times of Jealousie and Persecution . If these things be thus understood , as they were understood by the Ancients , it is easie to foresee what little ground will remain for our Adversaries Inferences .

WHAT then will remain further Sect. 6 to be added on this Argument that has not yet been sufficiently explained ? A positive account of the true occasion and design of the use of these Phrases , from whence we are to understand the meaning of the Ecclesiastical Writers in using them , and may judge both of the Truth of their Principles , and the solidity of the Inferences by them deduced from these Principles in this matter , and may also judge how applicable these Reasonings are to the Case of our present Non-conformists . When these things are cleared , I know not what can be desired further for clearing the solidity of our present Applications .

CHAP. I. The Solidity of the way of Reasoning from Jewish Precedents in these very Instances of their Priesthood and Altar . The Contents .

1. This way of Reasoning for Unity from one Altar , and one Priesthood was deduced from the nearest and freshest memory of the Apostles . Sect. I. This being granted will be sufficient to shew that the condemnation of SCHISM on these Principles must needs have been agreeable to the Sense of the Apostles themselves : Sect. II. 2. This way of Reasoning is more likely to have been taken up from Jewish Notions than Heathenish . Sect. III. How usual it was for the Christians of that Age to reason from Jewish Precedents . Sect. IV. Used in these very Particulars of their Priesthood and Altar , Chap. 1. by S. Clemens Romanus . Sect. V. By S. Paul himself . Sect. VI. Used not only as Arguments ad Homines , but as such as were really conclusive of the Things they were designed to prove . Sect. VII .

Sect. 1 FIRST therefore I observe , that this way of reasoning for Unity from one Altar , and one Priest was not first taken up in the later Ages of the Church , but deduced from the nearest and freshest memory of the Apostles . Ignatius himself , who lived in their times , and was conversant with them , and was by them made Bishop of Antioch , we see uses it . Had it been taken up in Ecclesiastical Times , the Reasoning would rather have been from the Terms that were more familiar and usual in the custom of the Church to others that were less familiar , as from Principles more easily granted , and better understood , by the vulgar . They would rather have proved the necessity of one Priest from the necessity of one Bishop , because this later was in the later usage of the Church , the much more usual name by which that Office was known . That therefore they take the contrary way of Reasoning , it is a plain sign , that when this Argument was first taken up , it was better known what was meant by Priest and Altar , than what was meant by Bishop and Communion Table ; and that it was more easily granted , that the Unity of the Priesthood and Altar did oblige to Unity of Communion , than that the Unity of the Bishop and Communion Table did so . This way of Reasoning is plainly accommodated to the first beginnings of Christianity , when the Duties of Christianity were rather to be gathered from Concessions antecedent to Christianity , than to be recommended by its own authority . Which Observation will withal add much to the Validity of the Reasoning , that it was first taken up before the extraordinary Gifts of Inspiration ceased , and in fresh memory of the Apostles themselves , upon the first appearing of the Case of actual SCHISM .

BEFORE the Case of actual SCHISM it is unreasonable to expect express Censures Sect. 2 of the sin of SCHISM . And if immediately upon the first appearance of the Case , they proceeded on these Principles in condemning it , and withal the Case appeared before the memory of the Apostles Doctrine could have been forgotten ; then it will plainly follow that these were the Principles by which those earliest Ages were directed , in judging concerning the sense of the Apostles . Either therefore the Apostles left no certain Principles for preservation of Unity in the Churches instructed by them , or we must suppose those Principles forgotten in so short a distance of time ; or we shall have reason to believe that these were the Principles and Reasonings on which the Apostles themselves would have proceeded in judging concerning this Case , if it had fallen out in their own time , and they had thereupon been obliged to give their own judgment concerning it . This Consequence will hold , tho the Apostles had delivered nothing concerning it from express Revelation . For in such Cases the Providence of God plainly supposed that other means of human Information were sufficient , when it did not undertake to secure them from the errors of such Popular Reasonings , especially where the Errors would have proved of so dangerous Consequence as they must in such a Case as this concerning the obligation to Unity . But in such a Case wherein the Apostles had been left to their own Reasonings , we see it is usual for them to reason from Popular Notions received among the Hellenistical Jews . And therefore all such Reasonings from Notions so received in the Apostles times , must be granted to have been secure from actual Errors . Whence it will further follow , that the Reasonings of the next Age from Notions popularly received in the first Age , must have been the same ; and therefore as certain , as if they had been used by the Apostles themselves , thus unassisted by actual Inspiration , and indeed as infallible as Inspiration it self , when this was the only reason why Inspiration was not given them , because the Inspirer thought these Reasonings sufficient without it to secure them from actual Error , in such a Case wherein he was so obliged to secure them .

SECONDLY therefore I observe Sect. 3 further , That as this Reasoning was , as I said , taken from Notions antecedent to Christianity ; so much more probably from Judaism than Heathenism , tho both of them had Altars and Priests among them . For Heathenism was a Religion wholly condemned by the Christians , and therefore utterly unfit to give any Authority to Reasonings for positive Constitutions . But Judaism was a way of which the first Christians were always very cautious of speaking dishonorably . Most of the first Converts were Jews by Nation , and still retained a great reverence for the Constitutions of the Old Testament , and therefore with them such Reasonings from Old Testament Precedents must have been very prevalent . Besides the whole History of the New Testament Disputes , S. James's Words are very full to this purpose , Act. 21.20 not to trouble my self with naming more . Accordingly the first Converters utterly disowned any design of abrogating the Law . Our Saviour himself professed he came not to destroy , (a) (a) S. Mat. 5.17 . Luke 16 . 17· but to fullfil it . And one principal inducement made use to bring them over to the Christian Religion , was indeed , that Moses (b) (b) S. John 5.45 . in whom they trusted , had given Testimony to our Saviour , that of him all the Prophets (c) (c) Act. 10.43 . had born witness , &c. And therefore all the change they owned from the Ancient Establishments , was not pretended to be from Judaism to another Religion , but only from a Literal to a Mystical Judaism ; from a Circumcision in the Flesh , (d) (d) Eph. 2.11 . Rom. 2.28 , 29. to a Circumcision in the Spirit ; from being the Seed of Abraham's Flesh , to being the Seed of his (e) (e) Rom. 4.1 , 11. Faith , which he had being yet uncircumcised . And this state of mystical Judaism it self they prove from Testimonies of the Old Testament it self , as proper to the New Covenant to be made with them in the later days , in that 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 of which their so much expected Messias was to be Prince . This they performed so fully , as that upon the whole they made it appear , that the Literal Judaism it self was only design'd to shadow the Mystical as that which was principally designed by the Holy Ghost , and the Sacred Writers themselves .

PURSUANT hereunto whatsoever Sect. 4 benefit was boasted of by the Jews in their Disputation , they shew that the same also belonged to Christianity in a sense much more beneficial , tho mystical , as indeed more proper to a state of mystical Judaism . Nor do they only accommodate their own Constitutions to the ancient Predictions ( that was easier , tho there had been no relation between them ) but they also reason from them as often as they had any new occasion from the Controversies of that Age. And considering the Principles they proceeded on , the Reasoning was indeed very solid and prudent . For this being granted , that the things which befel the Patriarchs , 1 Cor. 10.11 . happened to them as Ensamples , and were written for the Admonition of the Age of the Apostles , upon whom the Ends of the World ( so much spoken of by the Prophets ) were come ; That whatsoever was written , was written designedly for the instruction of those later Ages ; That it was suitable to the way of Prophecy to foretel and command by way of mystical Representations ; That all the external Worship of the Jews was design'd by the Holy Ghost himself like so many Prophetick Visions to represent and shadow the Duties of those in whose times the Prophesies were to be fulfilled and understood ; It was indeed as proper and reasonable for them to infer their Duties from mystical Interpretations of the Levitical Worship , as it was constant and customary for Prophets to gather their own Duties from their own Visions , and from mystical Interpretations of their own Visions , when together with the Visions themselves the Interpretations were also revealed to them . However as to us , it may suffice that these Principles are plainly supposed , and this way of Reasoning plainly allowed and proceeded on in most of the Disputes of the New Testament , not only for the Conviction of Adversaries , but for Information of themselves , as the Reasonings on which the credit of Christianity it self was recommended and received by most of the Converts of those Ages , as those upon which the Apostles themselves believed it , as those which were suggested to them by that Inspiration by which they were guided in their Preachings , and therefore must have been solid , if any thing was so , I do not say in Christian , but in any other sort of received Revelations .

I WILL not now digress to other Sect. 5 Instances , having elsewhere given several . I shall at present confine my self to those of the Priesthood and the Altar , which are the more immediate Subject of my present Discourse . Even these very Terms are mystically applyed to Christianity by Authors of Ignatius's Age , who notwithstanding wrote before him , and particularly so applyed when they had occasion to reason from the Levitical Patterns to deduce Obligations under the Christian Religion . Thus Clemens Romanus reasons to the Corinthians . From the budding of Aaron's Rod in Testimony of the Divine Election of Aaron and his Posterity to the Priesthood , Ep. 1. ad Corinth . Sect. 43 , 44. he proves the like Sacredness of the Episcopal Office among the Corinthians , that the gifted Laicks might not presume to take that Calling upon them without the like Authority derived from Men impowered by God to give it them . Ib. Sect. 40.41 . From the Subordinations of the Temple , first of the High Priest , then of the Ordinary Priests , then of the Levites , last of all of the People , he infers a necessity of the like Subordination of the Corinthian Laity to their Bishops and Deacons . From the set place and time of offering the Levitical Sacrifices in the Temple , Ib. Sect. 48. which it was piacular in any of them to transgress , he urges a like Duty of observing the set times and places of Ecclesiastical Assemblies . How very differently from our modern Adversaries , who are so far from admitting such Consequences as these , as that , if any thing , even of Decency , or moral Prudence , was observed under the Law , they immediately disclaim it as Levitical , and , for no other Reason than it 's having been observed then , decry it's obligation under the Gospel .

YET not S. Clemens only ( who yet Sect. 6 had incomparably more advantages for knowing the Apostles mind than these men ) but the Apostle himself allows and observes the same Reasoning , and in the very same Instances for which I am at present concerned of Priest and Altar . So he argues for the Right of maintenance , That they who minister about holy things , live of the things of the Temple ; 1 Cor. 9.13 , 14. and they which wait at the Altar are partakers with the Altar . That even so hath the Lord ordained , that they which preach the Gospel , should live of the Gospel . Plainly supposing that our Clergy answers the Levitical Priesthood , our Churches their Temple , our Communion-Table their Altar ; and that what was thought equal in their Case in the Provisions of the Old Testament is for that very reason to be taken for ordained in the Case of the Gospel-Minisry . There is no other Evangelical Ordinance so much as pretended for it in that whole Chapter . If there had , there had been no need of so many Reasons to recommend it . Yet this very Reasoning is rejected as Levitical in us by those Enthusiasts who oppose the Right of this worldly maintenance . But so far is the Apostle from their mind in this particular , as that he allows a higher obligation to this way of arguing from the Precedent of the Levitical Priesthood . He reasons from the Aaronical to the Melchizedechian Priesthood , from the Priesthood of mortal men to the immortal Priesthood of the Son of God . Heb. 5.4 , 5. No man took the honor of the Levitical Priesthood unto himself , but he that was called of God , as was Aaron . So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an High Priest , &c. And every High Priest is ordained to offer Gifts and Sacrifices . Heb. 8.3 . Wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer . And as none had Right to eat of the Jewish Altar but Israelites , so when he is to prove that Literal Israelitism is not the Israelitism that can challenge Privileges , he does it by this Argument , that We have an Altar whereof they have no right to eat which serve the Tabernacle . Heb. 13.10 .

Sect. 7 THUS customary it was in those earlier Times to reason from Levitical Precedents in these very Instances . And if we consider what stress was laid on such Arguments , there will be reason to believe them not only prudent , ad homines , considering the Concessions of those with whom they had to deal , but solid as to the Reasons of the Things themselves . They were the very inducements upon which most of the Jews received their very Christianity ( to which they had been disposed before by the mystical Expositions of the Essens and Hellenists , very soon after the Scriptures of the Old Testament had been translated into the Greek , by the procurement of Philadelphus ) and such inducements as that it is probable many of them had never been converted , but upon these Inducements . And these Jews were at first the only Converts , and those who were made use of for the conversion of others . How requisite therefore was it that the grounds on which themselves believed should be solid and substantial ? Besides Arguments ad homines are only made use of for a time , till the person be disposed for better conviction , by receiving the whole Systeme to which he is to be proselyted . Till then it may be prudent to reason with him on Principles which he does at present more firmly believe , tho he has less reason to do so , that he may not be confounded with too many Disputes at first . But when upon a more thorow understanding of the Doctrine , he finds those first Inducements either false or erroneous , his belief then of the same Conclusion must be grounded thenceforward on Principles proper to the Systeme to which he is converted . But these kind of Reasons we find made use of , not only by Converts at first , but after their Conversion ; not only by persons not throughly instructed , but by such as were of greatest repute for their Skill in Christianity , even by the Apostles themselves ; not only in their Debates with Unbelievers , but with them also who were Proficients in the Christian Religion . Indeed these mystical Reasonings were thought properest for Proficients , as appears by the Apostle's Digression , Heb. 5. from verse 11. to the beginning of Chapter 7. where his whole Discourse concerning the backwardness of those he writes to , is only to make way to shew how unqualified they were for the mystical Discourse that follows concerning Melchizedec . And it was the Privilege ( in the ordinary way of Instruction ) to acquaint such as were initiated in their Mysteries , with the fullest Discoveries of the true Designs and Reality of Things . Besides the Apostles generally in their proofs of new Discoveries , Act. 15. in their Debates with each other , use this same way of mystical Reasoning , a plain sign that even in those inspired Ages , it was more believed than the Apostles themselves .

CHAP. II. The Solidity of the same Topick , as to the Principles of this Unity . The Contents .

3. This way of Reasoning holds as to this particular Inference , That this one Priesthood and one Altar ought now , as well as formerly , to be Principles of Unity . 1. The Reasoning from Jewish Precedent to the State of Christianity holds , tho not as to the same Sect. 1 things , yet to the same in Proportion . Sect. I , II. 2. It holds particularly in matters of Privilege . Sect. III. 3. As Unity is a Privilege common to the Mystical and Literal Judaism , so the Proportional Way of Reasoning holds also as to the Principles of that Unity . Sect. IV , V , VI.

Chap. 2. 4. The Unity intended to be proved by the Christians from this One Priesthood and One Altar was that of an External Visible Communion . Sect. VII .

5. This Dispute was not between Individual Altars of the same Communion , but between different Altars , as Notes of different Communions . Sect. VIII .

6. Therefore , by the One Priest the Ancients could not mean only Christ , nor by the One Altar only an Invisible Communion with Him . Sect. IX .

THIRDLY therefore . As this way of Reasoning from Jewish Precedents is solid in general , and solid in these very Instances of Priest and Altar ; so it holds particularly in such Inferences as these are , for which they Sect. 1 are produced by the Ancients concerning Unity , That as the One Priest and the One Altar were the Characterisms of Unity in the Jewish Constitution ; so that Priesthood and Altar among the Christians , which was shadowed by the Jewish Priesthood and Altar , ought now also , by the same parity of Reason , to be taken for the Characters of Christian Unity . For in this way of reasoning from Prophetick Resemblances , tho the Reasoning do not hold , as it does in other Precedents , that the Precedents and the things represented by them must be of the same kind ; Yet 1. There is a Reasoning that does hold as solidly as in the other , and that is particularly in the Proportion between the things represented by them in the Prophecy , and those which answer those Representations in the Antitype . Thus the seven Ears of Corn and the seven Kine in Pharaoh's Vision were indeed of different natures from the seven years of Famine and Plenty that were represented by them ; Gen. 41.30 , 31. but yet because the seven blasted Ears devoured the seven good Ears , and the seven lean Kine devoured the seven fat ones , he thence gathers that the seven years of Famine had much exceeded the over-plus of the seven years of Plenty , if it had not been discreetly managed . The like might have been shewn in the like reasonings from other Prophetick Visions , not only of the Scriptures , but even of the Heathens themselves in their mystical Oracles , and , which were of the same kind , in their Interpretations of Portentous Appearances ( if it had been needful to inlarge on it ) that this was the constant and received way of expounding , and reasoning from , these Symbolical Representations .

Sect. 2 SUITABLY hereunto , there is as little reason for inferring hence the Perpetuity of Literal Judaism , as there is that the seven years of Famine and Plenty must have been Ears of Corn , or Cows , or that the Persian and Macedonian Monarchs in the Vision of Daniel must have been Rams and Goats . This very way of reasoning it self supposes a difference in nature between the Types and Antitypes . But yet the Correspondencies are still supposed the same . Accordingly as it is supposed in the Reasonings of the New Testament , that all matters of Privilege that were challenged by the Literal Jews did as properly belong to the spiritual and mystical ones ; so if Unity with God , and among themselves , be one of these Privileges , this must also have been fore-shadowed as belonging to the Christians .

Sect. 3 AND Secondly , the New Testament Reasonings still suppose all these matters of Privilege to belong to the mystical Jews , that is , the Christians , in a higher and more beneficial sense than to the Jews themselves , as far as the Truth it self exceeds the most ingenious Representations ▪ The Rest of Canaan was a Rest from only forty years fatigue in the Wilderness , and from their Slavery in Aegypt , but ours is an eternal one , as far exceeding theirs as Heaven is beyond Canaan , and the Slavery of Sin and the Devil exceeds that of Pharaoh . Their Moses was only faithful as a Servant , our Jesus as a Son . Their Messias was expected as a Temporal Prince , Is. 9. ours is also a Prince of the World to come . And notwithstanding their boasts of Justification by the Law of Moses , Act. 13.3 9. . yet by our Saviour we are justified from things from which we could not be justified by the Law of Moses . And therefore the New Covenant of our mystical Israelitism is said to be a better Covenant , and established on better Promises , by the Author to the Hebrews . And he proves it to be so by this very Argument , Heb. 8.6 . that the Law having been only a shadow of good things to come , Heb. 10.1 . and not the very Image of the things themselves , could not make the comers thereunto perfect , plainly supposing that the Gospel which does that which the Law could not , in making the comers thereunto perfect , must therefore give the originals of those things of which the Law gave only the Shadows and Resemblances . Thus as the original Archetypal Ideal Beings are called the true Beings in the Language of the Platonists , whose Notions are generally alluded to in the New Testament ; so the true Beings are still supposed to perform their Office to more beneficial purpose than their Representations . The true Bread given by Christ gives a more solid Nourishment than Manna , which was given to the Patriarchs in the Wilderness . S. John 6.49 , 50 , 51 , 58. They died that were fed with that , but the Bread which came down from Heaven was such , as that a man might eat thereof , and not die , but live for ever . He that drunk of Jacob's Well was likely to thirst again , S. John 4.13 , 14. but he that drunk of the Water which Christ was to give him , was never to thirst more . And accordingly the Unity belonging to the Mystical Israelitism of Christianity must be so far from falling short of that Unity of the Jews , as that , in order to the ends designed by this Unity , it must be more effectual and substantial than that of the Jews themselves . Whence it will follow , that as the benefits are greater which are gained by this Unity , so the loss must also be greater , which is incurred by this Separation , and consequently the obligation must be greater to adhere to our mystical Priests and Altars now , than that was whereby the Jews were obliged to adhere to the Levitical Priest and Altar . I shall not yet compare them , till I have first explained the Unity of the Jewish Church derived from their Priest and Altar .

THIRDLY therefore , as this Sect. 4 Unity in general is the common Privilege of the Literal and mystical Judaism , but in a more beneficial sense proper to the mystical ; so the Reasoning will especially hold in the Principles of it , That as the Unity of the Jews was derived from their one Priest and one Altar , so the Unity of Christians must be derived the same way from what is answerable to the Priest and Altar among them . For this Proportion was the main thing that was argumentative in Prophetical Resemblances . As in the instance now mentioned , because the seven blasted Ears devoured the seven good ones , and the seven lean Cows the seven fair ones , yet so that neither the blasted Ears , nor the lean Cows were in appearance better for having devoured the full Ears , and the well-favoured Cows ; Joseph thence concludes , that the abundance of the Years of Plenty would have made no appearance in the extremity of the Dearth , if the Fruits of the plentiful Years had not been wisely ordered by a provident forecast and frugal management . This being no otherwise revealed to him but by his own Reasoning from Pharaoh's Dream , so that Joseph himself owns , that it was to Pharaoh that God had made the Revelation what himself intended to do in that particular , Gen. 41.25 . his whole Reasoning is manifestly grounded on this general Supposition , that the same proportion which was between the blasted and fair Ears , and the lean and fat Cows in the Dreams , should also be between the years of Famine and Plenty in the Event , so that this is plainly supposed as an undoubted Maxim in such Sect. 5 kind of Reasonings . NOW it is plain that this Divination by Dreams , where truly Divine , was one way of Prophecy , and that this Symbolical Theology , ( as the supposed Areopagite calls it , from the Platonists ) was the proper way of God's conversing with men ; and therefore here it is as natural and proper to reason from Symbolical Representations , as it is to Reason from Literal Expressions in dealing with Men. Especially considering that , in the Case I am speaking of , these Symbols of the Law were purposely fitted to represent their Antitypes under the Gospel ; and so fitted as that they , who should live in those later days , when those Prophecies concerning mystical Judaism were to be fulfilled , might know their own Duty , and within what Bounds they were to confine their Innovations according to the ancient Predictions concerning them , that is , how far such Innovations were agreeable to the mind of God in his ancient Predictions . THUS it is plain that they understood God , and thus it is most agreeable Sect. 6 to his good Providence that he designed to be understood by them , that they might not be misled in so understanding him . But in the Particulars for which I am concerned at present there were yet more particular Presumptions that this indeed was God's Design . For as it was not to be doubted that God designed Unity for the Mystical , as well as the Literal Israel , so he would certainly have been more express in the signification of his mind , if he had intended any change in the Principles of this Unity . But seeing there appears not the least intimation of such a design , seeing he was pleased to continue a mystical Priesthood , and a mystical Altar in the Mystical , as well as the Literal , Israel . Who would not thence conclude that he intended the mystical Priesthood and Altar should still be the Principles of Unity to the mystical Israel , as the Literal Priesthood and Altar had formerly been to the Literal ? And seeing the very Terms of Priest and Altar were not the proper Language of the New Testament , why should they be used at all , but only to signifie that they were equivalent under the New Testament with those things which had properly born their Names under the Old , and were to perform the same Office ? Thus it appears that this way of Reasoning holds particularly in this Case concerning Unity . I now proceed in my intended Method .

FOURTHLY therefore , it is Sect. 7 further certain that this whole Topick of Reasoning , as it was used by the Primitive Christians was plainly designed to characterize a visible external Communion , and a visible external Unity , distinct from other divided Societies or Assemblies of Hereticks and SCHISMATICKS . This is plain in the Disputes of Ignatius , which are plainly designed against such as baptized or celebrated their Agapae , or Communion , Ep ad Smyrn . Sect. 7. without the Altar of the Bishop , or did any thing relating to their Ecclesiastical Assemblies without his Authority . And so in all the Disputes of S. Cyprian , whether with Felicissimus , or the Novatians , these Arguments are used against them who acted separately from the Bishop , in receiving Penitents , or rejecting them , as the Novatians , which were Acts of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction , or in setting up Anti-Bishops within a Jurisdiction already Canonically possessed . And therefore their design against such Adversaries as these were , must have been to shew that the Bishop's Altar , in opposition to those Separate Altars , was the one Altar , and the Bishop himself that One Priest , which were to be the Principles of Catholick Unity , in order to the proving all them divided , who were not in Communion with the Bishop .

AND fifthly , this Dispute was not between Individual Altars of the same Sect. 8 Communion , but between different Altars as Notes of different Communions . Ignatius , as he blames them who officiated without the Bishop's consent , so he expresly grants the Validity of that Eucharist which was administred either by the Bishop , or by him to whom the Bishop permitted it . Ep. ad Smyrn . ib. In vain therefore does Mr. Mede gather from hence , that there was then only one Communion-Table in the Bishop's House . In vain does Mr. Baxter , that the Multitude of the Church consisted in one Congregation , which could meet constantly in the same place . This was utterly impertinent to the Disputes of those times . They were all of one Altar , who were of one Communion , from how many Tables soever they communicated , and they only belonged to a different Altar , and set up Altar against Altar , who owned a different Communion . This was plainly all which they were obliged to mean by the interest of those Disputes .

AND therefore sixthly , by the One Sect. 9 Priest those Ancients could not mean only Christ , nor by the One Altar , only an invisible Communion with him . This would have been as confidently , and as unconfutably , pretended to by their Adversaries , if their own confident Affirmations must have been allowed to pass for Arguments . When therefore they used these Topicks as argumentative to Adversaries , their meaning must have been and was that the means of communicating with Christ the invisible Priest , was by communicating with him that was visible , and the means of partaking of the invisible Altar , was also by partaking of that which was visible , and consequently that they who were not in external Communion with the Bishop , could not partake of the invisible Bread , nor the invisible Priesthood . So Ignatius expresly makes disrespect to the (a) (a) 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Ep. ad Magn. Sect. 3. visible Bishop to redound to the invisible , and makes him to be deprived of the (b) (b) 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Ep. ad Ephes. Sect. 5. Bread of God who does not partake of the Communion of the Bishop . This way of reasoning was pertinent to their design , this was actually used by them . Whether consequently to the Jewish Notions alluded to , will best appear when we have first explained what those Notions were . If it were so , it will then appear , from the Principles already laid down , that it must have been cogent and solid .

CHAP. III. How far the Jews were confined to the Use of One Altar . Application to Mr. Baxter . The Contents .

The Jews expresly confined to One Altar , which Josephus understands as a Preservative of Unity . Sect. I. But 1. This One Altar was only for Publick Assemblies of the whole Nation . Sect. II. 2. This did not hinder other Places for Religious Assemblies . Sect. III. 3. This did not hinder Altars of Memorial in other Places . Chap. 3. Sect. IV. 4 . This did not altogether make the Use of other Places and Altars Unlawful , even for Sacrifices . Prophets might , and did ordinarily use them . Sect. V. They seem to have been allowed for their Ordinary Sacrifices which did not require Assemblies of their whole Nation . Sect. VI. VII .

I PROCEED therefore to shew Sect. 1 the Jewish Notions concerning this Matter , I mean those which were received among them in the first beginnings of Christianity . And the first thing of these that was insisted on , was the Unity of their Altar . In their first establishment by Moses they were confined to one place for the offering of all their Publick Sacrifices , Deut. 12.11 , 12 , 13 , 14. This Josephus , by whom we may judge of the sense of the Jews of that age , understands thus : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Ant. L.IV. c. ult. p. 121. C. He plainly understands it as a prohibition of other Altars , and that for this very Reason of Unity . One reason indeed is the Unity of their God , which does not take away the Use , but only the Obligation of using several Altars . The same God was oftentimes worshiped in several Nations , Vide Falconer de Num. Apamens . and several places , and under several Denominations , and on account of several Virtues , with several Altars . But where the Deities were different , there they were not to be worshiped at the same Altars , unless it were for some peculiar reason agreed on by their Divines , as in the Cases of the Pantheon , of the twelve Gods , the Dioscuri , Pluto and Proserpine , and the Cabiri , &c. And this was a thing which they , who were newly come out of Aegypt , had need to be particularly warned of , where every Nomos had a distinct Deity , and those things were deified in some places which were abhorred in others , which accordingly kept them in perpetual rancors and animosities against one another . Vide Juvenal . Sat. And the Polytheism , they were in danger of from their Idolatrous Neighbours , included multitudes of Gods , not only for Hills , (a) (a) 1 King . 20.23.28 . but for Valleys ; not only for Nations , but (b) (b) Jer. 2.28 . Is. 36.18 , 19. Cities ; not only for Cities , but (c) (c) Ezek. 16.24 , 31. Streets , &c. And therefore even this Reason of their having only one God common to their whole Nation would not only prevent all necessary Obligation to multiply Altars to him , but make it prudent to forbid them , lest their very multiplying Altars to their one God should look like an acknowledgment of many Gods in their Practice , at least , might give too plausible a pretence to them who were otherwise of themselves so very inclinable , as we see they were , to Polytheism .

THE other Reason is , because the Hebrews themselves were but one Nation , Sect. 2 plainly supposing that the participation at several Altars had made and signified their being distinct Nations in extraction . Before I come to shew how this One Altar was a Constitutive of Unity , I shall first consider in what sense the Altar it self was only One , and to what extent it did unite . Therefore this Altar was indeed for Assemblies . There was but one publick Altar in the whole Nation , before which all the clean Males were to assemble thrice every year . But these Assemblies Mr. B. I suppose himself will grant to exceed the care of any single Priest . How then can he barely from the name of one Altar infer that the Christian Assemblies united by it were no greater than such as could ordinarily communicate at the same Table , and partake of the personal Ministry of the same Priest ? Was it not much easier for great Multitudes to receive inconsiderable pieces of Bread from the same Table than it was for them to make a solemn Feast on Sacrificed Beasts from the same Altar ?

Sect. 3 2. THIS One Altar at Shiloh or Jerusalem did not hinder their Assembling within their own Tribes , and their Assembling for Religion , and their having stated places appointed for such Assemblies elsewhere besides Jerusalem . They had their Synagogues and Proseuchae , and Houses of God , as they called them , in Multitudes , and in several places of the Land , for exercise of the Morals of their Religion , for hearing the Law and Prophets read and explained to them , and for Prayer , and for solemnizing their Ordinary Festivals of their New Moons and Sabbaths . If Mr. B. will call them Chappels of Ease because they were not permitted in them the use of their more publick Sacrifices , they will then more exactly answer our Diocesan Parishes . However this will plainly shew that to be true which he thinks so strange , that the same multitudes which were united in the Diocesan Altar , might notwithstanding be subdivided into several Congregations under particular Priests , for their more convenient management , tho such private Priests had not been allowed the power of Altar Discipline any where but in the presence of their Bishop .

3. THIS One Altar at Jerusalem did Sect. 4 not hinder Altars of Memorial in other places . There was an Altar to be built at Mount Ebal by Moses's express Command , Deut. 27.4 , 5. with the Law of Deuteronomy inscribed on it . Jos. 8.31.32 . And when it was known that the Altar of the Tribes beyond Jordan was not designed for Sacrifices , but only for a Memorial of their Relation to their Brethren in Palestine , no further offence was taken at it . Jos. XXII . 23 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29. This was indeed one of the most ancient designs of Altars , that when any one had received any singular favour from God , he erected an Altar with an Inscription in the place where he had received it , as a remaining Monument of the Favour so received , and the shape of an Altar was best fitted for receiving such Inscriptions . Tho therefore it should be proved , as it cannot , that the Eucharist was celebrated only at the Bishops Altar . Yet in the subdistinguished Charges there might have been Monuments of their Relation to the common Altar of the Bishop .

Sect. 5 NOR 4. did this One Altar in the publick place of their Anniversary Assemblies make it utterly unlawful , even to offer Sacrifices in other places , and on other Altars : Holocausts and Peace-Offerings were , by Moses's express command , to be offered at the fore-mentioned place of Mount Ebal . Nor do the Jews deny but Prophets might , and did erect Altars , and offer Sacrifices in other places besides that of the general Assemblies . So Samuel sacrificed at Mizpah , 1 Sam. VII . 9 . and in Zuph , IX . 5 . and in Gilgal , XI . 15 , where he had also sacrificed the second time , if Saul had not prevented him , XIII . 8 , 9. and at Bethlehem , XVI . 5 . And after the strictest confinement of the publick Worship , when the Temple was built , yet even then Elijah sacrifices at Mount Carmel , 1 Kings XVIII . 19 , &c. I know the modern Jews pretend that Prophets had a Privilege of breaking positive Commands of this kind , and instance particularly in this of Elijah . No doubt they might in some things for which they pretended particular extraordinary Inspiration . But this we find they did frequently as they had occasion , without the least scruple . And as Prophets in those times , when they had their ordinary Schools and Colleges , were not to be looked on as extraordinary Officers , so neither are they to be supposed to have acted extraordinarily in what they did easily and frequently . Besides the Dissolution of their Union was in truth a thing of greater consequence than the belief of any particular persons pretences to Inspiration . As therefore the Prophet himself would for that reason alone have been judged a false Prophet , if he had endeavoured to perswade them to a Departure from their Law , so there is little reason to doubt but that he would have been thought so too , if he had endeavoured a Dissolution of their Unity .

BUT to let the Case of these Prophets Sect. 6 pass , it is certain that , besides their three great Festivals wherein all the clean Males were to appear personally at Jerusalem , there were also other Sacrifices appointed by the Law of God , wherein the Publick were also concerned . Such were those of the daily Sacrifices , of the Sabbaths , and of the New Moons . Must we therefore think that they who were at a distance from Jerusalem thought themselves unconcerned in those Sacrifices ? Num. 28. It is no way probable that they did so . That question of the Shunamite's Husband , ( what she had to do with the Prophet , 2 King . 4.24 . seeing it was neither New Moon , nor Sabbath ? ) plainly implies , that on such occasions it was customary for devout persons to attend the Prophets . And what could it be for , if not to partake of their Sacrifices ? Their private Devotions required not the presence of any such person . The Reading of the Law and the Prophets seems not to have been any part of the Synagogue-Worship , till after the Captivity . If it had , it is hardly imaginable how the Pentateuch would have so miscarried as it did from the time of Manasseh to Josiah . How successful soever Manasseh might have been in suppressing it in his own Dominions , yet he could not do it in Samaria . The Instances already produced , shew that the Prophets did ordinarily sacrifice , and yet I believe one instance cannot be produced that ever they did so in Jerusalem . Besides , for the New Moons , it was David's excuse to Saul for his absence , that he was invited to a publick Sacrifice for his whole Family in Bethlehem , 1 Sam. XX. 5 , 6 , 29. It seems then it was usual for Families to have their proper Sacrifices in their own Cities , and that the New Moons which were otherwise appointed by God , were particularly pitched on for that purpose . This was also usual among the Heathens . Liv. Lib. V. Valer. Max. vid. G●ther ▪ de Jur. Pont. III. 17 . IV. 6 . The Story is famous of Fabius Dorsuo , who , while the Galls besieged the Capitol , ventured through them in his Cinctus Gabinus , to perform these Solemnities of his Family in the Collis Quirinalis , and was suffered by those Barbarians to return to the Capitol without any violence offered to him . IT is very well known Sect. 7 that , for a long time together , Sacrifices were offered in the high places by persons otherwise creditable , and of good Authority ; without the least reproof , whilst they kept their due subordination to the places of their general Assemblies . And considering that all the Flesh to be eaten by them was to be sacrificed , as a Learned Person has very well observed , Dr. Cudworth Tru● Not. of the Lord's Supper . and that it was allowed them to eat Flesh in their other Cities ; it plainly follows that they must have been allowed to sacrifice them there also . And when ever we find the permission of these Sacrifices in the high places reprehended as an imperfection in the good Kings ; yet it is never reprehended so severely as to deprive them of a good Character , who were guilty of no higher crimes than this permission . And therefore certainly this offering of those Sacrifices in other places which were not proper for the three Solemnities , but agreeable to those times wherein they were not obliged to be Personally present in Jerusalem , was never taken for a crime of that nature as to cut them off from their Union with the People of God . If so , then , by this way of Reasoning , there might also have been many Altars , under the one Altar of the Bishop without any danger to that Catholick Unity which was derived from the One Altar .

CHAP. IV. Independence of any other Altar on their National Altar was by the Jews condemned as inconsistent with their Unity . Proved from Instances of Altars so condemned . The CONTENTS .

The only thing which the Jews thought inconsistent with their Unity , as derived from One Altar , was the erecting an Altar owning no dependence on the National Altar , or Rivalling it in its Prerogatives as a National one . Sect. I. Enquiry into the Particulars so condemned . That of the Tribes beyond Jordan . Jos. XXII . Sect. II. III.IV . Those of Jeroboam . Sect. V. VI.VII .

WHAT is it then that was Sect. 1 thought inconsistent , among the Jews , with their Unity as derived from one Altar ? I cannot find that any other Altar was thought to be so but such a one as rivalled the Altar in the place of their publick Assemblies , that is , that owned no dependence on it , that challenged the peculiar Prerogatives of that Altar , their three Anniversary Assemblies , their first Fruits , and first born , their Tithes and Vows , and Sacrifices on such occasions as were thus appropriated to such a particular place , on account of its being the place appointed by God himself for his One Altar , whatsoever Altar did rival that one Altar in these things , that was indeed reputed an Altar against that Altar , that cut them off from their dependence on that one Altar , and did so far disunite them from continuing to be one People .

Sect. 2 THAT this was so I shall first shew by a summary view of the matters of Fact that were condemned on this account , and then shew the Reasons why they condemned those Facts from the Principles of that Age. The first Fact that was condemned on this account was the Altar of the Reubenites and Gadites and the half Tribe of Manasseh , Jos. XXII . immediately upon their dismission by Joshua . This we see was looked on as a Crime of a very high nature , and as a great affront to their received Religion , that the other Tribes thought themselves obliged on a Religious Account , to punish it by a War . And the best means to know what it was that was thus severely blamed in it , will be to see how it was charged , and how it was defended . It was charged with a design of rebelling against the Lord , Verse 16. It is charged with a departure from the Lord , and from the Fellowship of their Brethren . So the vulgar Latine : Tantùm ut a Domino , & à nostro consortio , non recedatis aedificato altari praeter altare Domini Dei nostri . Verse 19. Here it is plainly charged with a dissolution of Unity , and that both of their Unity with God , and with his People . This therefore was the Crime from which those other Tribes were concerned to purge themselves . And how do they do it ? They deny that their Altar was intended for Burnt Offering or Sacrifice . Verse 26. And how far that Reason went for their Purgation , and of what Sacrifices they principally designed it , may better be gathered from their following Words , Verse 27 , But it shall be a witness between us and you , and between our generations after us , to execute the service of the Lord before him in our burnt offerings , and in our Sacrifices , and in our Peace-offerings , and that your children should not say to our children in time to come , ye have no part in the Lord , 28. Therefore said we , if so be that they should so say to us , or to our generations in time to come , then will we Answer , Behold the fashion of the Altar of the Lord , which our Fathers made , not for burnt offering , nor for Sacrifice , but it is a witness between us and you . And they conclude in detestation of the Charge : Verse 29. God forbid that we should rebel against the Lord , and turn this day from the Lord , to build an Altar for burnt offering , or for meat offering , or for sacrifice , save the Altar of the Lord our God that is before his Tabernacle .

THEIR Reasoning is plainly this . Sect. 3 They disown any design of drawing their Posterity from the Assemblies and Sacrifices before the Ark , which was then in Shiloh . They profess that this was so far from their design as that their meaning was only to assert their Right to that common Altar of the Jewish Nation , that in time to come they might not be excluded from their Sacrifices . That plainly was the meaning of those words , ye have no part in they part in the Lord , to deny their Right of partaking in their common Sacrifices . And of what Sacrifices could these be understood but of those which were offered in the portions of the other Tribes , from whence it might otherwise have been in their power to exclude them ? This they asserted by preserving among themselves a Copy of the Altar which was before the Tabernacle . So it appears that the Altars of different Deities were of different Shapes , and that by owning the shape of the Altar of the God of Israel they signified that he was the God to whom their Devotions were designed , and with whom they pretended to communicate in their Sacrifices . And herein consisted the difficulty of doubling their Altar in the Oracle given to the Delians . Th●●n . Smyrn . Matth. Pl●ton . c. 1. If they had not been confined to the same shape , they need not have consulted Plato concerning it . So when Moses was to make his Altar , as well as the rest of the Utensils of the Tabernacle , it seems plainly to imply , in that way of mystical Reasoning which was designed , that by his Altar they might expect to partake of the invisible Ideal Altar , Philo de Temulent . p. 260. and consequently of Communion with God himself . And this I take to be the sin of Ahaz , in taking a Copy of the Altar at Damascus , 2 Kings XVI . 10 , 11 , &c. That in Copying the Altar he professed an approbation and Communion with those Syrian Idolaters . This therefore was the way taken by Onias in his Temple at Heliopolis . That he might avoid the imputation of SCHISM he Copyed his Altar from the Altar at Jerusalem , as we shall observe hereafter . This Copy therefore of the Altar at Shiloh signified their challenging a Right in those Assemblies and Sacrifices which were there to be observed . Nay , to take of all pretence of being hindered by this new Altar from the participating in the Assemblies and Sacrifices of Shiloh , they profess further that they intended it for no Sacrifices at all , not even those that were offered dayly , nor on their Sabbaths , or New Moons . So far they were from pretending it for those Anniversary Ones which required their Attendance at Shiloh . In all which Apologies they plainly suppose that this Use of their Altar that had broken them off from their attendance on the Altar and Tabernacle of Shiloh , had indeed been the Case that had made them justly obnoxious to the charge , of having an Altare praeter Altare , of having an Altar save the Altar of the Lord their God that was before the Tabernacle , and of dividing from God and from the Communion of their Brethren .

THAT this was the true state of Sect. 4 that Controversie seems also very probable from the reason intimated by the other Tribes whereby they were brought into this suspicion . Notwithstanding , Verse 19. if the land of your possession be unclean , then pass ye over unto the land of the possession of the Lord , wherein the Lord's Tabernacle dwelleth , and take possession among us : but rebel not , &c. The reason as it should seem that made the Ten Tribes suspect that their Brethren intended this Altar for the publick Sacrifices and Assemblies on their side Jordan was , that they took the land of their own possession to be unclean , and that their design in erecting this new Altar was to cleanse it . In this supposition , they offer them a better expedient as they conceived , that they should rather come over to their own Land , which they call the Possession of the Lord , as acknowledged clean on both sides , than take that undue way of sanctifying what they injoyed already on the other side of Jordan . But private Altars were not thought sufficient to sanctifie the Land . If so , that same Land of Canaan had been holy long before it was conquered by Joshua ; for Abraham and the other Patriarchs had sacrificed there whilst it was yet possessed by the Canaanites . The Wilderness had also been holy , where Moses sacrificed after the Victory over Amalek . It was therefore a publick Altar alone erected by the present possessors of the Land that could properly be said to sanctifie it , and for such a one they took that of which I am at present discoursing . It was erected by the whole Body of the Possessors of those parts before they dispersed themselves , immediately after their return from helping their Brethren in Canaan ; not by any one single Tribe , much less for the Rites of a single Family . It was also greater than ordinary . So the Text notes that it was a great Altar to see to : Verse 10. From thence they might conjecture that it was designed for the extraordinary Sacrifices of their Anniversary Assemblies , to excuse them from their Anniversary Attendance . This very Story plainly shews that they were already disunited in their secular Government . If they had also been made thus independent in Religion also , this had indeed so disunited them , as that they would not any longer have looked like one Nation .

THE next instances of Altars erected Sect. 5 against the publick Altar were those of Jeroboam against the Altar of Jerusalem . These were plainly designed to cut off the ten Tribes of his own Kingdom from their correspondence with Jerusalem . The reason inducing him to it was , lest , by their frequent Journies thither on occasion of the three Anniversaries , they should contract a dangerous correspondence and friendship with the Kings of the Lineage of David , in whose Dominions the publick Altar was , and , for a love of their Religion , and to make their Journey more easie , they should be tempted to revolt from him to their former Master . 1 Kings XII . 27 . This appears also from the reason pretended by him , why he did so , to the People , Verse 28. It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem : behold thy Gods , O Israel , which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt . It was plainly to discourage them from going up to Jerusalem that he made use of this pretence of the troublesomeness of their Journeys , so far , and so frequently . And accordingly he fits his pretended Expedients . To ease them of the length of their Journies , he appoints them two places instead of that one , and both of them in the opposite Frontiers of his own Kingdom , Dan in the Northern , and Bethel in the Southern Parts , that so none might have occasion to go out of his Kingdom , on account of their Worship in their Anniversary Assemblies , nor yet be obliged to so long Journies within it as formerly . The distance was less to two places , I mean to the choice of either of them , than it would have been to any one , and yet more convenient in the Borders than in any other situation . By that means it came to pass that none of them could come at Jerusalem , but he must pass by one of them at a more convenient distance from his own abode . And for avoiding the same pretended trouble of the Anniversaries , he reduces the three to only one , like unto the Feast that was in Judah , which makes me more inclinable to think that it ought not to be understood of the eighth Month , as our present Copies have it , but of the seventh , Verse 32 , Ant. VIII . 2 . Gr. 8. Lat. 33. and particularly of the Feast of Tabernacles . So Josephus read and understood in the Copies of his time . Why should he cut off two of their Anniversaries , and yet pitch so punctually on the third of them for the time of his own Assemblies , if his design had not been , as I said , particularly to cut off their dependence on Jerusalem in this very particular point of their Anniversary Sacrifices and Assemblies ? These were his Innovations concerning the Altar . As to the Priesthood , he changed that also from the Family of Aaron , and the Tribe of Levi , and the Rules of the Law , by that means making them also independent on the High-Priesthood of Hierusalem .

BY this explication of his Case it Sect. 6 will be easie also to understand the Reasoning of Abijah against him . I meddle not with those particulars of his Discourse wherein he charges him with Idolatry , but those wherein he charges him with these Innovations also concerning the Law . He plainly challenges the Privileges of the Segullah to his own Kingdom , the Metropolis whereof was Jerusalem . Accordingly he tells them that God was on their side for their Captain , and that fighting against his own Party was fighting against the Lord God of their Fathers . And behold God himself is with us for our Captain , and his Priests with sounding Trumpets , 2 Chron. XIII . 12 . to cry all arm against you : O Children of Israel , fight ye not against the Lord God of your Fathers , for ye shall not prosper . And in this reasoning he concludes this peculiar presence of God which was proper to the Segullah from the presence of his Priests , and the Orderlyness of their Ministration . So he reasons , Verse 10. As for us , the Lord is our God , and we have not forsaken him , and the Priests which minister unto the Lord are the Sons of Aaron , and the Levites wait upon their business . V. 11. And they burn unto the Lord , &c. for we keep the charge of the Lord our God , but ye have forsaken him . And this charge against Jeroboam of having forsaken God he manages also on the same Principles , Verse 9 , Have ye not cast out the Priests of the Lord , the Sons of Aaron , and the Levites , &c. So that in this way of Reasoning , keeping united with the Priesthood , is the same with not having forsaken God , and disuniting from them is the same with having forsaken him ; and they who keep thus united can call the Lord their own God , but they who had thus forsaken him could not call him so . He is only said to be the God of their Fathers . This touches the very point of the Segullah , their being God's peculiar People , and God's being peculiarly their God rather than of any other People . If therefore this Privilege was forfeited by their discession from God's Priesthood , by their being disunited from God himself in such a sense as this ; it plainly follows that this Priesthood must have been taken for a Bond of their Union with God , and each other , as they were a Sacred Society , and intitled to Sacred Privileges .

THE like account of this design of Sect. 7 Jeroboam is given by the Author of the Greek Book of Tobit , tho much obscured by the Latin , I know not whether I should call him , Paraphrast , or Epitomator . Either name will better agree to him than that of a Translator . He calls the sin of the ten Tribes of Jeroboam's Kingdom an Apostasie , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. Chap. 1 V. 4. And again , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. Verse 5. Apostasie from the House of Jerusalem plainly implies a duty of subjection to that House . The true notion of the Word is to signifie a revolting . And wherein that revolting consisted appears by what Tobit himself is said to have done , which was not done by the Revolters . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Verse 6. The Privileges therefore of the Temple consisted in the obligation that lay on the whole Nation to come thither on the Solemn Festivals , and to bring thither their First-fruits , and Tithes , and the First Fleeces of their Sheep . These were the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . These things he had been taught by his Grandmother Deborah , Verse 7. and accordingly he reckons them as Apostates , who did not joyn with him in such performances . This account we have from one of the most ancient Hellenists now extant . In this SCHISM of Jeroboam here were Altars erected against the One Altar in Jerusalem , and a Priesthood independent on the Priesthood in Jerusalem ; but as yet no mention of the One Priest requisite as a Constitutive of Unity as well as of the One Altar .

CHAP. V. Concerning the Samaritan Temple and Altar and Priesthood , together with other Temples and Altars . The CONTENTS .

The Unity of the Priesthood first insisted on by the Jews in their Disputes against the Samaritans . Sect. I. Our Saviour himself declared himself against the Samaritans . Sect. II , III. This Case of the Samaritans happening after the Old-Testament Scriptures , is , for that Reason , more applicable to the Times of the Gospel . Sect. IV. The Samaritans not excluded from the Name and Privileges of true Israelites , on account of the falshood of their pretences to Israelitish Extraction . Sect. V. The true ground of those false Pretences . Sect. VI. Nor on account of their Idolatry . Sect. VII , VIII . The true State of that Controversie explained from the Words of the Woman of Samaria . Sect. IX . The History of the Occasion of that Difference . Sect. X.XI. The Right of the One Priesthood referred , on both sides , to be decided by Succession . Sect. XII . The Altar of Ahaz . Sect. XIII . The Altar and Temple of Onias in Heliopolis . Sect. XIV . Not SCHISMATICALLY designed by him . Sect. XV.XVI. Nor did it prove SCHISMATICAL in the Event . Sect. XVII . No SCHISMATICAL Succession to the High Priesthood kept up there . Sect. XVIII . How far this instance went to the justifying the Primitive Christians in reference to the Jews . Sect. XIX . The other Jewish Temples mentioned by Onias Idolatrous . Sect. XX. XXI.XXII .

THE first mention I think of One Sect. 1 Priest , as well as of One Altar , in the Disputes concerning SCHISM , among the Jews , was I think , in that famous one of the Samaritans . This was indeed freshest in the memories of the first Converts from Judaism to Christianity , and therefore most probable to have been regarded in the use of these Reasonings that were derived from Jewish Notions . Tho the Temple of the Samaritans was destroyed by Hyrcanus within about two hundred years after it was first built , and with it , no doubt , Josep . Ant. their Altar , and the Succession of their Anti-Priests , which would by no means be permitted them after they were Subjects to the Jews ; yet the animosities continue to this very day , and were particularly extremely high at the beginning of Christianity . That the Samaritans had no Dealings with the Jews appears from the words of the Woman of Samaria , S. Joh. IV. and she mentions it on occasion of a very small request indeed of our Saviour from her , only that of a draught of cold Water . And another time our Saviour could get no Lodging in a Village of the Samaritan Jurisdiction , Luke IX . 52 , 53. for no other provocation but that they thought him travelling towards Jerusalem . And when the Jews tell our Saviour that he was a Samaritan , and had a Devil , we see they used it as a name of the greatest reproach with the vulgar .

ACCORDINGLY our Saviour and the Apostles had occasion to declare Sect. 2 themselves what they thought concerning these Disputes , and they still declare themselves in favour of their own Country-men . Our Saviour himself , in his Dispute with the Woman of Samaria , tells her that Salvation was of the Jews . S Joh. IV. 22 . The Salvation there spoken of was in all likelyhood that which was expected from the Messias , who was to be a Prince (a) (a) Act V 31. and a Saviour , and was therefore called (b) (b) Mat. I. 21 , 23. Emanuel , God with us , because he was to save his People from their Sins . When therefore he appropriates this Salvation to the Jews , his meaning was most probably this , that whereas the Samaritans as well as the Jews , did pretend to the privilege of being God's only People , God himself would declare it against them . The Messias who was promised to the true Israel of God , should not come of the Samaritans , but of the Jews , who should also alone be partakers of that Salvation of which he was to be Author as Messias to a particular People . That the Messias , who was to be of the Stock of God's Israel , was to be a Jew by extraction , plainly confuted the Samaritan pretence of themselves being alone the true Israel , exclusively to the Jews . That the benefit of his Salvation , which was at first appropriated to the Israelites till they were cast off from being the Segullah by God himself , should be also proper to the Jews , understood in contradistinction to the Samaritans , plainly implies that the Samaritans were to be excluded out of the number of his People which were to be saved by the Messias . What is this but plainly to deny any interest they could challenge in any relation to the Segullah , of being either the People of God , exclusively to others , or being any part of his People , whilst they continued in their own Faction ?

SO also upon other occasions , he Sect. 3 ranks the Samaritans with those who were no part of the People of God . When the ten Lepers were cleansed , none returned to give him thanks but one of them who was a Samaritan . Thereupon our Saviour himself makes this Observation : Were there not ten cleansed ? Lu. XVII . 17 , 18. But where are the nine ? There are not found that returned to give Glory to God , save this Stranger . The word is not 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 only , but 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , one of another People , and Extraction , one that was a Stranger to the Covenant of Promise , as the Apostle expresses it on another occasion , in the Language of the Jews concerning all who were not of the Segullah . And therein indeed consists the aggravation of the ingratitude of those who did not return , that a person who was not of the People of the God of Israel , and who could not call that God his in so peculiar a regard as they could , should notwithstanding be more thankful for a benefit received from him than they who were already of his People . So in his Parable of him who fell among Thieves , the Priest and Levite pass him by , S. Luke X. 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , &c. only the Samaritan takes pity on him . By the Priest and Levite he personates those from whom that benefit might be expected on account of their common Relation , as Fellow Members of God's People , by the Samaritan , one from whom , on that account , it could least be expected , so that still the Samaritan is represented as one who had the least relation to God's People . Again when he sent out the Twelve Apostles , among the rest of his Charges to them this is one . Go not into the way of the Gentiles , Matt. X. 5 . and into any City of the Samaritans enter ye not : But go rather to the lost Sheep of the house of Israel . Plainly he distinguishes the Samaritans as well as the Gentiles , from the House of Israel , and distinguishes them in this very instance , which was the Privilege of the Jews , to have the Gospel first Preached to them . On this account it was that they are called the Children of the Kingdom . Thence those words of S. Paul and Barnabas : It was necessary that the Word of God should first have been spoken to you : Act. XIII . 45 . but seeing you put it from you , and judge your selves unworthy of everlasting life , lo we turn to the Gentiles . Thence the same Apostle elsewhere derives the calling of the Gentiles from their blindness and hard heartedness as a fulfilling of that Prophecy , that therefore God would provoke them to jealousie by them that were no People , Rom. X. 19 . XI . 11 . &c. which he understands of the Gentiles . Therefore he makes the fall of them to be the riches of the World , Rom. XI . 12 , 15. and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles , and the casting away of them the reconciling of the world , because it was upon their rejecting of the Gospel that God first gave way to the sending the Gospel to the Gentiles . By all which it appears that till they had first rejected it , the Gospel it self was reckoned among the Properties of the Segullah . And therefore it being even then forbidden to the Samaritans ; it thence follows , that even then the Samaritans were not included in the peculiar People of God .

I HAVE been the rather more particular in the proof of this because this Sect. 4 Case of the SCHISM of the Samaritans fell out after the Historical Books of the Old Testament . Tho it did so , and tho the Judgment of the Jews otherwise might have been fallible after the ceasing of the Spirit of Prophecy ; yet that in this Case they were free from any actual mistake appears plainly by this approbation afterwards by them who introduced that Spirit again after it had failed for a time . And in this regard , their Reasonings in this matter will be so far from suffering any disadvantage because they were not first applyed in that former time of that Spirit of Prophecy , as that , for that very reason , they will be more Argumentative under the Gospel . Had they been applyed in those inspired times , they might have been suspected to have something of the Positive Divine Institution in them which was particularly proper to those times , and therefore still to be passed over in Reasoning to the times of the Gospel . But being first applyed in times only of Ecclesiastical Prudence ; they must therefore have been drawn from that Analogy and Proportion only , which , as I said , is the only proper way of Reasoning from Old Testament Precedents to the state of the Gospel . Only in this particular Instance we have this peculiar advantage above what we have in other Reasonings , even of the same kind , that whereas this way of Reasoning from the proportion of things then to what ought to be now , is of it self very liable to mistakes , according to the skill , or Prudence , or Sagacity , of him who used it ; we are yet assured that there was no actual mistake here , from this later approbation of infallible Persons .

THIS therefore being thus premised , Sect. 5 That the Samaritans were actually no part of God's People , and that accordingly the Reasonings on which the Jews proceeded in their particular Case were actually solid and convincing ; it will now be seasonable to proceed to an Explication of their Case , what it was , and on what account it was so censured . But I shall first prevent some mistakes which might otherwise misrepresent it . 1. Therefore it is no way probable that their being thus excluded from the Holy Seed , was only grounded on the falseness of their pretences to be descended from the Posterity of the Patriarchs . It is very true they do pretend to be so descended to this very day . They did pretend so in the Age of Christ and his Apostles . The Woman of Samaria calls Jacob her Father , and they were famous for politick Dissemblings of this kind . S. John IV. 12 . Whenever the Jews were in Persecution , they owned themselves to be Cuthaeans , as in that great and severe Persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes . Josep . Ant. XII . 7 . Whenever they were prosperous , then they pretended themselves to be Jews , as in their address to Alexander the Great for a Release from the Tribute of their Sabbatical Years . Josep . Ant. XI . 8 . It is also very true that they were no Jews by extraction , and that therefore their pretences to Judaism were false , if that were the meaning of them . But this had been no reason to exclude them from the Name and Privileges of Jews , seeing they were Proselytes , and Proselytes of the highest kind , of Justice , not only of the Gates . Such Proselytism as this the Rabbins themselves grant so to incorporate men into the Jewish Nation , as to extinguish all other Relations , Selden . so that they must thenceforth be reckoned of the Jewish Nation , or of none at all . And this Proselytism was capable of being extended to whole Nations , as well as to single persons . So the whole Nation of the Idumaeans were proselyted by the same Hircanus who destroyed the Schismatical Temple of the Samaritans , Josep . Ant. XIII . 17 . and much about the same time . And it is well known what the Learned Casaubon has proved against Baronius , who , Exercit. following some of the ancient Christians , makes Herod the Great an 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , who was of the Race of those Proselyted Idumaeans . He shews that Herod himself owns no other Nation but that of the Jews , nor was counted otherwise by any of the Age he lived in . And I am apt to think that it was this Right of Proselytism incorporating into the Jewish Nation that gave the Samaritans that occasion of prevaricating according as their Interest lay . As they were Proselytes of Justice , so they might challenge all the Privileges of the Jewish Nation for theirs ; Now among the Privileges boasted of by the Jews , the Apostle himself reckons this for one , that theirs were the Patriarchs . And therefore they might challenge as good a Title in the Patriarchs , as the adopted among the Romans had to the Stemms and Images of the Families into which they were adopted , which yet , whilst the memory of their National Proselytism was fresh , hindered them not from knowing that their natural Extraction was different from that to which they were intitled by their Proselytism . And accordingly when they renounced their Proselytism , as they must have done , in course , whenever they relapsed into Idolatry , they must as naturally have resumed their old Extraction , as he must among the Romans , who had lost his interest in the Family into which he had been adopted .

INDEED this Challenge of the Sect. 6 Patriarchs for theirs seems to have been so ordinary for all who pretended to the name of Jews , as that even the Christians even those who were of Gentile Extraction , and had never been circumcised , pretend to it , on account of their mystical Israelitism . So in the Reasonings of S. Paul , Abraham is the Father of all those who are like him in his Faith which he had being yet uncircumcised . Nay , the Seed of his Faith are more properly his , than the Seed of his Flesh. These , in the mystical Reasonings of those times , are compared only to Israel who was his Seed only by the Bond-woman ; but those are they who answer Isaac , the Seed of the Free-Woman , who alone was the Heir of the Promises . The like Challenges of the Patriarchs for their own Ancestors are frequent among the first Christians , who , in all likelyhood , had never been Jews by Extraction . So S. Clemens , Ep. I. ad Corinth . Sect. 31. whose very name implies his being a Roman , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; Barnabas : Barn . Ep. Sect. 9. Ergo & hi de Testamento sunt ; quos dicit FILIOS ABRAHAE de omnibus gentibus . S. Justin a Samaritan : Dialog. cum Tryph. p. 228 , 229. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Elsewhere : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Ib. p. 347. Where he accordingly proves it professedly , as he had promised before , not only concerning Abraham , but the other Patriarchs . And again , Adv. Haer. L.IV. c. 18. Justin. Paren . p. 1 , 2. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Irenaeus : In regnum coelorum introducit Abraham , & semen ejus quod est Ecclesia . Which considerations may serve to make it not seem strange if the later Samaritans who lived more remote from the memory and practice and privileges of Proselytism , mistake the Legal Challenges of the Patriarchs for their Ancestors in their Predecessors for Arguments of their natural Extraction . However , the Laws and Privileges of Legal Proselytism being allowed for such as has been shewn , this alone will suffice for my design to shew that their natural Extraction being otherwise could not have been the inducement that could have moved Christ and his Apostles to exclude the Samaritans , as often as they had occasion to speak of the Privileged Israel .

Sect. 7 NOR Secondly is it probable that they were thus excluded from the Holy Seed on account of their Idolatry . It is true indeed that when they first took up the Jewish Religion they still retained their Idolatrous Customs . Each Nation of them still retained their own Gods ; the Babylonians , Succoth Benoth ; the Cuthaeans , Nergal ; and the Men of Hamath ; Ashima ; the Avites , Nibhaz and Tartak ; and the Sepharvites burnt their Children in fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech the Gods of the Sepharvites . They made unto themselves ( as Jeroboam had done ) of the lowest of them Priests of the high places , which sacrificed for them in the Houses of the high places . 2 King . XVII . 29 , 30 , 31 , 32. that is , in short They feared the Lord , and served their own Gods , and their graven Images , after the manner of the Nations . Verse 33.41 . It is also true , that not only they , but their Children , and their Children's Children continued to do so to the time of the Writer of the Book of Kings , which is supposed to be Esdras , Verse 41. that is to the time of Artaxerxes , either Longimanus or Mucmon , that is , to the Birth of Jaddus , whose Brother Manasseh first ingaged them in their Ecclesiastical Schism . But this could not be taken for a Proselytism of Justice , nor do we find that as yet themselves did ever so much as pretend to the Privilege of Native Jews . The first time that , for certain , they did so , was in the time of Alexander the Great . But it was a little before that time that they had now built a Temple in imitation of that of Jerusalem , and an Altar , and had gotten a High Priest of the Posterity of Aaron . From this time forward it is probable they utterly gave over their Idolatrous Customs , when they were ingaged in an emulation with the Jews at Jerusalem . It had been an unanswerable Objection against them , by the Principles of Judaism if they had continued it . And it is not improbable that Sanballat took this way of justifying the cause of his Son-in-Law Manasses who was excluded from his Succession at Jerusalem only on account of his marriage with his Daughter who was a Heathen , that by Proselyting his whole Satrapia of the Samaritans , and among them his own Daughter , he made that Marriage lawful by an After-Act which had been unlawful before .

Sect. 8 FROM that time there is no evidence that ever they practised it more . The Samaritans themselves , in their address to Antiochus Epiphanes , Josep . Ant. XII . 7 . make themselves Sidonians , and desire that their Temple , which had hitherto no Title of any God , that is , to be sure , of no Heathen God , might from that time have the Title of Jupiter Hellenicus . Why should they not insist on their true Original from the Assyrian Dominions ? why should they not rather desire the Title of their Babylonian Idols , when Gentilism was the thing principally designed by Antiochus , if after an hundred and sixty years discontinuance they had not forgot their Idolatries together with the memory of their true Extraction ? Their very Idols would have disproved their pretending to be of one Nation , much more their pretence to be Sidonians . And how was it possible that in so short a time they could have forgotten their own Idols , if the memory of any the least Idolatrous Worship had not been for that space perfectly discontinued ? If they had been ashamed of it , and so been willing to have suppressed the memory of it ( tho considering the time there be no reason to think that they would have been ashamed of it ) yet it is not probable the Jews would not have upbraided them with it in that famous Dispute between them before Ptolemaeus Philometor ; Jos. Ant. XIII . 6 . where they had agreed that they who were overcome should have their Adversaries put to death ; Where the Terms of the Dispute were that they were to manage it from the Law of Moses . Could they have laid any charge of Idolatry against the Samaritans , it is no way probable that they would ever have admitted them to the Dispute concerning the Succession of their Priesthood . Had the Samaritans themselves been conscious to themselves of the guilt of such a charge , it is no way probable that they themselves would have submitted their Cause to a decision from the Law . This was their Case before their Conquest by Hircanus . But from that time forward , it is no way probable that they would have been permitted in the practice of any Idolatrous Worship by the Jews their Masters , if themselves had been otherwise inclined to it , as we have no reason to believe they were . So that even on this account we have reason to believe all memory of their Idolatrous Worship would have been extinguished before the times of our Saviour , and therefore could have been no cause of his excluding them from the number of the true Israelites . What their modern Adversaries the Rabbins charge them with , their Baptizing in the Name of a Pigeon , is so extremely groundless as that even Mr. Selden himself , De Diis Syr. Syntagmat . II. cap. 3. who is otherwise far from being too incredulous of that kind of Authors , does yet take this for no better than a downright slander . The same he grants concerning another charge of their worshiping an Asina , ( undoubtedly for Asima the old Idol , tho it is also very well known that the Jews themselves were slandered by the Heathens for worshiping their Law-giver Moses in the shape of an Ass ) and another Criticism fathered by them on the Samaritan Pentateuch , Joseph . c. Appion . which he and others who have seen Copies from the Samaritans themselves , can prove false by ocular Demonstration . Nothing therefore of this kind is probable to have been the true reason why our Saviour disowned them for true Israelites . Should one put the most favourable Construction that can be on these Charges , and suppose them to have been Mistakes , that the worship of the Pigeon in memory of Semiramis , which they had found ascribed to the Assyrians , was by them particularly laid to the Cuthaeans , whom they knew to have been an Assyrian Colony ; and that their former Charges , whilst they were Gentiles , had been also laid to them after their Proselytism to the Jewish Law ; these had been Mistakes likely enough to have been taken up by them who were so unkillful in ancient History and Chronology as the Rabbins are known to be by them who have skill enough to judge concerning them .

Sect. 9 THE forementioned Woman of Samaria , in her Dispute with our Saviour himself upon this Argument , plainly states the Controversie as it was disputed at that time , otherwise . Thus it was understood then : Our Fathers worshiped in this Mountain , S. John IV. 20 . and ye say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship . Observe that first , by Worship is meant the Confinement of Worship , that is that her Fathers so worshiped in Mount Gerizim as to condemn the worshiping at Jerusalem , and the Jews so worshiped at Jerusalem as to condemn the worshiping at Mount Gerizim . This was the only thing that made any difference between them ; for if either of them had so worshiped at their own place as not to condemn the worship of others in the other , there could have been no occasion of breach between them . Observe secondly , that this must therefore have been understood , not of the Moral , but the Ceremonial Part of Worship . For their Synagogue-Worship , the Jews were so far from confining it to Jerusalem , or condemning it in Samaria , as that they allowed it in all their Gentile Dispersions , where notwithstanding they did not count the Countries themselves Holy , as they did all Judaea , including Samaria under it . And hence it appears thirdly , whom she meant by those whom she calls our Fathers . She did not mean the Fathers common to them with the Jews , as she did before where she reckoned Jacob among them ; but plainly those Fathers who so worshiped in Samaria as that they differed therein from those who worshiped at Jerusalem , such Fathers who differed from the Jews as much as their Posterity of that present Age. Those were plainly they who had sacrificed in the Samaritan Temple , and owned the Samaritan Priesthood . This worship she could truly say had been performed by their Fathers who lived before their Temple and Altar had been ruined by Hyrcanus . But she could not pretend it to have been performed by any in her own Age who since that time had no Temple nor Altar to sacrifice on distinct from that in Jerusalem . Otherwise , as they continued their SCHISM , so it is no way probable , but that even they continued their Moral Worship distinct from the Jews . And therefore plainly this 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 wherein they differed from the Jews was no other than their Worship of Sacrificing , and that the same way understood , and the same way justified , as it was practised and justified by those Samaritans who lived before the destruction of their Temple by Hyrcanus . This same practice of Sacrificing in the Temple at Mount Gerizim was that by which the Samaritans of that Age defended themselves , nothing of Idolatry , or of their false pretences to Jewish Extraction . And this , and this alone , must have been the thing condemned in them by our Saviour when he gave his judgment against them in this same Dispute .

THAT we may therefore understand Sect. 10 what it was that was condemned by our Saviour , we must have recourse to the History of those times wherein that was practised , which now was only disputed and defended . And the first occasion of that whole Difference was briefly this : Manasses the Brother of Jaddus the High Priest of the Jews had married Nicaso , Josep . Ant. XI . 8 . a Daughter of Sanballat , a Cuthaean by Extraction , who had been made Satrapa of Samaria , his own Country , by Darius Codomanus . Upon this the Elders of the Jews , in whose hands the Government was at that time ( Josephus himself confesses it to have been Aristocratical then ) oblige him to a choice either of quitting his Wife , Ant. XX. 8 . or his Priesthood . Immediately he flies to his Father-in-Law , full of Complaints of what he had suffered from his own Countrymen for his affection to his Daughter , and acquaints him that he had indeed a great affection for her , yet not so great but that he preferred that greatest Honor of his Family and Country before her . Sanballat assures him that he should be so far from losing any Honors of his Family for his Daughter , as that , instead of his Priesthood , which as younger Brother to Jaddus , was only of the ordinary sort , he would make him High Priest , he would build him a Temple on Mount Gerizim , one of the highest Mountains of Samaria , no doubt , to rival Mount Moriah , on which the Temple of Jerusalem was built . For as their publick Worship was generally in High Places and Mountains , so the height of the place tended to advance the Dignity of the Worship exercised in it . In allusion whereunto is that expression of the Prophet , Mic. IV. 1 . that the Mountain of the Lord should be exalted above the top of the Mountains . This encourages Manasses , for a time , to wait till he might see how far his Father in - Law 's Interest might succeed in effecting what he had promised , and still his Party increased by the accession of other Criminals in the same kind with himself who daily revolted to him .

Sect. 11 BUT before Sanballat could communicate this design to his Master Darius , he had received his second Defeat at Issus . Sanballat hereupon takes this occasion of following the Conqueror , whom he found at the Siege of Tyre . There he acquaints him with his Design , and tells him how much it would be for his interest , by that new Project , to divide the powerful and rebellious Nation of the Jews . So the elder Sanballat , contemporary to Nehemiah , had likewise represented them . And he found it the less difficult to prevail with him , because he had been a little before provoked by a Message returned to him , whereby they gave him to understand that they were already ingaged to Darius by their Oaths , and could not take up Arms against him while he lived . Having therefore got his leave , he immediately falls to his Work of Building this new Temple , Chap. 4. which he seems also to have finished within those seven Months which were spent in the Siege of Tyre , and the two at Gaza , for within that time he dies . From that time forward to the time of the elder Hyrcanus , this was the place of publick Worship for the Samaritans , as Jerusalem for the Jews , Sanballat himself , and his Daughter , and his whole Province having been Proselyted to it .

HERE was again an Altar and a Sect. 12 Temple independent on those at Jerusalem , designed purposely to cut off their Communication in their Anniversary Solemnities . They were henceforth so far from joyning in their Anniversaries , which , as I said , were the Prerogatives of the Temple , as that they mortally hated each other , and refused the common Civilities of Conversation . But this distinction of their Altar was common with the other forementioned SCHISMS . The distinction of the One Priesthood is that which first appeared here , and was , in truth , the thing principally mentioned in this Dispute , before Ptolemaeus Philometor . It is there granted on both sides that the High Priesthood ought to be but One ( it is plainly the High Priesthood they dispute , Chap. 5. so far is it from an Ordinary Priest of a single Congregation which none ever doubted but they might be , and were many . ) The Dispute is who had the Right to it . This is the thing which they endeavour to make out from the Topick of Succession . That was again urged by Andronicus the Advocate for the Jews : Josep . Ant. XIII . 6 . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . From the Law no doubt his first proof was brought that the High Priesthood ought to be but one ; and concerning the Succession the proof was not from the Law , as it is taken for the Pentateuch , but as it includes the other Historical Books of the Old Testament . By that it appeared that a Temple had been at Jerusalem from the time of Solomon to the time of Sanballat , abating only the time of the seventy years Captivity . It appeared that there was a constant Succession of High Priests in that Temple at Jerusalem , whilst as yet there was no Temple at Samaria , Josephus himself reckons thirteen from Aaron to Solomon's Temple , Jos. Ant. XX. 8 . then under the Temple Eighteen . Then after the return from the Captivity , Jesus the Son of Josedec , and Fifteen of his Posterity to the time of Antiochus Eupator , &c. In all likelyhood these Catalogues of the Succession of their High Priests were first gathered and cast into these Distinctions by them who first managed this Dispute concerning the Succession of the High Priesthood against the Samaritans . And by these Catalogues it again appears that the One Priesthood , so much then disputed of , was meant only of the High Priesthood , seeing it was only of the Names of such that their Catalogues consisted .

THERE are also some other Instances Sect. 13 to which the Phrases of erecting Altars against Altars , and the profaness of such Altars so erected , might possibly relate , which yet I do not think so apposite to my present Design , because they were rather of Idolaters than SCHISMATICKS . These were of Rival Altars erected within the very Jurisdiction of the True Altar , and with a design of slighting , and laying the use of it aside . Such was that of Ahaz which he caused to be copied from the Altar of Damascus . This Altar he erected in the Temple , and caused the Brazen Altar of God to be removed for it , and gave Urijah the Priest this charge concerning them : 2 King . XVI . 15 . Upon the great Altar ( so he called his own new One ) burn the morning burnt-offerings , and the evening meat-offering , and the kings burnt-sacrifice , and his meat-offering , with the burnt-offering of all the people of the land , and their meat-offering , and their drink-offerings , and sprinkle upon it all the blood of the burnt-offering , and all the blood of the sacrifice : and the brazen altar shall be for me to enquire by . Plainly this Altar was in emulation to the true Altar . It was erected in the same Temple , nay , as it should seem , in the same part of the Temple , for the other was removed for it . It was designed for most of those Sacrifices which had formerly been offered on the Altar , so that now the true Altar had no other use , but for such Sacrifices whereby the God of Israel was to be consulted . It was plainly designed as the principal Altar of the two ; for it was called the great Altar , and the other was removed for it , and it had much the greater part of the Temple Worship performed at it . Possibly it was his Example that was imitated by his Grandson Manasseh , among whose wickednesses this is also reckoned as one of the most provoking , That he also built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the Lord , 2 King . XXI . 4 , 5. 2 Chron. XXXIII . 4 , 5. that is within the Jurisdiction of the true Altar . For so it is aggravated before , that he built Altars in the house of the Lord , of which the Lord said , in Jerusalem will I put my name . The like is also observed concerning the Altar of Antiochus Epiphanes in the vulgar Latine ( for our English from the Greek is somewhat different ) Et quintâ & vicesimâ die mensis sacrificabant super aram quae erat contra Altare . 1 Maccab. l. 62. Lat. 59 Engl. Here is Ara contra Altare , almost the very Phrase of S. Cyprian , who yet I believe borrowed his Phrase rather from the things , than any Forms of Words , as they had been practised in those known Disputes between the Jews and the Samaritans .

THERE is also another instance reducible to this purpose , if we may Sect. 14 believe the modern Jews , Vide Selden de Succes . in Pontif. Ebraeor . II. 8 . I mean the Temple of Onias in Heliopolis in Egypt . I dispute not now how ill grounded that Fact of Onias was on the Prophecy of Isaias by him pretended for it . I dispute not how indecorously that particular place of Heliopolis was chosen for it , which was the Metropolis of the Egyptian Worship , which was by the Jews condemned as Idolatrous , and abounded more than any other place of Aegypt it self with monuments of those Idolatries . This was an Observation so very obvious , as that it was taken notice of by Ptolemy Philometor himself in the very Rescript whereby he gave Onias leave to build it . Ap. Josep . Ant. XIII . 6 . But this Temple , as it was built with no ill design of opposition , but only as a fulfilling of that Prophecy ; so I do not find that it was ever managed so as to cause the least animosity , much less any SCHISM , between the Egyptian and the Palestine Jews . When it was first built , the Temple of Jerusalem seems to have lain in its desolation by Antiochus . For the immediate occasion of the Flight of Onias into Egypt was his own Exclusion from the Succession into the Priesthood upon the Murder of his Father by the Practices of his Uncle Menelaus . There was at that time an old grudge between Antiochus Epiphanes and Ptolemeus Philometor . Immediately before his Attempts on the Temple , Antiochus was but newly return'd from Egypt from an attempt he had made on Ptolemy , being diverted from it only by an interposition of the Romans in that famous Embassie delivered to him by Popillius Laenas . And indeed Judaea it self had not long before been made over to Ptolemaeus Epiphanes by Antiochus the Great , and was newly taken from the Egyptians by Antiochus Epiphanes in that same invasion . This was the occasion that both those Princes had Designs and Parties in Judaea , and were very ready to hearken to any attempts that were made in favour of their own interest . Jason was the first that undermined Onias's Father by an application to Antiochus Epiphanes , and indeed that first invited that Prince into the invasion of his own Country . And accordingly upon the Conquest Onias was put by , and Jason substituted in his room by the interest of Antiochus . Yet he himself was within three years undermined also by his Brother Menelaus . In the time of this mans Priesthood it was that the Temple was prophaned by Antiochus . Afterwards in the time of Antiochus Eupator , in the tenth year of the Priesthood of Menelaus , he is put to death by order of the young Antiochus , and Alcimus a person no way related to the Priestly Family substituted in his stead , about the year one hundred and fifty of the Seleucidae precisely . This was the time , Josep . Ant. XII . 15 . and the posture of Affairs when Onias fled into Egypt .

HEREUPON he is gladly received Sect. 15 by Ptolemy , who was willing , by his means , to revive his Interest in Judaea . Accordingly he proposes this Expedient of a new Temple , as a means whereby he might gain the Jewish Nation on his side , that this would make Antiochus more odious , Josep . Bell. Jud. VII . 30 . and Ptolemy more acceptable to them , if whilst Antiochus was prophaning their Old Temple , Ptolemy would build them a new . Josephus does indeed charge Onias with some resentment against his Countrymen in this Design . But against whom was this resentment ? Against Alcimus , one who had no Title to the Priesthood but meer intrusion , whereas Onias himself was the true Heir by lawful Descent . Against one who had himself consented to the Heathen Idolatries , and the Prophanations of the Temple after it had been expiated by Judas . 1 Maccab. IX . 54 . What Sanctity could have been in such a Priest , tho he had been more Lawful , and Onias more Unlawful than indeed they were ? This Temple therefore was built in such a time wherein neither the Temple , nor the Altar , nor the High Priest of the Temple of Jerusalem were indeed worthy of any emulation . And yet when he designed the building his new Temple , he desires leave to build it not only to the same Deity , Josep . Ant. XIII . 6 . whom he calls 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 but also 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . And Josephus adds , that he did accordingly . These are his express words : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . These Words should refer to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 as well as the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that they may answer the Petition . This , as I said before , was indeed , according to the Customs of that Age , to be understood as a communicating with the Temple in Jerusalem , as I shewed in the Case of Ahaz , that his Copying the Altar of Damascus , was a communicating with the Syrian Idolatries . And not only so , but it was also plainly an owning a dependence on the Temple at Jerusalem , when that was owned as the Prototype from whence their own was Copyed , and when withal this was designed less than that from whence it was Copyed . This we never find to have been done by the Samaritans , or any others who pretended to rival the Temple at Jerusalem . This is expresly mentioned in the Petition of Onias , on which , according to the Forms of those Times , the Rescript of the Prince was grounded , and by which it was to be interpreted , that the same thing , and nothing else was granted but that which had been mentioned in the Petition . And therefore I cannot but admire at Josephus , who notwithstanding elsewhere tells us , that his Temple was like a Tower , Jos. Bell. Jud. VII . 30 . and not like that of Jerusalem , tho withal he confesses that the Altar was exactly Copyed from the Altar of Jerusalem . I doubt Josephus never saw it . Only this is certain , that if he had varied from what he mentioned in his Petition , this had been alone sufficient to have invalidated the Grant of Ptolemy to him , and might have been so interpreted by them who had been Enemies to his Design .

BUT besides this , there are also other Sect. 16 things that shew that he designed no SCHISM from the Temple and Altar of Jerusalem . Himself , in the same Petition , observes , how Diversity of Temples , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , had bred Animosites , not in his own Nation only , but also among the Egyptians themselves . Would he preface his Design with such Reflections as these , if his own design had been liable to the same Charge ? Nay , he plainly professes in the Petition it self , that his design was to unite the Jews in Egypt thereby for Ptolemy's Service . But was it so to unite them among themselves as to divide them from those of their own Nation in Palestine ? This had been so far from doing Ptolemy any service , as that it must have alienated them who were capable of doing him the greatest service against Antiochus . It would have been very doubtful , whether would have been hated most by the Jews of Jerusalem , Antiochus for prophaning their Temple , or Ptolemy for causing a division among themselves . But Josephus tells us elsewhere that Onias hoped hereby to draw away the multitude from Jerusalem . Bell. Jud. VII . 30 . What multitude was this but those who were disaffected to the prophane Alcimus , that is , who were indeed , at that time , on the more Orthodox side ? And could he expect to prevail on them by any thing that , by the Principles of that Age , would have been owned as SCHISMATICAL ?

ON the contrary , it appears , by Sect. 17 the event , that this Heliopolitane Temple , if it united the Egyptian Jews among themselves , did notwithstanding not disunite them from their Brethren at Jerusalem . After this time we find as fair a correspondence , and as great evidences of mutual and hearty affection as ever . Accordingly among those devout persons who came from every Nation under Heaven ( that is where the Jews had Colonies ) to keep the Feast of Pentecost at Jerusalem ( which was one of the three Anniversaries ) we find those of Egypt , and those of the parts of Libya about Cyrene , Act. II. 10 . that is , of the Pentapolitane Libya , which had also belonged to the Ptolemyes , till it was bequeathed to the Romans by Ptolemaeus Apion . It seems then that the Heliopolitane temple was not designed to encroach on that Prerogative of the Temple at Jerusalem for the Solemn Anniversaries . As soon almost as that new Temple was built we see what loving Letters passed between the Jews of Jerusalem and their Brethren in Alexandria in the Book of Maccabees . 2 Macc. 1. Onias himself fell into the trouble mentioned in the Third Book of the Maccabees after the death of Ptolemy Philometor , as Josephus much more probably places it , than others who will have it under Ptolemy Philopater . Cont. Apion . II. p. 1064. Josephus one of Jerusalem does highly commend his behaviour on that occasion . When Mithridates and Antipater brought succor to Coesar in the Alexandrian War , the first resistance that was like to have been made , was by the Jews of Onias's Country , that is of the very place where Onias's Temple was built . Josep . Ant. XIV . 14 . But when Antipater had acquainted them that the High Priest himself Hyrcanus was engaged in that Quarrel , they let him pass . How was it possible they could have had that reverence for the name of the High Priest if they had themselves been engaged in a SCHISM against him ? Had it been so , no name could have been more odious to them , and unlikely to prevail . The like may appear from their mutual concernment for the Calamities of their Nation in both places . How heartily was Philo interessed in the Troubles of the Palestine Jews under Petronius in the time of Caius ? Nay , Phil. Leg. ad Caj●m . Philo is express against any Altar or Temple in opposition to that of Jerusalem , De Monar . Lib. II. mit . and is for all going thither at what distance soever . And on the contrary , how much was Josephus concerned for his Brethren in Alexandria , in their Troubles under the Praefectship of Tiberius Alexander ? Jos. Bell. Jud. II. 21 .

Sect. 18 I AM therefore apt to think that there were no more High Priests continued in the Heliopolitane Temple by Onias , who during his own time had the best Right to it in Jerusalem , and while the Temple was prophaned , and things in disorder , so that the High Priesthood was not disposed of till the time of Jonathan ; he was not capable of having a Competitor , and it is not unlikely but that he yielded it to Jonathan , being now so engaged in his Prince's Affairs in Egypt as that he was unwilling to remove for the High Priesthood it self . From that time forward , it does not appear that there was any Succession of the High Priesthood continued at Heliopolis . There was indeed an Altar . There were also Priests and Levites endowed by Ptolemy with maintenance for attendance on that Altar . This Succession of Priests was continued till the time that the Temple was shut up by the command of Vespasian . For even then Josephus tells us that Paulinus , the Successor of Lupus who had shut it up , Bell. Jud. extorted from the Priests an account of the Donatives which had been bestowed upon it . But there is not the least intimation of any High Priest in it at that time . Now such a Succession as this would only imply a use of it for ordinary Sacrifices , so as the high places had been used before , after the confinement of the publick worship to a certain place , which tho they might be irregular , yet were not SCHISMAT1CAL , whilst they owned a dependence on the place of publick Worship . Yet even these high places were legitimated when they were used by a Prophet , and even the modern Jews acknowledge that the Authority of a Prophet did extend so far as to excuse for the breach of a positive Law of such a nature as this was . How mu●h more such a Prophet as Isaiah ? How much more in a Writing , which was a standing Rule to their Church of Authority not inferior to that of the Law it self ? Certainly of much more Authority than that of any present inspiration of any Prophet in his life-time ?

THIS was thought a sufficient Argument Sect. 19 with the Hellenists of that time to authenticate a thing so seemingly different from the Letter of the Law as this was , and it was the same Argument , drawn from the like uncondemned Concessions of the Hellenists , that was made use of by the first Christians to justifie all their seeming Deviations from the Letter of the Law , by the like Predictions of the Prophets concerning the later days . This Observation will both let us Christians see how strong this Reasoning is , seeing it is of the same kind with that by which most of the Peculiarities of the Christian Religion , as different from Judaism , were proved in those first and purest times ; and will withal let our Adversaries see how prudent and credible this Argument was , as it was managed by the first Christians , being the same by which Prophesies and Predictions were expounded and applyed in those Ages wherein Prophesies were most familiar in ordinary practice , and wherein the Spirit of Prophecy was thought as necessary for expounding Prophesies already symbolically revealed to others , as it was to those to whom the Revelations were first made .

Sect. 20 BESIDES these now mentioned , there are also other Temples of the Jews mentioned in the forementioned Address of the same Onias , which I do not know whether any Author besides now extant has ever mentioned . His words are these : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Josep . Ant. XIII . 6 . &c. That is , Having conversed with the Jews in Celo-Syria and Phaenice , and in the Leontopolis in the Heliopolitane Nomus ( to distinguish it from that which was the Head of a Nomus by it self ) and having travelled to several other places where Colonies were planted of the same Nation , and finding most of them engaged in Sacred Rites unlawful for them , and for that cause disaffected to each other , & c.. But I can hardly think that these were purely SCHISMATICAL Temples , but rather Idolatrous . If that had been his meaning , it was strange he should forget the most famous , notorious Instance of all , that of the Samaritans , which was then in its most flourishing condition . It is strange that no others should mention any Temples built by the Jews in those places , not even Josephus himself who had undertaken the History of all the Memorables of his own Nation . I incline therefore rather to translate 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in this place by the name rather of Sacred Rites than of Temples , not as if the Jews had in these places any Temples of their own , but that , according to their natural fickleness in their own Worship , and their complaisance to the Heathens , to whom they made themselves odious by their singularity , they yielded to the Idolatrous Customs of the places where they lived . For shewing how probable this was I need not have recourse to their ancient frequent Relapses into Idolatry . A very Learned (a) (a) Sir John Marsham Chr. Can. Sect. IX . Gentleman conceives they were involved in this guilt in that Anniversary Commemoration mentioned by (b) (b) Vit. Mos. III. Philo , as observed by them together with the other Alexandrians , in memory of their Law , translated there by the order of Philadelphus . This Anniversary he conceives to have been designed by the Heathens in honor of Isis Pharia . But there is another occasion mentioned in the History of that Translation , for the Commemoration of the Heathens . That was the Victory at Sea gained by the Forces of Ptolemaeus Lagi over the Fleet of Antigonus on that same day , which the King seems purposely to have joyned with the Commemoration of the Translation , that the Commemoration of both together might be more general and solemn . Tho I deny not but that Deity might be she to whom the Heathens returned their thanks for that Sea-Victory . Whether the Jews joyned with them in that part of their Address is not so certain from this Passage .

IT is somewhat clearer in the Epistle of Adrian to Servianus . He there tells Sect. 21 us that the very Patriarch was compelled by some to worship Serapis , Ap. Vopisc . in Saturnino . by others to worship Christ . If the name Patriarch were not an Argument , which does not seem to have been taken up by the Christians till the time of Montanus , nor by the Catholicks for some considerable time after , yet the being compelled to worship Christ , the same way as he was compelled to worship Serapis , plainly imply him to have been as averse to Christianity as Heathenism . In the same Epistle he tells us that the same God ( an Idolatrous one , no doubt , when he produces it as an Argument of the Alexandrian Levity ) was worshiped in common by the Christians , Jews and Heathens . But a clearer instance hereof was in the worship of the Oak at Mamre . There were Idols and an Idolatrous Altar , so scandalous as that it was taken away by Constantine . Sozom. II. 4 . Euseb. Demon. V. 9 . & de loc. Ebr. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Rit . Constantin . III. 51 , 52 , 53. Yet because their Fore father Abraham was concerned in it , the Jews also are reckoned among those who had frequented that place on a superstitious Account .

THIS therefore being a thing to Sect. 22 which the Jews were so very obnoxious , as Onias had observed by his Travels among them in their Colonies , where they were in the most danger of being thus corrupted by their conversation with Idolaters ; and being withal a thing which must , in course , make animosities among them , provoke against them the just zeal of their Brethren in Jerusalem , who were not in the same danger as they were who lived among Heathens : Onias thought to remedy these inconveniences by building the Egyptian Jews a Temple of their own to the Supreme God , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , which was the God worshiped by them , not the particular Daemons of Places , or Nations , or Cities , of which kind all were that were worshiped by the Heathens in a publick way , by Temples and Sacrifices . For by having thus a Temple of their own , they were taken off from the Temptation of frequenting the Heathen Temples and Sacrifices ; by being preserved from this they were kept righter in the good opinion of their Brethren at Jerusalem ; by being kept so , their whole Nation , both those in Egypt , and those in Palestine , were better disposed to drive on common designs , and with common interest , for the purposes of Ptolemy , and against that of Antiochus . This seems plainly to have been the Intrigue aimed at by Onias in this whole design . And this supposes that the Temples alluded to by him , were rather the Idolatrous Temples of the Heathens of those places than any Schismatical ones proper to the Jews themselves .

CHAP. VI. The Privilege of the Jews , as the Segullah , or Peculiar People , consisted in having the Supreme Being appropriated to them for their God . The CONTENTS .

The Force of this Argument as applyed by the Jews to their SCHISMATICKS from Judaism . 1. The God of Israel was indeed so proper to the Israelites , as the Gods of the Nations were to their respective Nations . Sect. 1. The Daemons of the Nations were only of limited Power and Jurisdiction , and , as they thought , overpowered when the Nations , for whom they were concerned , were conquered . Sect. II , III. The Privilege of the Jews , as the Segullah , consisted in this , That whereas none but Inferior Daemons were appointed for the Tutelars of other Nations , the Supreme Being was pleased to undertake the management of them immediately , in his own person . Sect. IV , V , VI , VII . The Advantages the Jews had above other Nations in this regard . Sect. VIII . Wherein consisted the Sin of worshiping those Tutelary Demons . Sect. IX , X , XI . How Angels were employed by God in the Government of the Jews . Sect. XII . Wherein God's peculiar Care of the Jews consisted . Sect. XIII .

THUS I think I have gone through all the Temples and Altars that Sect. 1 might any way be thought alluded to in the Argument of which I am at present discoursing . And I am apt to think that those of the Samaritans were principally intended in those Reasonings of the Primitive Christians . I shall now proceed to shew the force of this Reasoning as it was first used by the Jews against their SCHISMATICKS from Judaism ; and from thence 2. how forcible it is as deduced and applyed by the first Christians to the Case of SCHISMATICKS from Christistianity . And 3. how appositely their Reasonings fit the Case also of our modern SCHISMATICKS .

1. Then , for the Reasonings of the Jews against their SCHISMATICKS , I desire it may be remembred 1. That , the God of Israel was indeed so proper to the Nation of the Israelites , as the Gods of the Nations were to their respective Nations . This was indeed the Popular Notion , Tertull. Apolog. c. 24. Min. Fel Oct. 44. Athan. or advers. Gent. p. 25. that each Nation had a God proper to it self , as is clear from Tertullian , Minutius , Athanasius , and the rest of the Apologists as they have occasion to mention it ; that as every Nation had a Tutelar Daemon of its own , so there was also a mutual confinement on both sides , that He should be their God , and They should be his People , that is , that He should confine himself to the care of that People , and them alone , and that they , and none but they , should have a Right to worship him , and a Title to his Care , and that they should also confine themselves to worship none but him , or by his leave . This plainly seems implyed in all those Differences and Fightings of the Gods in Homer , ( like that of Michael the Angel of the Jews fighting against the Prince of the Persians , Dan. X. 20 . ) not that the Gods themselves were thought to have any animosites against each other , but that , on account of this confinement of their care to their own Nations , it was impossible but that they must abet contrary designs , when the good of one Nation was grounded on the calamity of the other . Then the God who was concerned for the suffering Nation , endeavoured to remove or alleviate the Suffering ; or if he could , to divert it on the Nation whose greatness he looked on as prejudicial to his own Cure . And on the contrary , the God that was concerned for the Conquering Nation endeavoured all he was able to reach the happiness designed for his own People , and to defeat the designs of the Daemons concerned against him . The Stoicks would Allegorize all those Differences into the natural contrariety of the Principles of the Universe , as the strife between Scamander and Vulcan was from the contrariety between Fire and Water . This might possibly answer the Poets design , as to the Powers by which those contrary Daemons promoted their contrary Interests , that the Power of Vulcan consisted in his Fire , as the Power of Scamander in his Water . But why the Power of the Fire and the Sea , Vulcan and Neptune should be concerned against the Trojans , especially that of the Air , which is common to all , that is , Juno . Why Apollo , that is , the Sun , should be for the Trojans , and against the Graecians , this cannot be accounted for but by a confinement of the care of the Deities themselves . Besides this way of Allegorizing the Gods into Principles of Nature was lately brought into use by the Stoicks , and is very uncertain whether it was ever designed by the first contrivers of these Mythological Stories .

Sect. 2 NOR is this to be thought so strange if it be considered that these Deities themselves were not thought to be of the Supreme , but of the inferior order of Deities . They were supposed , even by them who worshiped them , to have limited Powers only as well as limited Dominions , and accordingly as their Powers lay , so they were thought to be mutually weaker and stronger than each other . Usually the first occasion of erecting Altars to them was some Experiment of a Benefit received from them which was mentioned either in the Title by which they afterwards worshiped him , or inscribed on the Altars so erected by them . And as they judged by the event wherein their Powers lay , so they did also judge which of them was more powerful . Thus the Philistines judge concerning the God of the Israel , whom they took only for a Tutelar of Israel . Wo unto us : who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty Gods ? 1 Sam. IV. 8 . these are the Gods that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues in the wilderness . They thought the God of the Ebrews more powerful than the Gods of the Egyptians , because he had overthrown their People , and therefore feared lest he might be too powerful for theirs . Thus God got him glory over the Gods of the Egyptians in being reputed more powerful than they . Exod. XII . 12 . So again when they had conquered the Ark , they place it in the Temple of their Dagon , no doubt , as a Trophy of the Victory of their Dagon over the God of the Ebrews , for it was the Ark that they had also been so fearful of before as a Symbol of the presence of the God of the Ebrews . The same was the notion of the Syrians , when being defeated by the Israelites , they concluded that the God of the Israelites was the God of the Hills , 1 King . XX. 23 , 28. but that their own Gods were Gods of the Valleys ; and therefore they hoped might prevail against the God of the Ebrews , if they might deal with his People in the Valleys . Plainly supposing that the God of Israel , as well as their own Gods , was a particular Tutelary Daemon over the Nation of Israel ; That their own Daemons were in some things inferior to him , as well as he was in other things inferior to them ; and that therefore none of them were the Supreme Being which we call God in the appropriated Notion . So also Sennacherib , when he boasts that none of the Gods of the Nations had delivered his Land out of the hand of the King of Assyria , 2 King . XVIII . 33.35 . and thence concludes that the God of Israel was not likely to deliver his People from him , was not certainly so vain as to think that he a mortal creature could be more powerful than any Daemon of what rank soever , but that his own Daemon of his own Nation was more powerful than the Daemon of Judaea , as well as he had proved himself more powerful than the Daemons of those other Nations which had been subdued by his People . Accordingly when God foretels the ruine of the Assyrian Monarchy , he does it so as to insult over their Gods , who should neither be able to deliver their People , nor their Images , from being carried captive with them . Is. XLVI . 1 . And one of the most powerful Pleas with God to prevail with him to pass by the Sins of his own People , is the dishonor that would otherwise redound to his own name , the reproach of his Adversaries , who would thence conclude that he was unable either at first to save , or after to deliver , his Captivated People .

AGREEABLY hereunto they Sect. 3 ascribe all the Felicities and Infelicities of their Nations to the conduct of their Deities . If any Design succeeded with more than ordinary Prosperity , they resigned the whole Glory and Acknowledgment , not to their own Prudence or Courage , but to the vigilancy and power of their Tutelary Deity . To him they payed their Vows ; They crowned his Statues ; They adorned his Temple ; They appointed Festivities and Solemnities , and sometimes Anniversaries , for the commemoration of it by the Body of the People ; To him they sung their Hymns , they offered their Eucharistical Sacrifices , they devoted their Lectisternia , their Plays and Dances , and all their Customs of expressing their Publick Joy : To him , and in his Temple they hung up their Trophies and the Spoils of their Enemies , as if he alone had been the Author of their whole Success ▪ So also in their Calamities , when irremediable , they did not , in the Nations bordering on Palestine , ascribe such , as afterwards in the mythical Times of the Heathens , either to an over-ruling Fate , or to an Indignation or Desertion of their Daemon . They never thought his Chastisements could extend to Extermination , nor do they seem to have believed that the Supreme Being so far concerned himself as a Party in the Transactions between Nations and their Tutelary Daemons , as that any thing was determined by his immediate interposition , which disbelief of theirs destroys the very Foundation of this most ancient Notion of Fate . These other Refuges therefore being thus precluded , the most obvious account remaining that could be given by them of such calamities , could not be the want of good will or care in their Daemons for their Relief , but only their want of Power , as the Fortune-teller told Anthony , that his Genius dreaded the Genius of Augustus . Hereupon it came to pass that the Nations rivalled one another in the honor of their Tutelary Daemons , as indeed conceiving that Nation most favoured by the Supreme Being which had the most powerful Genius allotted to it . And indeed they judged of the Power of their Genius by the Success and Prosperity of the Nation for which he was concerned . Thus it is that the God of Israel himself rivals those respective Tutelaries , when , according to their Notions concerning him , he personates himself the part only of a Tutelary . Deuteron . XXXII . 31 . Their God was not like the Gods of the Nations , their Enemies themselves being Judges . This his Enemies were to judge from the greatness of his Deliverances of his People by the many Signs and Wonders wrought for his People beyond any thing that ever was pretended of that kind in behalf of any of the Gods of the Nations . This was gathered from the Glory and Evidence of his Manifestations : Enquire from the ancient days which were be fore thee , Deut. IV. 32 , 33. from the day wherein God created man upon the earth , whether any such thing was ever done or known , That a people heard the voice of the Lord God speaking out of the midst of the fire , as thou hast heard , and lived . This was also gathered from the Wisdom of their Laws , for that was also taken for another principal instance wherein the care of their Tutelar was thought to be concerned . So he reasons elsewhere : Ib. v. 6 , 7 , 8. This is your wisdom and understanding among the Peoples , that when they shall hear of these Precepts , they shall say , This is a wise and understanding People , a great Nation . Neither is there any other Nation which hath Gods so near them as the Lord our God is near unto us in all wherein we call upon him . For what Nation is there that hath Laws and Statutes and Judgments so righteous as these which I set before you this day . Thus God proves the happiness of the Jews in having him as a Tutelary , that they were by so much more secure of a prosperous condition under his Government as he was more able to protect them than the Daemons of other Nations . And if it was counted a higher degree of favour to have a more powerful Genius , much more it was to have an Omnipotent One , to have the God of those Gods , the distributer and allotter of all those Provinces to those several Genii . This was a favour , not only beyond the enjoyment , but the expectation also , of any other Nation .

THIS Doctrine , That the Jews Sect. 4 alone , and no other Nation besides , was under the immediate care and providence of the Supreme Being is so far from being a Paradox , as that indeed it is the Doctrine of the Scriptures themselves , and the Foundation of their being the Segullah , the chosen People and peculiar Property of the Supreme God himself . Undoubtedly the Hellenists did so understand the passage in Deuteronomy , XXXII . 8 . where God is said to have set the bounds of the Nations , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , as the LXXII read it . Accordingly as they anciently reckoned LXXII Nations in the Greek , Gen. X. so they reckoned LXXII Angels President over them , that is , S. Hieron . in Matth. XXVI . so many Chiliarchs as were in XII Roman Legions consisting of six thousand each of them . And as the present Jews reckon but LXX Nations , so they also allow LXX Angels . When therefore immediately after the former words , the Sacred Writer adds , Vide Bochart . Phaleg . I. 15 . For the Lords portion is his people : Jacob is the lot of his inheritance , Verse 9. Who sees not how appositely this follows that meaning of the former Verse in which the LXXII understood it ? Whereas God had allotted Angels to the Government of other Nations , he reserved Israel for his own lot , and when he bounded the inheritance of the other Nations , he marked out Israel for his own inheritance . Plainly he alludes to the way of dividing Inheritances by lot , which as in Egypt it was necessary for distinguishing their proportions after the inundation of Nile , so probably from thence the custom was also derived to other Countries where there was not the like necessity . Accordingly we find the Land of Canaan divided at first by lot , which the Apostle in the Acts calls 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and sors are not only used synonymously in Greek and Latine Authors with Inheritance , but in the Language of the Old Testament also : so David : The lot is fallen unto me in a fair ground , Ps. XVI . 7 . yea I have a goodly heritage . And it is particularly the Language of the Heathens themselves , when they speak of this distribution of Provinces among their Gods . So they make the distribution of the Heaven , the Sea , and Hell between their three chief Gods , Jupiter , and Neptune , and Pluto , so they also make the distribution of the other Provinces and Jurisdictions among the other Gods also of the inferior Orders , and call the proportion of each by the name of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , sors , &c. So that this is as accurately worded , as was possible , for the sense of which I am at present discoursing . Considering therefore this fitness of the Connexion , methinks it should be no improbable conjecture , if I should conceive that instead of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the former Verse the ancient Reading was 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , the Sons of God , as this name of Sons of God was in Gen. VI. 2 , 4. as it was then understood by the Hellenists universally , and yet more confessedly in Job I. 6 . II. 1 . XXXVIII . 7 . ascribed to the Angels . The forementioned Translation of the LXXII seems to imply that they found and understood it so in the Ebrew Copies of their Age. And the change was not difficult from 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , which might also be mistaken for a contraction for 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . An instance of this is commonly observed in the pretended Sanchoniathon . Or if the change be rather deduced from a mistake of El for a final abbreviation of the word Israel : yet there are instances of Abbreviations as harsh as this among the Massorites , that none may wonder at this .

ACCORDINGLY after the Sect. 5 provocation of the Golden Calf , God threatens them with the condition of other Nations , to perform his promise to them , and to drive the Nations of Canaan from before them ; but not to do it in his own person , but by the Message of an Angel . Exod. XXXII . 34 . Therefore now go , lead the People unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee : Behold , mine Angel shall go before thee . XXXIII . 2 , 3. And I will send an Angel before thee , and I will drive out the Canaanite , the Amorite , and the Hittite , and the Perizzite , the Hivite , and the Jebusite : Unto a land flowing with milk and honey : For I will not go up in the midst of thee . Plainly God's sending his Angel with them is opposed to his going up with them in his own Person . This he had elsewhere threatened in case of their disobedience . Exod. XXIII . 20 . And bids them beware of him , and obey his voice , and not to provoke him : for he would not pardon their iniquities , for his name was in him . What need was there of so many and so express Cautions in this matter , but because they who had been used to the Personal Conduct of God himself , might be apt to despise the Conduct of an Angel ? He assures them that in that regard their condition should be rather worse , and their punishment more severe , in case of disobedience , that the Angel would be more concerned for God's dishonor , than God would be for his own . And why should he speak of the Angels punishing them , and not pardoning their Iniquities , unless he meant it of such a Power that the Angel should have over them as over other Nations , to punish or pardon at his own pleasure , not barely to execute the particular Commands of God , which had not been inconsistent with the continuation of the Theocracy . The same Angel is elsewhere called the Hornet , Exod. XXIII . 28 . Deut. VII . Josh. XXIV . 12 .

TO return therefore thither from Sect. 6 whence I have digressed , to shew that this was God's meaning in the forementioned place of Exod. XXXII , XXXIII . God thereupon denies them the name of his People : Thy people ( says he to Moses ) which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt , &c. Exod. XXXII . 7 . And agian , Thou , and the people which thou hast brought up out of the land of Egypt , &c. XXXIII . 1 . And so Moses understood it when he removed the Tabernacle without the Camp , afar off from the Camp , and called it the Tabernacle of the Congregation . The Tabernacle was a Symbol of God's Presence , and the removing of it did therefore plainly signifie a removal of that special Presence which he had been pleased to shew among them ; and the distance to which it was removed , as it signified the greatness of God's displeasure against them , so it signified withal the distance God intended hence forward to keep at from them , as far as it is possible for God to be distant , that is , in regard of that special presence of care and particular concernment which he had for them whilst he owned them as his People . So Moses understood it , and prays accordingly , Verse 15 , 16. If thy presence go not with me , carry us not up hence . For wherein shall it be known here , that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight ? Is it not in that thou goest with us ? So shall we be separated , I and thy people , from all the people that are upon the face of the earth . Plainly therefore his sending the Angel with them implyed the withdrawing of his own presence from them . The presence so withdrawn was that whereby they were known to have found grace in his sight , that is , whereby they were known to be his peculiar Favorites ; and that whereby the People of Israel were separated from all the People that were upon the face of the earth . That is , wherein they were preferred before all other Nations . What is this but the very notion of their being the Segullah ? That therefore must have consisted in this peculiar Presidency of God over them .

THE same appears from the Prince of Persia mentioned in Dan. X. 13 . who Sect. 7 is elsewhere called the Watcher , and the holy One , Dan. IV. 13 , 23. This is the very name of these Tutelar Daemons in the Book of Enoch , from whence we may well conclude the sense of that Age of the Hellenists , and of the Primitive Christians . The same may also be gathered from all those other places where God is called peculiarly the God of Israel , and they peculiarly his People and his Inheritance . I might shew that the Jews have always understood it so , not only the Moderns , who professedly make all other Nations subject to the Angels , and to Fate , but themselves only obnoxious to God , and mean this by their so much boasted Privilege of being the Segullah ; but their ancient Predecessors , who always appropriate to themselves the worship of the Supreme Being , and that peculiar Providence which results from his particular care of them , and own no Nation interested therein but themselves . I might shew that the first Christians understood it so from the beginning , both from their Expositions of the forementioned passage in Deuteronomy , and from the account they give generally from the Book of Enoch , Clem. Romanus . how the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 which were worshiped by the Heathens , tho they were created good by God , and so were good when they were first allotted to their several Charges , yet afterwards they fell by their pollution with Women , and their assuming the Titles and Honors of Gods to themselves , derogating therein from the honor of him who had intrusted them . I have rather chosen to deduce all from the first Fountains from whence both the ancient and modern Jews and Christians first deduced them . This I know will signifie more with that sort of Adversaries with whom I have to deal at present . Yet it being actually understood so by all those for whose use it was designed by the Holy Ghost , and to whose capacities his expressions were most designedly fitted ; it is a great presumption that the Holy Ghost did at first intend that it should be understood so .

NOW tho it was their Temporal Interest Sect. 8 that was first thought to be the Office of those Tutelar Deities , that was prayed for , and expected , from them by their respective Nations who owned and challenged a Right to their Tuition ( for such things only their publick Prayers were generally made , and for such alone their Thanksgivings were generally returned ) and therefore it was suitably Temporal Benefits which were also to be expected from the God of Israel in this capacity : yet even so it was a great condescension and benefit . It was an ennobling of the Nation , that God should undertake that for them in his own Person , which he did for others by his Substitutes . It was an Argument of a Will more favourable , and inclined to do Benefits for them , and an Argument to encourage them to expect Benefits from him with greater assurance , when he was pleased to exempt them from all care but his own . But besides the good will , the Power of such a Patron was also extremely desirable . The Gods of other Nations were only confined to certain Powers of doing Benefits for them ; but they knew they could need no Benefit but what was in the Power of such a God to give them . They were confined to their Countries and Provinces ; but no distance could exile them from the Power of him who made , and preserved , and governed the whole world . They might be overcome by other Daemons , either absolutely more powerful , or , at least , more powerful in some particular Cases . They had power over their own People , but not over those other Nations and Daemons that might hurt them . But this they were sure of who had the Supreme Being for their Patron , that nothing could befal them without his Permission and Design ; that even the Daemons of other Nations should be controlled and countermanded for their good ; that therefore nothing could forfeit them their happiness , even in this World , but their own Demerits ; that therefore when any Calamity befel them , they might assuredly conclude it was intended for their good ; and that nothing could make it prove otherwise but their own Perverseness ; that upon their Repentance they should more easily find acceptance as the greatest minds are most inclinable to pardon ; that when the Attonement was made , and themselves disposed to make a beneficial use of their Restitution , no Power whatsoever should be able to hinder it . These were Privileges , even in regard of this Life , which none could challenge but the Worshipers of the Supreme Deity .

BUT if God had thus permitted the Nations to the Government of Angels , Sect. 9 where had then been the Idolatry of worshiping those Angels ? What Sin had it been to have desired those things from them which God had put in their natural Power , and of which he had made them the allowed Distributers ; or to have returned them the thanks due for favours so received upon such Addresses to them ? What had it been more than to have desired the like favours from our Fellow-Mortals , or to return them thanks for kindnesses which cannot be denyed to be in their natural Power ? But this will not hinder but that 1. It had been Idolatry , and a proper robbing the Supreme Being of the Honor which was actually due to him if the Jews his own People had been guilty of any such Addresses to any Angels or Creatures whatsoever . For being assured that God himself would undertake the care of them in his own Person , they were thereby consequently assured , that no Benefits , how possible soever otherwise to meer Creatures , were actually to be expected from them , and that what Benefits were actually received , did not actually come from them . And to make Addresses to them for Benefits which not they , but the Supreme Being alone , must give them , if they were to be given at all ; and to return thanks to them for favours not actually received from them , but from the Supreme God , this was plainly to rob him of so much of his Honor which was actually due to him , and to give that honor to his Creatures . This is the Case actually complained of by God , that when He , and He alone had actually given them Corn and Wine , Hos. II. 8 . they should notwithstanding return their acknowledgments to their Idols . AND 2. For Sect. 10 the Heathens where they are blamed for their Worship in the Old Testament , it seems rather to have been on other accounts than barely for paying their Acknowledgments to the Prefects placed over them by God . Such were their worshiping them by Terrestrial Images , to which they had no reason to believe them present ; their worshiping them in the general Elements of Nature which were common to all mankind , not proper to the care of particular Nations ; their worshiping them by Rites and Ceremonies unworthy of a Deity , such were the Cruelties of Moloch , and the Uncleannesses of Succoth Benoth , &c. Or lastly , their setting up these Lieutenants of God , in opposition to God himself ; their trusting in the Presidency of their Daemons for Victories to be gained over God's own People , and for Deliverances from Judgments to be inflicted on them by God himself in his Peoples Cause . This the People might be , and frequently were , guilty of , tho the Demons themselves , who were worshiped by them , had given them no cause , on account of that common popular mistake among them , whereby they took the God of Israel only for a Tutelar Genius of the common rank like their own , and one that might be overpowered by others . Otherwise where they payed their due Deference to the Supreme Being , as Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus , there does not appear the least intimation of blame for their honoring their Country Daemons in subordination to him . The Case of the Cuthaeans is different , who were Inhabitants of the Country which belonged to his particular Jurisdiction .

Sect. 11 AND 3. When these Daemons were indeed evil ones , and were known to be so , and to be Rebels to the Supreme Being , then , no doubt , it was unlawful for any of God's Creatures to pay them any respect , or to have any thing to do with them . This was undoubtedly as obliging as all Subjects are obliged to desert and resist a Lieutenant otherwise lawfully empowered by him who had Power to constitute him , in case of actual Rebellion against him by whom he had been constituted . And as far as they had any reason to believe them to be evil from the Impurity of the Worship required by them , so far they were , no doubt , obliged to detest them as Enemies . But this was not clearly and universally discovered till the times of the Gospel . As for the time wherein they were first deputed to this Office of being Tutelars to the Nations , the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Enoch were as yet innocent when they were first intrusted by God . For these were not supposed to have fallen with Lucifer before the fall of Man , but afterwards when they polluted themselves with Women . From thence forward they challenged to themselves Divine Honor , and instituted Symbols of Cruelty and Lust ( which were the principal Vices into which they then degenerated ) and intruded themselves into the Statues and Sacrifices that were designed for purer Beings . This I may the more confidently rely on as a true account of this matter , being it is that to which the Primitive Apologists do constantly refer us in their accounts of the Original of the Worship of evil Spirits , derived by them also from the Doctrines and Traditions of the Hellenists , from whose Notions that Book of Enoch was exactly calculated . The only prejudice against it at present is the pure incorporeal nature of all sorts of Devils . But neither is there any necessity , on a Philosophical Account , that this Doctrine should be true ; and it was certainly no popular received Doctrine in that Age , and therefore can be no competent Standard for judging concerning the Orthodoxy of other Doctrines of those times .

IT may also be objected on the other Sect. 12 side , that God did not so assume to himself the immediate Care of the Jews but that he also made use of the ministry of Angels in managing it . And the New Testament it self gives this account of it , and lays great stress upon it in its Reasonings for the Preeminence of the Gospel above the Law of Moses . It is said to be an Angel that spoke (a) (a) Act. VII . 30 , 35. to Moses in the Bush , & the Law is said to have been (b) (b) Ib. v. 53. given by the disposition of Angels ; from whence it is that the Apostle (c) (c) Heb. 11.2 , 3. infers the Dignity of the Gospel above the Law , because our Savior by whom the Gospel is delivered , has a (d) (d) Heb. 1 , 4. more honorable name given him than those Angels , not now to mention the Angel of Abraham , Gen. XXIV . 7 . nor the Angel of Jacob Gen. XLVIII . 16 . nor the Angel of Gods Presence , Is. LXIII . 9 . There is no doubt but God did then , and still does perform many good offices for his People , by the ministry of Angels . But there is a great difference between committing to their general care , as Prefects of Provinces , which still leaves particular Benefits to their Arbitrary distribution , and between a service of Satellites , where nothing is left arbitrary , but the whole Service is determined by him who employs them without asking their consent . The former does indeed leave some ground for addresses and Thanks for Benefits left to their arbitrary distribution , and of that kind the Power of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , as Julian the Apostate calls them , seems to have been , Apud Cyvil . Al. in the sense also of these Hellenistical Jews and Christians , who allowed such Prefects over the Gentile Nations . They allowed them a Power of doing good to their Subjects , and of punishing their contempts and neglects of Religion , and an earnest concernment for their several respective charges . Else there had been no reason to speak of Fightings between them , as in the Book of Daniel , or of some being worsted and others being victorious , if each of them had been determined in every particular act of his Office by an express command of God . As for the Angels employed in the concernments of the Jews , and those which are still commanded on the like Offices for the Heirs (1) (1) Heb. I. 14 . of Salvation , they are plainly spoken of as 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , as the Angels of (2) (2) Isaiah LXIII . 9 . his Presence , as part of the Train (3) (3) Is. VI. 1 . of God , like the Satellites and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Princes , to whom no Addresses are made or Thanks thought due for Services performed by them in obedience to the particular express commands of their several Princes . This seems plainly the Case of those Angels who deliver these messages , not in their own names , but the Name of God , and are accordingly also styled by his incommunicable Name , which no Creature could or durst take on its own account . I think there are hardly any Angels mentioned as employed on that account , but the Jews themselves , when they are either named in the Scriptures themselves , or when they venture , from their conjectural Traditions , to determine who they were , reckon them among the Seven which they make continual attendants on the Majestatick Presence of their Maker . The difference of these cases is very manifest even in the Practice of Earthly Princes . They also usually govern the Province of their Residence in Person , yet not so but that they employ others even there for the Servile parts of the Government . Yet the Persons so employed are not so impowered as to cut off ordinary Addresses to their Persons , as the Prefects of Provinces are who are at a greater distance .

YET I am not so concerned , whether Sect. 13 this distinction of the Segullah were so originally designed by God , as that he never intended any further Providence for other Nations beyond the Provision of Provincial Angels . Whether it was by Gods Original Intention , on their own demerits ; yet it was actually so , that God did not so particularly take care of the Temporal Government and Prosperity of any other Nation as he did for Israel , God was not so nigh any others as he was to them , he had not dealt so with any other Nation , neither had the heathen knowledge of his Laws ; and that this was the great Priviledg wherein they gloryed on the account of their pretensions to be the Segullah . They had particular pretensions to Gods favor above others on account of the Promises made to their Forefathers , on account of the particular Covenant he made with them , That He would be their God and that they should be his People , on account of the Laws he had given them , of the Tabernacle and Temple he had accepted as designing a more peculiar Ordinary Residence among them , of the Succession of Prophets and Urim , and other ways he had instituted of being consulted by them on occasional emergencies , in regard of the Shuhinah , those ordinary manifestations of his presence among them , the Cloud , and the Pillar of fire in the Wilderness , and the glory that shadowed the mercy Seat during the whole time of the first Temple , in regard of that particular care he took to raise them Deliverers , and to give them victories in the times of their necessities , in punishing and rewarding other Nations as they proved good or inhumane to them , and giving other Nations for their ransome , and doing so great things for them in the sight of the World , that in them all the Nations of the World should be blessed , that is , that all other Nations should wish that all those to whom they wished well , might be treated as they were ( for so I understand that primary meaning of these words ) and in securing these happinesses to them , so by his Promises and his Covenant , that nothing could possibly drive them off them but their own Sins . If God did concern himself for other Nations in his own Person , yet these were peculiar favors which Israel enjoyed , and could challenge by virtue of their Covenant , and which no other Nation could challenge but they . In these regards therefore which are very considerable and beneficial , it cannot be denyed but that the God of Israel was properly the God of Israel as the other Gods of their respective Nations . Besides this , Appropriation is most clearly signifyed in that Title of a Husband so frequently ascribed to God in the Prophets , especially as the same Allegory is continued by them in the Consequences of that Title . On this account his Peoples leaving him is called Whoredom , and his receiving the Gentiles into their Priviledges is called a giving them a Bill of divorce , and a provoking them to jealousy . How could this be if the Appropriation had not been mutual ? How had it been whoredom in them to follow other Gods if they had not been obliged to him alone for their God as a Wife is to her Husband ? How had his receiving the Gentiles , been called a provoking them to Jealousy , if it had not been a shewing the Gentiles that favour which as a Wife , they had thought proper to themselves .

CHAP. VII . The way of Appropriating a God ( according to the Customes of those Times ) was by Sacrifices received in One Place , and from One Altar , and One High Priest . The CONTENTS .

2. The way of appropriating a God to a Nation was by Sacrifice . Sect. I. The Popular Sacrifices were to be considered as Ceremonies of Covenanting and particularly of Covenanting with their Gods as well as with one another . Sect. II. These Sacrifices were confined to particular Nations . Sect. III. Especially their Mysteries . Sect. IV. The most Ancient Sacrifices were generally thus confined . Sect. V. How this was consistent with the Heathens permitting the Worship of the Gods of other Nations besides their own . Sect. VI. The Covenanting Symbols of Unity that were used in their Common Sacrifices . Sect. VII , VIII . The Sacrifices were also Natural Means of promoting this Unity of the Sacrificers with their Gods . Sect. IX . The Consequences following hereupon . Sect. X.

3. The National Panegyres or Assemblies for participating in those National Sacrifices confined to a certain place Sect. XI . Moses very probably alluded herein to the Practices of the Aegyptians . Sect. XII .

4. In the Panegyres so fixed , All the Sacrifices then feasted on were to be received from One Altar . Sect. XIII . The Reason . Sect. XIV .

5. The Affairs of that One Altar always , managed by One chief Priest . Sect. XV.

2. THEREFORE it is to be observed further that the way of Sect. 1 appropriating a God to a Nation was by Sacrifice . I am not now concerned whether Sacrifices were introduced by Primary Institution . It suffices for my purpose that they were taken up by God from the practices already obtaining among the Heathens , as several of the Ancients conceive , who deny any Prim●●y approbation of them . If they were taken up on this account , the Argument will hold more strongly for my purpose . For if they were not taken up for their own sake , then it plainly follows that there could be no other design in admitting them but that they might perform the same Office to the Israelites , as they had to other Nations which had received them before . And therefore if the design of them before was a mutual appropriation of a God to a Nation , and of a Nation to a God ; this , and this alone , can be understood to be the design of them as used also among the Israelites . Yet the Reasoning will also hold on the other Hypothesis . For if they had been taken upon particular approbation , yet considering that the main use of them consists in their signification , the common justice of Converse will require that , being signs of common use , they should be intended in the common notorious signification . There was reason to presume that they would be so understood by them to whom they were used , and there had been indeed no reason to guide them to expound them otherwise . As therefore the justice of dealing requires that Persons conversing do design to be rightly understood by those with whom they deal ; so the same justice , in order to the same designs , requires that what significations of their mind shall be made use of , be understood the same way as it is known that the Persons dealt with will , and will have reason to understand them . These common Rules of Equity in dealing are used and appealed to for a justification of his own dealing by God himself . It remains therefore that I shew that this was the design of Sacrifices among the Heathens , to appropriate a Nation to the Care of a particular Daemon , so that they who were admitted to such Sacrifices might challenge an interest in the Daemons Care , and they who had no Right to be admitted to the Sacrifices should be also supposed to have no Right to that Care and Protection of the Daemon , and they who were excluded from the Sacrifices , should also be judged excluded from that Protection .

This appears from the most ancient Sect. 2 use and design of Sacrifices as Ceremonies of entring into Covenant . This appears even from Homer who constantly makes this the way of ratifying all Leagues and Truces , and such things wherein it was requisite that Faith should be obliged . Selden in Marm. Arund . And as all Covenants were with Oaths , and those Oaths with Imprecations in case of violation , so these Sacrifices were purposely designed to signify the devoting their own Lives like that of the Beast , if they should break their word , and they made choice of Sacred Rites and Religious for this purpose , that the Gods might ingage for the punishment of the offender if he should , through subtilty or might , prove too powerful for Humane Justice . This Custom therefore of making Covenants with Sacrifice , was taken from the Practices of Men into use in Covenanting with the Gods themselves . And tho it be certain that the whole design of Ordinary Sacrifices was not for making new Covenants as often as they Sacrificed , yet they were all for maintaining that Commerce and Conversation with the Deities which were first grouned on the Covenant it self . By the first Covenant they were united to their Gods . Accordingly the Idolatrous Israelites are said to have joyned themselves to Baal Peor , Num. XXV . 3.5 Psal. CVI. 28 . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is the word in the LXXII , because it was indeed in these 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 that the Covenants were properly made , and wherein this Discipline was most strictly observed . And from hence followed a Right to the other Sacrifices , whence it is that the Apostle makes a partaking in the Devils Sacrifices to be a communicating with the Devils themselves , 1 Cor. X. 20 . the same way as communicating with our Eucharistical Mystical Sacrifices is communicating with our Saviour , Verse 21.

This Covenant therefore of the Gods with Nations was confined to the Nations Sect. 3 with which the Covenants were made , so that no other Nation had a Right to partake in the Sacred Privileges of others . When Hercules designed the fetching of Cerberus out of Hell , having heard of how great efficacy the Mysteries were accounted for passing into the other World , he applyes himself to Eumolpus for his initiation into them , Apollodor . Bibl. L.II. Sect. 12. Plutarch . Thes. p. 16. Scholiast . Homer . Il. Θ. V. 368 . Schol. Aristoph . in Plin. but could not gain the favor till he was first adopted by Pylius . The reason is expresly given , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; and these Mysteries were in Attica , so that Hercules must first be made an Athenian before he could be admitted to them , as the Jews also received Gentiles into their Nation by Proselytism . So the Dioscuri were also adopted by Aphydnus on the same design of initiation . Plutarch . Thes. ib. Meurs . Elcusin . c. 19.

And this is the very reason insisted on by Julian the Apostate , for excusing Diogenes from the accusation of Impiety in refusing to be initiated , that he could not be admitted without an Adoption into the City of the Athenians . For he was not born there , but at Sinope . This he takes to have been inconsistent with his larger profession of being a Citizen of the whole world . Julian . Orat VII . ad Heracl . Cynic . de Sect. Cynic . v. 441.442 . Edit. Petavii . So he : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . That Bacchus also and Aesculapius and Hippocrates were initiated , was by a particular favor for so highly valued Persons . That however they intended originally to exclude all that were not of their own Nation , appears from the form alluded to in Theon Smyrnaeus , which I am apt to think he might have had from the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 himself . Theon Smyr . Math. Plat. c. 1. p. 18. These are his words , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Isocr . in Panegyr . Lucian ▪ Demon . Their forbidding Barbarians is mentioned expresly by Isocrates and Lucian , no doubt intended by this very expression of an unknown Tongue . It is the Character of a Barbarian in S. Paul himself , If I know not the meaning of the voice , I shall be unto him that speaketh a Barbarian , and he that speaketh shall be a Barbarian unto me , 1 Cor. XIV . 11 . Isocrates will have this first introduced in opposition to the Persians in resentment of their invasion , but it appears there was no need of any such resentment for it , when it was so agreeable to their Original Constitutions , that even Hercules and the Dioscuri , Bacchus and Aesculapius and Hippocrates , tho Grecians by extraction , could not be admitted without Incorporation . If therefore this were the Original Form , then we see it so severely interpreted as that even the difference of a Dialect was comprehended under the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . The difference was no greater between them and the other Grecians . So it is also understood by Aeschylus , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . VI. 151 . who calls the Argive Army under Adrastus against Thebes , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . This will also give light to that expression of the Prophet where God threatens his People , that he would provoke them with a People of another Tongue , Isaiah XXVIII . 11 . 1 Co. XIV . 21 . that is , by admitting others to their Privileges , that were Barbarians to them , that is , Persons of another Nation , the same thing that he had elsewhere threatened them , Deuteron . XXXII . 21 . Rom. X. 19 . to provoke them to jealousie by a people that were no people , and by a foolish nation . Nay so far were they from admitting persons of another Nation to their Mysteries , as that it was Piacular and Capital for any such to be found so much as in their Temples whilst any such Rite was performing . There is a remarkable story in Livy to this purpose : Liv. Lib. XXXII . c. 14. Two Acarnanian Youths uninitiated came into the Temple of Ceres , ignorantly , but at their going out discovered themselves by some impertinent Questions , being unskilful in the worship there performed . Being discovered , they were carried before the Priests , and were put to death for the Prophanation , tho it appeared that they came in without any ill design . And as none other Nations might be admitted to their Sacrifices , so neither were they thought to have any Right in their Prayers : so Philo expresly : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . He adds indeed , De Monarch . L.II. p. 565. that the Jewish High Priest did represent and make intercession for the whole World . But this could not possibly be understood concerning such things as were proper to themselves as the Segullah , such as were the Promises of the Land of Canaan Literally , and of Heaven as mystically promised also under those mystical Representations . But as these Prayers for other Nations seem to have been first introduced after their dispersion into other Countries ( I do not remember the least intimation of it in any of the Psalms that were ancienter than the Captivity , nor in any of the other ancienter Devotions which occur occasionally in the other Historical Books of the Old Testament ; ) so possibly the design of such Prayers and Sacrifices might have been for those of their own Nation alone who were , by this time , dispersed into most Countries upon Colonies ; and this the rather because they were incorporated into most of the Cities into which such Colonies had been deduced by the favor of the Macedonian Founders , and the Indulgence of the Roman Conquerors , which Incorporation made them accounted as parts of those Nations into which they had been incorporated . Ap. Justin. Mart. in Dialog. Thus Trypho understood the Prophecies concerning the Conversions of the Nations . Or if they were pleased to include native Gentiles themselves , yet they might have been those Proselytes which were dayly brought over by the Jews conversing with them to some degree of Proselytism , if not that of Justice ( which made them no longer reputed Gentiles ) at least that of the Gates , which was consistent with their Gentilism . The History of the New Testament assures us that there were very considerable numbers of such Converts , Act. II. 5 . and that from every Nation under Heaven , and these they did admit to an inferior portion in their Prayers . Witness that part of the Temple purposely allotted for them called the Court of the Gentiles , S. Joh. XII . 20 . and their coming up to worship at the Solemn Panegyres . Or if yet further they admitted any Prayers for Gentiles still persisting in their Gentile Distinctives , and Gentile Religions ; yet even so the reason was not for the Gentiles themselves any further than as the Jewish Interests were so involved with theirs as that the Jewish affairs could not be prosperous , unless those greater Bodies , of which themselves were the less considerable parts , were prosperous also . This is the reason given by the Prophet why they were to pray to God for the Cities whither they should be carried Captive , for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace . And this was the case of those who were Inhabitants of the Colonies , Jeremiah XXIX . 7 . and of all of them when Subjects to Gentile Princes . On this account , and this alone , they sacrificed for the Persian Kings and the Roman Emperors , when they were verily perswaded that it was God's pleasure to give them up to that slavery , tho even so the Zealots made all the opposition they could against it . Yet after all , considering that the God owned by themselves was the common Creator and Governor of all other Nations as well as themselves ; and that thereupon it followed that he must have had an obligation from his own beneficent nature as well to do them good , as he had an unalienable Right to govern them ; and that no substitution of Prefects is ever thought sufficient to hinder the immediate interposition of a Prince , when he is pleased to command a kindness for his Provincial Subjects : It cannot therefore be thought strange that such favors as were not derogatory to the Properties reserved for the Peculiar People should be desired for other Nations also , especially if those general Terms of all mankind , and the whole world , be understood in the usual limitation of those Phrases in that Age , so as to extend no further than the Roman Empire . So far they were obliged to pray for them on the account now mentioned of their own Interest . And so far they were imitated by the Primitive Christians , who prayed for their Heathen Emperors when they were not engaged in actual Persecution , and for a quiet world , that is for the Peace of the Roman Empire , tho otherwise their Prayers were ( as I have elsewhere shewn ) confined to the visible Members of the Orthodox Communion . Separat . proved Schismatic . However it is otherwise certain that the now mentioned passages of Philo must not be understood so as to hinder the confinement of their ordinary Sacrifices to their own Nation .

Sect. 4 THUS it was in their Mysteries , which because of their great Sacredness , and the horror they had of innovating any thing concerning them , kept longest to their Original Discipline . And it was from their Initia that they derived their Right of partaking in their Sacrifices . In the instance last mentioned we see it was Piacular for Persons uninitiated so much as to be present at their Worship . How much less then must it have been lawful for them to partake of the Sacrifices . We see therefore that it was agreeable to the common usages of that kind , when the Jews counted it a prophanation of their Temple , whenever the Gentiles proceeded into the Holy Place . So they did in the Case of Antiochus and Pompey . Joseph . And so they did in the supposed Case of S. Paul , when they thought he had brought Trophimus the Ephesian into it , Act. XX. 28 , 29. pretending thereupon that he had polluted the holy place . As for the place allowed to the Gentiles , the outer Court , it is commonly observed from the employment they put it to , in trading for their Sacrifices , that they did not acccount it holy . And indeed how could they count them holy enough to partake of their holy things , when the strict ones among them counted it a Legal Pollution so much as to touch them , or to converse with them in publick places , and when they would not so much as eat with them ? S. Peter when the Jews came from Jerusalem , Gal. II. 12 . was fain to separate from eating with the Gentiles to preserve the good opinion of his Countrymen . They who took it for a pollution to partake with them in their common meals , how much more must they have thought it so , to have admitted them to any sacred Commerce ? Upon this account it cannot be thought strange that the Jews rejected the Cuthaeans from any hand in building the Temple with them , notwithstanding that they professed to worship the God of Israel . They tell them , that they had nothing to do to build an House to their God . Ezr. IV. 3 . What can be a clearer Argument of this Appropriation than this , that , they were not permitted so much as to assist in building an House to their God , without complete Proselytism ? This was plainly an Appropriation of their God , and their Altar .

FOR tho , for the reason now given , Sect. 5 the Case were clearer in the Heathens that they did Appropriate their Mysteries to Persons of their own Nation ; yet there are not wanting great Presumptions that Originally , before Conquest , and Servile complyances , had broken all their Rules , it was intended that their Sacrifices should be proper also , and their Plays and all their great Festivals . Thus in the Olympicks , none but Greeks were permitted to have any part , and in the Panionia none but the Ionians . And this keeping to their Country Gods was so constantly kept to , even when they went on Colonies , and accordingly the Colonies still reserved an honorable place for those of their Mother Cities in their Sacred Rites , as appears in the Case of Corcyra and Corinth in Thucydides ; Lib. I. and on the contrary the Metropolis also received those of their Colonies to theirs at home as all the Grecian Colonies of Sicily and Magna Graecia in Italy were permitted to strive in the Graecian Olympicks . Thus it was that their Citizens , however dispersed , still kept up a memory of their affinity : and there was no certainer Argument , those many ancient Geographers , who wrote concerning Colonies , had to prove the Relations Cities had to each other ; than this of the Community of their Religions , and the correspondence maintained between them in their Sacrifices , which could have been no Argument , if the Right of their Sacrifices had not been thought proper to the respective Nations . Hence those strict Injunctions of wisemen every where among them , obliging all to worship their Country Gods , and in the way of their Countries . Aur. Car. Pythag. v. 3. This seems to be the meaning of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Golden verses , and was imitated , as other things of the Pythagoraeans were , by Plato . Ap. Xenoph. Mem. IV. So Socrates , being asked whether it was lawful to worship the Gods as they pleased , denies it , but confines them to the Laws of their Country 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . And it was one of the Fundamental Constitutions of the Athenians from the time of Draco one of their most ancient Law-givers : Ap. Porph. de Abst. L.IV. § 22. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Stob. Serm. XLI . Ed. Gesner . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Tigur . 1453. p. 252. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . &c. And one of the Oaths which the Athenian youths were in obliged to take , was 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , as we have the form of the Oath in Stobaeus . Nor was this only the sense of their wisemen and Legislators , but even of their Gods themselves . Apollo is quoted for it by Socrates in Xenophon , Ap. Xenophon . Mem. IV. & ap. Ciceron . de Legib. II. as if he always gave it as an Answer to all that consulted him how they should serve the Gods most acceptably ? that they should do it 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . And Aristotle says that not only He , but all other Oracles , required it , Aristot. Rhetor. ad Alexandr . that they should 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Accordingly it was a punishable crime not only among the Jews , but among the Heathens also , to introduce new Religions . Among the Athenians the Areopagites were the Court in which they were to be tryed who offended in this kind . Ap. Laert. L.II. in Socrat . Xenoph . Mem. 1 Plat. Apol. Socr. 1 Isocr . Eucom . Busirid . Just. Martyr . Paraen . This was the Accusation against Socrates : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that we may not wonder that St. Paul also was accused before that same Judicatory in the same form , that he was 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , because he Preached to them Jesus and the Resurrection , whom they took for another Daemon called Anastasis . At Rome also the Bacchanalia , Liv. 39. c. 8 , &c. Vide Guther . de Jur. Pont. 1.34 . Ap. Cicer. de Leg. II. being introduced secretly by some Greeks were suppressed by order from the Senate . And in this regard it is very true that the receiving or excluding new Religions was indeed the Priviledge of the Senate , and the Government , and forbidden private Persons by the Laws of the XII . Tables . Thus was the worship of Isis excluded out of Rome by Tiberius . Thus was the worship of Christ excluded out of Rome by order of the Senate , Josep . Ant. XVIII . 4 . when Tiberius referred it to them , whether it should be received , if the Story in Tertullian to this purpose be true . Tertul. Apolog. And thus were the Emperors Canonized , after that Custom also grew fashionable . Seeing therefore they were all obliged to worship the Daemons of their Country ; seeing there were Laws made against Innovations in Religion ; both these put together will plainly amount to the Appropriations of Deities designed to be proved by us .

Sect. 6 FOR tho , with the leave of the Government , they might introduce new Religions , yet is not this any Argument against the confinement I am speaking of . Those Gods were thought to be such , as that many of them might have the care of the same Nation in different , or subordinate regards . And as they supposed each of them to have his Province allotted him by the assignation of the Supreme Being , so they also thought that their Provinces might be changed or enlarged by consent of the Daemons themselves , or by assignation of the Supreme who was their common Superior . But this reason did not reach the God of the Jews , who being the Supreme , and being alone sufficient for all the necessities of his People needed no other Coadjutor within his own charge ; and it was not agreeable with the Rules of Majesty to have a Provincial in the Jurisdiction of his own Residence ; and being the Supreme himself he could not have a co-partner joyned with him without his own consent , which , upon all occasions , he expressly refused . But as they had other conceptions concerning their own Deities , so their Practices in receiving them were suitable to those conceptions . Whenever they received any , it was not of their own arbitrary pleasure , but from some pretended Signification of the minds of the Gods themselves that it should be so . So was the Mother of the Gods and Aesculapius received upon Oracles which were supposed to Signify the mind of the Supreme Being himself , not of any one particular Daemon . For none else was thought to be the general disposer of events concerning so many and so different Nations but he . Others were recived on particular Revelations attested by such witnesses as were supposed credible , as Romulus under the name of Quirinus , upon the Oath of Iulius Proculus which also afterwards were taken in course for the Canonization of the Emperours . Others by the Apparition of Stars , which were above the disposal of the Provincial Daemons , and could onely therefore be thought to signify the mind of him that was Supreme . So the Julium Sidus was the ground of the Canonization of Julius Caesar. Others were with charms drawn out of the Cities whose Tutelars they were , and invited to Rome with promises of Temples , which as it was supposed to be with the consent of the Daemons so inchanted , who of their own free wills were supposed to accept of the profers made to them together with the nobler office of being Tutelar to the Conquerours ; so neither could it be to the disinterest of their own Tutelars whose Power was by that means enlarged . Macrob. Saturnal . III. 9 . This seems to have been the occasion of most of those temples of strange Gods in Rome . For it seems to have been an ancient & common Custome among them , if we may believe Sammonicus Serenus an Authour of Antoninus Caracalla's time , Ap. Macro . ib. who yet has it from one Furius whom he thought then very ancient . Several Towns of Italy are there mentioned as so taken , besides Carthage and Corinth , out of it . And as perhaps no place was more guilty than Rome in this particular of the worship of strange Gods , so they are particularly upbraided by St. Augustine , that very many of the Gods they worshiped were Captive ones , De Ciu. Dei . which again makes it very probable that this was the Original of their worshipping of them . And this was counted a more civil way of treating those captive Gods themselves , than if they had pretended bluntly , as the Heathens about Palaestine , that the Deities of the Conquerors were more potent than those of the Nations conquered by them .

AND as all Covenants were in those Sect. 7 times made with Sacrifice , so all Sacrifices , besides those of the Mysteries , included also something of a Covenant . This appears from the use of those things in ordinary Sacrifices which were then thought of the strictest signification of union . Salt was the Embleme of the strictest Union among them , and there was nothing counted more piacular than to prove false after having participated in their 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and an unalterable unviolable Covenant is in the Scripture stiled a Covenant of Salt . Numb . XVIII . 19 . 2 Chron. XIII . 5 . And accordingly salt was , in their ordinary entertainments , consecrated to their Hospital Gods , that it might be taken for an affront to them if any breach should fall out afterwards . Now this was used in all Sacrifices ; every Sacrifice was Sacrificed with the Salt . Vide Plin. N. H. XXXI . 7 . S. Mark IX 49. Lev. II. 13 . So the Scriptures concerning the general customs of the Sacrifices of those Countries where the Sacred writers lived . And the same Custome was also observed by the Greeks and Romans as appears by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the one and the salsae fruges or mola falsa of the other .

Sect. 8 OF the same signification it was to partake in Bread and Meat . The Sacredest bond among Mankind was that of Marriage , and the Sacredest Marriage that of Confarreation . Now this was the mola so constantly used in all Sacrifices as that the name of Immolation was used for Sacrificing it self . And of this kind was the Greek 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and the Ebrew Meat Offering . So was it also to drink to one another and to partake of the same Cup. And the Libatiion always went together with the Sacrifice . So also it was to feast together , as we see in the Covenant of Jacob and Laban Gen. XXXI . 54 . in which regard their partaking of the same Sacrifices was a confederating them to one another . But it was also a confederating them to the Deity . For this was also a custome among the ancients for superiors at entertainments to signify their savour to their Inferiors by cutting them out Portions of the meat that was before them . Thus it is that Agamemnon in Homer puts the Heroes in mind of the particular respect he had shewed them by the Proportions he had carved for them at their solemn entertainments . And thus Joseph shews his kindness to his Brethren by the messes he sent to them , and his particular regard to Benjamin his own mothers Son by sending him a mess five times greater than to any of the others . Genesis XLIII . 34 . As therefore these panegyres of the Gods were answerable to these publick Entertainments of Princes ( for all the Nations as well as the Jews , seem originally to have pretended to a Theocracy ) so the admitting their worshippers to a participation in their Sacrifices , was according to the customes of that Age , a sign that they admitted them into the number of their peculiar Favourites . Accordingly it is given as a reason why Praetus and Iobates could not themselves kill Bellerophon , Isaac Tzetz . in Lycophron . p. 5. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 .

THUS their Sacrifices were plain significations Sect. 9 of a League both with their Gods and with one another . But according to the account of Porphyry ( which was generally followed by the Primitive Christians ) it was more than so . Porph. de Abstin . L.II. Sect. 42. It was also a natural means of procuring that Mystical Union which was designed between the Gods and their Sacrifices . For he supposes that the Gods which delighted in bloudy Sacrifices were corporeal Daemons , and did themselves also partake of the bloud and nidor of them , as the Manes were drawn by bloud in all the Necromantick 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 mentioned by Homer and the other ancient Poets . That accordingly those Daemons themselves chose those Sacrifices which Were most delightful to them , and suitable to the natures of their own particular vehicles . That when such were offered to them they mixed themselves with the whole Bodies of such Sacrificers , so that they who partook of the Sacrifices must also consequently partake of the Deities themselves , who being incorporated with their meat , did by that means insinuate themselves into the Bodies of their worshippers , who were also the better disposed to receive them by being themselves dieted by a meat so agreeable to the vehicles of the Daemons themselves . That possibly was the design of the Daemons in prescribing such singular ways of Diet to Persons desirous to be initiated to them , because otherwise it had not been in their Power to unite their vehicles to them without such predispositions . God undoubtedly would not suffer them to take possession of his creatures at their pleasure , and upon the Hypothesis of their vehicles being corporeal , it is not likely themselves would desire it without something of pleasure and congruity to their own natures , which was to be procured by such a Preparation of singular Diet before . And considering that according to the grossness of their Vehicles their stations were also allotted them by the Principles of the same Philosophy ; these Tutelary Earthly Daemons must have Bodies by so much grosser than the Aerial as their place was lower . This is the communicating with Devils mentioned by St. Paul , and was plainly supposed by the Christians in all their reasonings against them . 1 Cor. X. 20 . It is very plain that they take it for granted that the Devil had taken possession of all them who had communicated in their Sacrifices . The very Infant in St. Cyprian who had some of the Wine of Libation poured into her mouth , was looked on as polluted with it . So much is implyed in his words concerning her : De L●p In corpore atque ore violato Eucharistia permanere non potuit . Sanctificatus in Domini sanguine potus de pollutis visceribus crupit . Much more they who communicated in them with a design of devoting themselves to those Devils to whom the Sacrifices were offered .

NOW on this Hypothesis the Reasoning Sect. 10 was clear both ways , both that they who did partake in the Sacrifices were supposed to be united to the Daemons & each other , & that they who were excluded from those Sacrifices were also excluded from that Union . The former Reasoning held , because all who communicated in the Sacrifices were supposed to partake of the Devil to whom the Sacrifices were offered , and to be made one Spirit with him , and being so must also be supposed United to each other as communicating in the same Spirit . And on the contrary these Sacrifices being both Moral means of Covenanting for that Union , and Natural means of procuring it , they who were excluded from them , as they must be supposed not already United , so they must also be supposed excluded from the Ordinary means of procuring such a Union . And further considering this whole Transaction as a Legal Act : as the admitting to Sacrifices did not only signify , but in a Legal way effect the Union , as it obliged the God to ratify what was done in his name by Persons sufficiently Authorized by him ; so the Exclusion of Persons from them , as transacted also in a Legal way , did not only signify , but obliqe the God , in whose name they Acted , to exclude Persons so Judicially excommunicated from partaking in the Invisible Sacrifices . And therefore as the Union of the Heathens with their Daemons was interrupted by their not communicating in the same Sacrifices ; so it was reasonable to argue against the Samaritans that their Union with the God of Israel was interrupted by their not communicating in the Sacrifices of the God of Israel with his People Israel , because he also had taken up or allowed the use of Sacrifices among his own People , for no other end but that they might perform the same office with them as they had done formerly among the Heathens . Porphyr . ubi supra . I know very well the Philosophers stated the way of Unity with the Supreme Being on other Principles than these . But then it was on this Supposition , that Sacrifices were not the way to it , but only such as were Mystical , those of a pure mind . Which plainly supposes that the Provincial Daemons , which were generally worshipped with Literal and Bloudy Sacrifices were none of that Supreme Being . So that still the Union with them might be , and was thought to be , performed by Sacrifices , which is all for which I am concerned at present . For from thence it will follow that where that same Supreme Being was pleased actually to order that such Bloudy Sacrifices should be used , and be used with a design on the common received Popular Signification of them , there his meaning was , that they should also be Signs and means of procuring this Union as they had been formerly .

Sect. 11 3. THEREFORE , As these Unions of Nations were managed and procured by Sacrifices , so the National Panegyres for the participating in such Sacrifices were held in one fixed and known place . I deny not but that there were other Altars and other Daemons for the several subdivisions of such Nations . I only speak of such Daemons as were worshiped in common by the whole Nations , and in whose worship the whole Nations were agreed and united , that those were worshiped with National Solemnities , on known returning Festivals , in known places appointed for the purpose ; and that where this was done there the Nations were preserved unanimous , where it was not , they were divided with Factions and Animosities . Thus were the Panionia for the Ionians in Asia , the Panathenaea for all the several 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 of all Attica , the Olympicks which were Panellenia , for all that were of Greek extraction , whether in Greece or in the Greek Colonies , and the Feriae Latinae among the Romans for the whole Latinum nomen , as the Ludi Magni or Romani were for the Romans . And as the private Rites of Families required the attendance of all that were of the Family , so that David gives this as a reason to excuse him from his attendance on Saul on the New Moon , and among the Romans this was allowed as an excuse in Cases wherein very few excuses were allowed , as for Consuls to delay them for a while from the Service of the Common-wealth and for Soldiers to dispense with their absence from their vexilla ; Guther . de Jur. Pont. IV. 6 . so we have reason to believe that they were obliged , who could conveniently attend , to be at these publick Sacrifices of their Nation . For as among the Jews , so among them also , these Private Rites were kept in a strict subordination to the Publick , that so the Unions and endearments of their Families might not be confederacies , but might , upon all occasions , yield to the more Sacred Union of their Nation . Therefore it was that these Private Rites were not of any value , unless they were allowed and approved of by the Pontifex Maximus , and even then were called Sacra rather than Sacrificia . So that even among them , as well as among the Jews , the name of Sacrifices was still appropriated to the publick Altars , as among the Jews the High places were obliged to a strict dependance on the Publick Altars . And where these Publick Panegyres were not observed , there it was easy to observe the ill effects it had on their National Correspondences , The National animosities and rancors of the different 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Aegypt are famous , and as notorious it is that they were to be ascribed wholly to the difference of their Religions , not only that every Nomos had a Deity to it self , and those such in one Nomos as were detested , and Sacrificed in another ; but because they had not for a long time any Deities that were common , nor any Anniversary Solemnities or Sacrifices , or Altar common to them all . And I am very apt to think this might particularly be the reason why Moses prescribed those Festival Solemnities at one certain place , and why he was so careful that no Private Altars , whether of the Families , or of the Tribes , should stand in competition with the one Altar at the constituted place of their Assemblies , because he had seen the ill consequences of the contrary Practices in Aegypt , and was withal desirous to make Religion ( which is indeed of it self the firmest bond of Union ) the most effectual remedy to prevent any dissentions among them ; in pursuance to which design it was very Prudent , and extremely well fitted to their Circumstances , to take away all private Solemnities of worship which made the differences among the Nomi and to ascertain times and a place for Publick Assemblies of the whole Nation which had been wanting among the Aegyptians , for making Religion a more effectual bond of Union to their whole Nation .

Sect. 12 NOR can this conjecture seem incredible to any one who will seriously reflect on the Circumstances of Moses at the time of his Legislation . That the Positive Injunctions were particularly fitted to the Cases of his contemporary Idolaters is generally confessed . Maimonides himself insists on it as a thing that would give great light to many of those Injunctions , Mor. Neb. if the particular customes of those Idolaters were better known , and gives some not unlikely instances from some Arabian Books concerning the customs of the Tabii , whom he supposes to have preserved the Succession of those customes . And undoubtedly it was very agreeable to Moses's design to keep his People at a distance from Idolatry to which they were then so extremly prone , and which was likely to prove withal so mischievous to them by the calamities it was likely to bring upon them . But it was yet much more for his purpose to use such customs as were only designed for Union than those which were only in opposition to their otherwise indifferent usages . And there must needs follow a great difference in the nature of those two sorts of Constitutions . Those Constitutions which were only designed for opposition , had no more lasting need than the avoiding of those Customes . When they should either remove their own dwellings to the neighbourhood of Nations who had never used those customes , or that their Neighbouring Nations themselves had changed their customes in such Particulars , there could then be no further need of such Customes as were only designed for Opposition when they ceased to be opposite . But for such Laws as were designed for Uniting them , tho the occasion of them were a particular Case of that Age , yet the reason of such Constitutions holds for ever , as long as it is requisite that their Religion should Unite them , and therefore still holds proportionably under the Gospel , as it did during the whole state of the Jewish Dispensation . And if any Nations were regarded by Moses in the making of his Laws , there were none more likely to be so than the Aegyptians . Their customes , both good and bad , were freshest in his Peoples memory . And there are some Laws which cannot be any way else so probably accounted for as by an Egyptian Original . To them and to their Country they had the greatest inclination . In their murmurings , they mention the Onyons and Garlick and the flesh-pots of Aegypt , Num. XI . 5 . Num. XIV . 4 . and motion the makeing of a Captain to return into Aegypt , when they were not yet acquainted with the customes of the Canaanites or any of their bordering Nations ; much less had entertained such favor to them , as to be in danger of them . And it is probable that the Aegyptians had even then taken up the same Idolatries which they are known to have had afterwards . That pretence of the Israelites , Exod. VIII 26. that if they should Sacrifice in Aegypt , they should Sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their faces , implys plainly that the things Sacrificed by the Israelites , their Sheep and Oxen were even at that time , worshiped by the Aegyptians , so that in killing them they must incur an 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 or Piaculum in the sense of those Superstitious Zealots , which must needs exasperate them against them . The same thing also seems implyed in that a keeper of Cattle was counted so unholy a profession , Ge. XLVI . 34 . and that the Israelites themselves in the first Idolatry they were guilty of , after their coming out of Egypt , chose rather the resemblance of a calf , than any other for their Deity . So that at that time there seems to have been a full occasion for this constitution of Moses .

4. Therefore , As these solemn Panegyres Sect. 13 were to be at one certain place ▪ so were the Sacrifices to be offered on that occasion to be received from one Altar . Tho the Multitudes Assembling on such occasions were more than could partake of one Sacrifice ; and tho the number of Sacrifices , requisite for Feasting so great Multitudes were more than could ordinarily be offered on one Altar , yet no more than one Altar was designed for them , that at least their bloud might be sprinkled there when it was impossible that they could all be offered there , and that so they might be said to partake of one Altar when yet the Sacrifices , on which they feasted , could not all of them be offered at one Altar . This is expresly taken notice of to have been the case of Solomon in the Dedication of his temple : The same day did the King hallow the middle of the Court that was before the house of the Lord : 1 Kings . VIII . 64 . for there he offered burnt offerings , and meat offerings , and the fat of the Peace offerings : because the brazen Altar that was before the Lord , was too little to receive the burnt offerings , and meat offerings , and the fat of the Peace offerings . The number then offered of Twenty two thousand Oxen and one hundred and twenty thousand Sheep was indeed no greater than what might often be expected at the Anniversaries of the Nation , V. 63 . and the Provision therefore was not extraordinary , but such as it was intended should be constantly made use of on such occasions as often as they returned . So that consecration made a Perpetual Right that Sacrifices might for ever be burnt in that place , whenever they should again prove so numerous as that the Altar could not receive them . Yet did he not think fit to erect any more Altars but that brazen one . Why not but because he found it not agreeable to the customes and significations of those times to receive their Sacrifices on such solemn occasions from any more than one Altar , tho they were more than could be received by one Altar ? And I believe there cannot be given an Example where-ever one Temple had more than one Altar dedicated to the same Deity , how numerous soever the Sacrificers or Sacrifices were that might , on such publick Occasions , be expected to partake of it . Which also makes it very probable that their partaking at one Altar was indeed designed as an Emblem , and an Obligation of them all to Unity . And this might possibly be the reason why , when it was lawful to worship the same Deity in distant places , they notwithstanding copyed out the principal Altar . Perhaps it was mystically to signifie that it was still the same Altar that they still intended to partake of , that when the distance of the place hindered their real participation with it , they yet intended to communicate with it in effigie , that is , as really as it was possible for them to communicate with it at a distance . For as the external Participation at a visible Altar was not taken , in this Mystical way of Communion , for a multiplying an Altar distinct from the distinct Archetypal Altar by which their invisible Communion was to be maintained with their Deity , but rather as a means of partaking of the invisible Altar from whence the visible Altar was supposed to be Copyed ; so neither , for the same reason , could a distant Communion with an Altar copyed from that which was Archetypal of all visible ones , be taken for a distinct Communion with a distinct Altar , but rather as a means of communicating with that original visible Altar from which that is also supposed to have been Copyed .

AND perhaps the reason of this Sect. 14 might have been that very ancient Custom mentioned before ( as these Sacred Rites are the clearest Footsteps of ancient Customs ) of entertainments , that persons of great Quality treated their Guests , tho sitting at other Tables with Portions sent to them from their own . So it is plain in the case of Joseph's Brethren , that they were not at the same Table with Joseph . It is expresly said , that his Servants did set on Bread for him by himself , and for his Brethren by themselves , and for the Egyptians which did eat with him by themselves : Genesis XLIII . 32 . Yet the Messes that were sent them , were sent them by his particular Order , and from his own Table . For it should seem that it was not the custom at first to set down any thing but Bread on the other Tables of the Guests , and that the meat was left to the disposal of him who treated them , according to the respect he was pleased to shew them . Accordingly these Panegyres of the Gods were publick Entertainments of their Worshipers , and the Altars were answerable to the Tables whereon the Gods themselves were served in their own Persons . And as it was a piece of state , that how many Tables soever any great person had for his Guests , yet he never had any more than one for himself , so it was consequently proper that the Worshipers should all be treated with Portions from the same Altar . Besides , it seems to be the praegustation ( if I may so call it ) of the Gods , by which indeed the meat was thought to be consecrated , so that till the Gods had their Portions first , it was not fit to be feasted on by the rest as a Sacrifice . This was therefore the sin of Ely's Sons , that they would have their Portions before the fat was burnt to God . 1 Sam. II. 15 , 16. And perhaps this civility of Praegustation , and the honor done them by receiving what himself had first tasted , and immediately from his own hand , might have been the reason why , in those secular Entertainments , the Guests were to receive their meat from their Patron 's Table . But considering the Sacrifices as the Solemnities of a Covenant , and that between the Gods themselves and their Worshipers ; so it was proper that both Parties that covenanted should partake in the same Entertainment . Otherwise their Feasting together could not have been a Symbol of their Unity . But where multitude of Sacrifices were offered ( as there were always great multitudes offered on the occasions I am speaking of ) there was no possibility that all should partake of one and the same Sacrifice . But it was reputed as one when all of them came from the same Table , and for that reason , and that alone , all were judged to communicate with their God when they communicated from the same Altar with him .

Sect. 15 5. THEREFORE , As these publick Sacrifices were received from the same Altar , so the Affairs of that one Altar were always managed by one Chief Priest . Tho matters of Council have indeed been administred in many places by Polyarchical Governments , yet generally , even there where they were so , matters of Action have been thought best manageable by single Presidents . But however they were managed in secular Causes , yet the reason has been always thought so peculiar in Sacred Ones , as that I believe there can hardly be given an instance where the administration of these publick Panegyres was not committed to a single Priest , who presided over the rest . If the Jews had their High Priests besides their ordinary Priests and Levites , so also the Heathens had those who were answerable to them . The Romans had their Pontifex Maximus , besides their ordinary Pontifices , and Aeditui : Ap. Scal. Fragm. Gr. Euseb. Chr. p. 6. Astro. the Greeks their 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Manetho himself writes himself an 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . And these three Orders in their Sacred Rites were so extremely usual , that the name of Tertia Sacra in Manilius is used for the Office of an Aedituus or 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Accordingly Synesius describes the three Offices which they were to exercise in passing through those three degrees : Dion . p. 52. B. c. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . And I am apt to think that the Sacrifices could hardly have been otherwise performed rightly . For this presiding Priest seems to have personated the God in whose Worship he was employed . He was 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , as the Apostle expresses it . Heb. V. 1 . And therefore as the God was one , so must also his Representative . Alluding to the similitude of Entertainments , he was the Symposiarcha who was to administer all the management of them . And being thus a Representative of the Deity , they could not have received their Portions from the Deity , but by receiving them from the hands of the Priest , and therefore whoever received not from the Priest could not be said to communicate at the Altar where he officiated . On which account it plainly appears that this Unity of the Priesthood was as well necessary for this mystical Unity of the Communicants , as the Unity of his Altar .

CHAP. VIII . The Jewish Sacrifices , as Mysteries , caused a Mystical Union and Communion with God , dependent on their External Communion with their High Priest . The CONTENTS .

The Jews , before our Saviour's coming , had taken up this way of mysticizing their Law . Sect. I. The Jewish Sacrifices were most properly Mysteries . Sect. II. How these Mystical Sacrifices promoted a Union with the Deity by a Union with the Priesthood . 1. The admitting Persons to the Mysteries was the peculiar Office of the High Priesthood . Sect. III. 2. In this Office the High Priests represented a more Sacred Person than their own . Sect. IV. The Daemon peculiarly concerned in this affair of restoring Souls was the Demiurgus . Sect. V. It was thought impious for any Creature to intermeddle in it as a Creature . Sect. VI. The Jews understood their own Worship to perform the Office of Mysteries . Sect. VII . , The 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 was the Demiurgus peculiarly concerned in Revealing the Heavenly Mysteries . Sect. VIII . The Jewish High Priest represented the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 herein . Sect. IX.X. None but the High Priest did so . Sect. XI . 3. The High Priest represented the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 particularly in relation to the Benefits of the Mystical 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 .

1. Union and Communion with the Father was to be procured by Union and Communion with the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Sect. XII . A mystical 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 owned in the Hellenistical Philosophy of those Times . Sect. XIII . How appropriated to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 by the Principles of the same Philosophy . Sect. XIV . The same 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Principle of Union both to the Sensible World . Sect. XV. And to the Intellectual . Sect. XVI .

2. Union and Communion with the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 was supposed to depend on external Communion with the High Priest as one who particularly represented the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in this Office of mystically signifying and causing this External Unity . Sect. XVII .

THUS it was in the ordinary Popular Sacrifices . But in the Sect. 1 Mysteries the thing went higher , which it will be necessary to explain , in order to the clearing the Argument , as it was used by the Jews against the Samaritans , and by the Christians against their contemporary SCHISMATICKS . In order whereunto , it is to be remembred 1. What I have elsewhere proved more particularly , that the Jews had , long long before the beginnings of Christianity , Sep. prov'd Schismatic . taken up this custom of expounding their Law mystically . Even this same Ptolemy Philometor , who sate as Judge of the forementioned Dispute between the Jews and the Samaritans , had a Book of Allegorical Expositions of the Law dedicated to him by Aristobulus the Peripatetick . And it seems to have been very ancient among them that they grounded their Allegorical Expositions on that received sense of the Command to Moses , Exod. XXV . 40 . Heb. VIII . 5 . of making all things according to the fashion shewed him in the Mount , which is also applyed this way by the Apostle himself in his Epistle to the Ebrews . And indeed most of the Reasonings of that Epistle proceed on this Hypothesis , that all those external Institutions of the Law were only Shadows and Resemblances copyed out from the invisible Patterns and Prototypes ; That the real Benefit was received from the Prototypes , and that these Shadows were of no further use than as mystical means of communicating with the Prototypes ; That the Gospel exhibited the Prototypes themselves in a way more immediate and certain and becoming the Divine Designs , and that accordingly the state of the Gospel was only the state of the Mystical , that is , indeed , of the more Beneficial Israelitism , and the fulfilling of those mystical Senses of those Legal Writings which were the Senses principally designed by the Holy Ghost .

Sect. 2 AND indeed the Mysteries were most proper to be made use of and applyed on this occasion . The Mysteries were most allowed of by those who approved not of other bloody Sacrifices . Porphyry himself , and those of the Pythagorean way , did not only approve of those , but even on a Philosophical Account were ambitious of initiation into all the famous received Mysteries . And particularly Mysteries were thought to be peculiarly useful for the procuring Spiritual Benefits , and such as peculiarly related to the other world . The popular Sacrifices seemed to aim no higher than the transacting for wordly Benefits ; and the covenanting with their Gods for their worldly Protection , and the flourishing of their Commonwealths ; but the Mysteries were principally designed for a Purgation of the Soul , and bringing them to a more familiar and nearer conversation with their Deities , and bettering their passage into the other Life , which Considerations will make them more proper for the Jewish Institution , which in this very same Case exceeded the Popular Sacrifices of the Heathens , that they were particularly designed for the Benefits of the Souls of the Communicants , and with regard to the future state . And indeed the Benefits of the mystical 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , which are the main things which are fundamentally supposed in the Reasonings concerning which I am at present discoursing , were more properly to be expected from their Mysteries than their popular Sacrifices . And that which yet brings this consideration nearer to our present design is that , the Popular Sacrifices were only proper for that inferior sort of Tutelary Daemons who , as I said , had Vehicles gross enough to be sensibly affected by them ; but mystical Sacrifices alone were thought agreeable to the dignity of the Worship of the Supreme Deity . De Abstin . This is the plain sense of Porphyry in that excellent and elaborate Work of his so often mentioned . Seeing therefore that the Jews pretended to worship the Supreme Numen by their Sacrifices , it was requisite , pursuant to these Principles , that their Sacrifices should not only be Sacrifices , but Mysteries also . For plainly they intended to receive all that benefit from their Sacrifices alone , which the Heathens expected from both their Sacrifices and their Mysteries . And thus certainly the Hellenistical Jews did actually understand the design of the Sacrifices . They designed their visible Altar as a means of communicating with that which was Mystical and Invisible . They also allowed of a Mystical Invisible Priesthood of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 with whom they were to communicate by maintaining a Communion with their visible Priesthood .

Sect. 3 IN order therefore to the clearing how this Union with the Priesthood was a means of maintaining their Union with the Deity , I shall consider the Jewish Sacrifices as Mysteries , and so shew what Reasoning would have been counted solid in those Ages , proceeding on the Popular received Notions concerning Mysteries . 1. Therefore the admitting persons to initiation in the Mysteries was the peculiar Privilege of the Supreme Priest , and not communicated to the ordinary inferior Priests without his leave . Thus it was with the Athenians in their Eleusinian Mysteries . They were at the disposal of the Hierophantae , who had therefore the Title of Mystagogues from leading those that were initiated , who were called Mystae , Meurs . Eleusin . c. 13. into the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and shewing them the Image of the Deity . So it was also in the Egyptian Mysteries of Isis. Tho the other Priests might by the appointment of the Goddess be imployed in the Service , yet it was to the Primarius Sacerdos that Apuleius made his Address that he might be admitted , Apuleius Metam . XI . and that the admission might be hastened .

2. ACCORDING to this Rule Sect. 4 of the proceedings of Mysteries the Chief Priests represented , in this particular Ministry , a greater and more sacred Person than their own . In the Olympick Games dedicated to Jupiter Olympicus , the Alytarcha , or Chief Priest , who presided over them , represented the person of Jupiter himself , to whom those Games were devoted . That was the fancy of Dioclesiaen , who when he had so represented the person of Jupiter would no longer bear that of the Emperor . These are the words of Johannes Antiochenus concerning him as they are quoted from the M. S. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , L.XII. in Not. ad Marmor . Oxon. p. 112 , 113. &c. In the Eleusinian Mysteries the High Priest had the Name and Person of the Demiurgus , Meurs . ib. Eleusin . c. 14. the Daduchus of the Sun , the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , or he that officiated at the Altar , in sacrificing , of the Moon , or the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ( or he that spoke to the People what was ordered to be spoken on those occasions , plainly answering the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 employed on the like Services of assembling or dismissing the People by the Kings in Homer ) that of Mercury who performed the same Office to Jupiter that he was to do , on these Solemnities , to the Demiurgus . By the answerableness of these other Offices , and Changes of Names in them , it plainly appears , that by the name of Demiurgus they did not allude to the notion of it for a secular Magistracy ; but to that wherein it was used by the Philosophers , and from thence derived from them by the Gnosticks , for the Maker of the World . It was to this Demiurgus that the Sun and Moon , the two Craters of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , according to Plato's Timaeus , were supposed to have that relation in framing the Souls of the inferior World . And accordingly as this Deity was 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , so was the Priest who officiated herein unlawful to be named by his Mysta initiated by him to whom he had performed the Office of the Demiurgus . So Eunapius concerning him by whom himself had been initiated : Eunap . in Maxim . Sophist . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . This does sufficiently imply , that tho the pretence of the institution of these Mysteries were only the Worship of Ceres and Proserpine , and the Commemoration of the Rape of Proserpine by Pluto ; yet the design was higher , even the restoring lapsed Souls to their primitive happy condition . This was indeed the benefit they expected by them in 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , the invisible state , comprehending both estates of Happiness and Misery . This was the clearing them out of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in which uninitiated Souls were supposed to stick . And possibly the whole Fable of the Rape of Proserpine by Pluto , might indeed signifie nothing else but this degenerate state of lapsed Souls , their fall from Heaven , and their being imprisoned by Bodies , and by that means confined and captivated in these lower Regions under the Moon , which Bodies and which Places were supposed obnoxious to the Jurisdiction of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 whom they called Pluto . So that the Purgation here expected might be the clearing the Soul of this Clog , and pollution of the Body , and the restoring it to its native Purity , which would in consequence cause the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 which would enable it to mount beyond the Regions of its Exile , beyond the Moon where the Jurisdiction of this Corporeal Daemon was supposed to determine .

This 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , as 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 signifies Sect. 5 properly a return from Banishment , was that which was pretended as the great design of Philosophy , and of the Mysteries , which ( as they were explained by those who defended them against the Atheists and Epicureans ) were indeed intended for nothing else but a mystical sort of Philosophy . And for this purpose it was very proper for them to expect this benefit from those Daemons who were to have an influence in performing this deliverance , and who had therefore the best reason both to know and to covenant for the means of this deliverance , as having it alone in their power to perform such Covenants when made . For so these Mysteries were always understood , not as bare Representations only , but also as obligations to perform what was signified by such Representations , only the best way of knowing what was promised was to consider what was represented , and by whom the Representation was instituted , whether it were by such a Being to whom the performance did properly belong . When they understood what this was , they had then as much reason to expect performance , on condition of performance of Conditions on their own parts , as they had to believe their Gods veracious . Now the significations here represented , were very proper for representing this deliverance of the Soul from these lower Regions . The binding Souls into bodies was properly the work of the Demiurgus , & therefore the loosing them was also most properly to be expected from him ; the Sun and the Moon were the two Craters ; the one of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , the other of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , by which the Mind was bound in the Body , the which being also the Moon , to which the Jurisdiction of this Terrestrial Daemon was supposed to extend , was therefore conceived to put it into his power , to fasten or loosen these bonds . As for the Representation of Mercury it is well known that one of the Employments of that God was to conduct the Souls to Hades , and that his Caduceus had a particular influence over the Spirits of that place , and his Petasus or Orcus peculiarly fitted his employment in those invisible Regions , and that he had an acknowledged Power of bettering the passage of the Souls committed to his Charge . So was also the unclean Representation of Banbo an Emblem of the Genesis . So that by the whole contrivance of these Representations the design seems to be the signifying , and therefore the effecting this delivery of the Soul from this inferior World . These were the Powers proper for that purpose in the general sense of the Philosophy of that Age that were orthodox in the point of the Deity . They were very agreeable to the Hypotheses of the Pythagoreans , the Chaldee Oracles , the Writings under 〈◊〉 name of Mercury , the Cyrenaic Philosophy in the Hymns of Synesius , and the Writings of Porphyry and Macrobius . And it is very easie to observe what multitudes of the Notions of the Gnosticks were hence derived , if it were requisite in order to the shewing how universally these Notions were received in those later times of Judaism , and Primitive Times of Christianity .

AND as it was thus proper for the Sect. 6 Demiurgus to preside in this design of restoring Souls to their native Purity and Freedom ; so it was indeed thought improper for any Creature to mediate in it as a Creature , which seems to be the true reason why the Hierophanta in this Employment was to personate the Demiurgus . For the reduction of Souls was to be by an 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , a Light that was to let them into the Secrets of their God , and to awaken them from the dullness and forgetfulness of their mortal bodies , and to remind them of their nobler Original . But it was a most Piacular Crime for any Creature to intrude into the Secrets of their Gods without their leave . This was shadowed to the People in the Fictions of Actaeon and Diana , and other like stories of the Mythical Age , as of Pro●●●heus stealing Fire from the Chariot of the Sun , &c. Indeed as to the intellectual World and the Secrets of it , they did not think that any but a God could discover them . However they thought it most decorous that none but a God should lead them into the Divine Secrets . Thence so many Expressions of Manilius to this purpose , which Scaliger does not seem to understand : Inque Deum Deus ipse tulit —

Manil. A● ro ●om . I. p. 2. v. 29. Ib. L.II. p. 33. v. 6,7 . Ib. L.IV. p. 108. v. 7 , 8 , &c. And again : Quis Coelum possit , nisi Coeli munera nôsset , Et reperire Deum , nisi qui pars ipse Deorum est ?

And again : Atqui adeo faciem Coeli non invidet orbi Ipse Deus , vultúsque suos , corpúsque recludit Semper volvendo , seque ipsum inculcat & offert , Ut bene cognosci possit , doceátque videndo , Qualis eat , doceátque suas attendere Leges . Ipse vocat nostros animos ad sidera mundus : Nec patitur , quia non condit , sua jura latere . Quis putat esse nefas nosci , quod cernere fas est ? This therefore we see he makes to be the only way of excusing the Piaculum , that the God himself was pleased to make the discovery . So Philo also from the same Egyptian and Stoical Hypothesis , which had been observed by Manilius : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Allegor . L.I. p 32. med. And as this was supposed true in the more spiritual Transactions between God and the Soul of the initiated Person ; so it was very suitably represented in this way of transacting the external part of the Mystery , that the secret sights of the Adytum , from seeing which they were called Epoptae , should be shewn them by one who should personate the Demiurgus himself , and bear his name in that particular performance .

TO apply this therefore to the Reasonings Sect. 7 of the Hellenistical Jews against the Samaritans ; they also challenged to themselves this power of restoring Souls to their Coelestial Original by means of God's own appointment . This is very clear in Philo , and in such of them as lived after the time that the future state was more fully and clearly discovered than it had been before , which was the nearer they came to the time of publishing the Gospel . And undoubtedly they had , even by the Principles of the Philosophers themselves , a better Title to it than the Heathens , in regard that their whole external Worship was paid to this same Demiurgus to whom this Office was supposed properly to belong . They also thought themselves to have the best Right to the Secrets and Mysteries of their God . The Secrets of the Law were with them that feared him ; Ps. XXV . 14 . and from the same notions in all likelyhood it was that our Saviour ascribes the Right of knowing Mysteries to them whom he owns for the Children of the Kingdom . S. Matth. XIII . 11 . S. Mark , IV. 11 . S. Luke , VIII . 10 . And the High Priest's going into the Sanctum Sanctorum was indeed nothing but a most sacred 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . The Mysteries of the Heathens were in the Adyta , so was this . They were under a Veil , so was this , whence Christ is said as a Melchizedechian High Priest , to have passed within the Veil . Accordingly the tearing of the Veil at our Saviour's Death signified the Revelation and Discovery of the Mystery which had been hidden from Ages and Generations , so much alluded to in the New Testament . There was an 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 of a Light , and the Image of their God , and he was also an 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Shechinah , the Light and Glory that shadowed the Mercy-Seat . The Demiurgus also worshiped in the Mysteries was not to be named . So were the Jews supposed to worship the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Philo Leg. ad Caium . p. 1041. B. Josep . Ant. and accordingly Josephus in the mission of Moses dares not let the Greeks know the name by which God was pleased to discover himself to Moses . The Heathen Mysteries as expounded by the Stoicks and the later Philosophers , shadowed the Systeme of the World . So is the Ark and the several Coverings of it expounded by Josephus ( which is a fit reason why it should be called a 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 by the Apostle , Ant. III. 9 . Philo L.III. de vi● . Mos. p. 667. not only as a Worldly Temple , but as a Temple also representing the World ) and so is the Mercabah in Ezekiel alluded to in the Ornaments of the Temple , Mor. Neb. mysticized even by the Modern Jews , as may appear from the intimations of Maimonides .

Sect. 8 AND according to the Hellenistical Hypothesis , the Spiritual and Invisible 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 was of the Ideal Archetypes of things . These were the first 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and the speculation of them was the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . The Harmony of these was called 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and they who had the Right to know them were said to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Mystical Language of S. John . But it was in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 that these Ideal Archetypes of things were supposed to be , not in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , to which they would not allow even such a Multiplicity . And it is therefore very suitable to this what the Apostle speaks when he grants that in him were hidden all the Treasures of Wisdom and Knowledge . At least the manifestation of them to others was taken for the peculiar Office of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . For this is always taken for granted in the Reasonings of the Hellenists , that the Father never appeared , nor was 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , capable of being reached ( not throughly comprehended only ) by human senses ; but that the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 was 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , not throughly comprehended , but reached by the sense ( for so the word was meant against the Pyrrhonians who denyed any thing to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ) and therefore thus it was that the Hellenists proved that there was indeed a subsistent 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 distinct from the Supreme Being , whom they call 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , because there was a Being called God which had oftentimes appeared to Men in visible Resemblances . And thus S. Justin Martyr proves it against Tryphon , by which time the Jews it seems , out of inveteracy to the Christian Religion , had forgot , or endeavoured to obliterate the memory of their own Reasonings before , when they found them urged with such success and service to the Christian Religion . So that when we find the like Expressions in the New Testament , concerning God the Father , That he dwells in that Light which no man can approach unto , 1 Tim. VI. 16.1 S. John IV. 12 . John I. 18 . S. Mat. XI . 27 . S. Luk. X. 22 . S. John VI. 46 . whom no man hath seen , or can see ; And , That no man hath seen God at any time ; And again , That no man hath seen God at any time : but that the only begotten Son , which is in the bosom of the Father , he hath declared him ; And , That none knows the Father but the Son , and he to whom the Son will reveal him , &c. These are exactly fitted to the Hypothesis I am speaking of , and accordingly prove it not only commonly received by the Hellenistical Jews of that Age , but true in it self , because it is confirmed by the New Testament Revelation .

Sect. 9 HENCE it followed , that the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , ( these are all of them proper terms of this Mystical Language relating to this discovery of Mysteries ) were proper to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . And accordingly he must be the Invisible or Spiritual Hierophanta and Priest , performing invisibly all that was visibly transacted by the High Priest in this visible Ministry . He was to assist at the Invisible Ideal Altar , and to offer up Mystical Sacrifices , as the High Priest did visible ones on the visible Altar . And by the same Reasoning this was indeed so very requisite that the visible Priesthood and its whole Ministry , was of no farther force and benefit than as it applyed the efficacy of those invisible performances as well as it signified and represented them . The Title of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , is accordingly given to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Philo de Migr. Abrahami p. 404. A. And the High Priest in going into the Holy of Holies personated the entrance of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 into Heaven , according to the Reasoning of the Author to the Ebrews . The High Priest therefore , in this Ministry , must have personated the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 himself the same way as the Eleusinian Hierophanta was conceived to personate the Demiurgus ; and that to the same effects and purposes of Reasoning , that this was an instituted means of partaking of the Invisible Priesthood by communication with the Visible , as it was to partake of the beneficial influences of the Demiurgus by partaking with the Hierophanta ; and , on the contrary , that the want of this visible Priesthood and Sacrifices must also consequentially deprive the person who wanted them ( especially who were deprived of them , by them who had the Power of them ) of the means of attaining these invisible influences also of the invisible Priesthood .

Sect. 10 THAT it was the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and none else but he , that was supposed to be represented by the High Priesthood appears by that passage of Philo , which it will not be amiss to transcribe , because , tho it allude to Christian Phrases and Notions , yet commonly Christians have neither been sensible how much their Notions were received by those Hellenistical Jews , nor how they were and must have been understood in the Originals from whence they were first derived . His words are these : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 · Philo vit: Mos. Lib. III. p. 673. C. Here he owns him who was represented by the High-Priest to be the Son , to be the Paraclete , to be the Intercessor for Forgiveness of Sins , and for the bestowing 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , whether by the word 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 be understood the plenty of those good things , which is an ordinary notion of the word ; or which I rather incline to believe , the liberality by which they are given , without grudging , for that is also a notion of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and in that sense it is commonly reasoned in the Hypothesis of that Age , that the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 was not 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , but gave freely its good gifts without any mean or mercenary consideration . These are the very Terms of the New Testament . That he also calls him the World was exactly agreeable to the Egyptian Hypothesis of that Age. The best account of that we have in the Writings ascribed to Hermes . And he is most express in this particular . He makes two Images of God , the World , Paemand . Asclep . and the Archetypal Man , the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . He allows them the name of Sons , and makes them 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 with the Father . This Doctrine is also elsewhere owned by Philo himself . And in all likelyhood it is the meaning of Manilius , who took what he had from Egyptian Authors , where he makes the World it self to be its own Hierophanta in the place already produced . That is the Archetypal Intellectual World was supposed to be the discoverer of its own Ideas , and of the sensible World , in which regard none but the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 could be understood by this name of the World . Consequently hereunto they made the World it self to be the Archetypal Temple of which the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 was the Priest , as the Reasonable Soul answers it in the notion of a Temple in an inferior sense in which the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is the Priest , of which he makes the visible High Priest the immediate Resemblance . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Philo de Somniis . p. 597. C. De Monar . L.II. init . And he elsewhere prosecutes this Analogy of the World to a Temple in the several Requisites of a Temple , That Heaven is the Sanctum Sanctorum , that the Stars are the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 answering the Donaries of ordinary Temples ; that the Priests are the Angels , &c. This was a Notion very much introduced by the Stoicks , Lips . Physiolog . Stoic . L.II. Dissert. 7. with a very prudent design of making men every where behave themselves Religiously as they would in Temples , on this consideration , that all places were the Temples of God . And thus it appears how man by being a little World was thought to resemble the great World , and by resembling it was to partake of its influences ; and how aptly the High Priest herein personated the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that as his Vestments represented the visible World , so Himself represented the intellectual World by which the visible was governed , which was no other , as I said , than the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Philo de Opif. Mun. p. 5. C. This is also the express Doctrine of Philo.

BUT withal as this was true of the Priest , so it was true of no other of them Sect. 11 but the High Priest . It is of his Garments peculiarly that the Observation was made that the World was represented by them . And that peculiar and most Sacred , and most Mystical Part of the Priesthood was performed by him alone . He alone had the Privilege of entring into the Sanctum Sanctorum , which was the proper 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , which as I said , was the peculiar Prerogative of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . As for the other Priests , it is not the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , but the Angels , the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that Philo himself makes to answer them in the Mystical Temple of the Intellectual World , in the places now mentioned de Monarchiâ . So that there is no reason to think that they were either meant , or included in this way of Reasoning . And then as they who were excluded from their Sacrifices as under an 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , were supposed to be under the Power of evil Daemons , till they were expiated ; So much more they who were not , by the Mysteries , rescued by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 from the Power of the Daemon 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , were still supposed to be detained by him in their Vehicles , which would confine them to those Regions below the Moon which were the Jurisdiction of that Daemon , who was no other than he whom in the Language of Christianity we call the Devil . By which Principles the Mischief will appear which must befal them who either were not in Communion with the High Priest , or had separated themselves from him , or were excluded by just Censures . As by their being divided from him they were cut off from this Communication with the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , so they must consequently be deprived of all the benefits of that Communication . They must want the benefit of his 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , his Intercession ; they must want the benefit of his Mystical Sacrifice , of Expiation of their Sins ; and of procuring Spiritual Blessings . They must also be supposed to be left destitute in the condition wherein they were before , to be detained in those Vehicles which would hinder them from mounting above the Moon , and would confine them within the reach of their Enemy and most implacable Tormentor . These were Consequences very natural and clear from the Principles and Reasonings of those Ages , as I have now explained them .

AND further 3. As the High Priest Sect. 12 represented the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 as to other things , so particularly in relation to the Benefits of the Mystical 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , so that as by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 they were invisibly united to the Father , and communicated in the Benefits following that Union , so it was by a visible Union to the High Priesthood that they were to be united to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and to expect the Benefits of that Union and Communion . The full proof of this will appear in these particulars : That the Union and Communion with the Father was to be procured by Union and Communion with the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , whose Office it properly was to procure and promote this Union ; That Union and Communion with the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 was to be procured by external Communion with the High Priest , as one who particularly represented the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in this Office of mystically signifying and causing this internal Unity . These things are to be made out from the received Principles of those Ages , which will both explain and prove the Solidity of the Reasonings which were grounded on them . 1. Then Union and Communion with the Father was to be procured by Union and Communion with the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . The Mystical 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 was indeed grounded on the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , the Commerce and Communication of Mystical Benefits did necessarily suppose a Union with those from whom the Benefits were expected , as the Communication in vital influences supposes a vital Union of Members in the natural Body . Whence the Reasoning will follow both ways , That they who are united will have a Title to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , as Living Members must needs partake of the influences of the Head ; and negatively , That they who are , by any means whatsoever cut off from Union must also be cut off from Communion with the Father , as whatever Member is cut off from the Body natural cannot any longer lay any claim to the influences of the Head .

PLAINLY the notion of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Sect. 13 seems to be taken immediately from the Sacrifices . For thus the Apostle reasons from Notions and Principles which must have been received among the Heathens , because in truth the aggravation of the Sin he disputes against , must have been derived from their sense and understanding of the Fact he speaks of , especially considering that he does professedly deny any intrinsick evil in the Fact abstracting from the Opinions of others , and the scandal taken from their interpretation of it , Rom. XIV . 14 . According therefore to those received opinions , they who did eat the Sacrifices of the Altar , are said to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 with the Altar , 1 Cor. X. 18 . And they who did eat of the things offered to Devils were 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Verse 20. From hence in the way of Mystical Interpretation , the mystical 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 will be a participation in the Mystical Sacrifice offered by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 as High Priest to the Father . For so the Father being the Deity to whom those Mystical Sacrifices were immediately designed and addressed , the communicating in those Sacrifices must be interpreted to be a Communion with the Father , as communicating in the external Sacrifices was communicating both with the Father and the Son , because both of them were worshiped in those external Sacrifices . From thence results a further notion of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 usual in the Philosophy of that Age , as 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is taken for a participation in a Society , for an Interessedness in the Wellfare of it , and a Right to the Privileges , and the other Benefits consequential to it . And thus I have shewn that the Popular Sacrifices were designed for the confederation of Nations , and a consequent intitling to the Deity of those Nations , and the Protection and Favor expected from him . Answerably hereunto the Invisible Mystical Sacrifices were also supposed to confederate a 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Heavenly Jerusalem under a Mystical Priesthood of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and the Government and Protection of the Supreme Being . And as the Rights of a Nation did most appear in a Right in their Panegyres , a Right of partaking in their Suffrages and their Sacrifices ; so there were also supposed the General Assemblies of the First born , who were ( with God , Heb. XII . 23 . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is the word there used . the Judge of all ) to judge the Earth , in allusion to the like Judicatories of the Cities of that Age which were generally Democratical , where every free born Citizen had a Vote in their General Assemblies , as among the Romans they had in their Comitia Centuriata and Tributa , and it was counted one of the Rights of Citizenship to admit them to it , and a Diminutio Capitis , an Infringement of the same Right of Citizenship to deprive them of it , in the same sense as the Capite censi are they whose Estates would not reach to any of the Classes , and who were therefore only polled as free Citizens , and as the Fees payed on this account of admitting into the City are called 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Act. XXII . 28 . Thus 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is used as a known Term of Mystical Privilege in the Egyptian Philosophy intitled to Hermes , Hermes ap. Stob. Eclo . Phys. from whence the Hellenists borrowed most of their Notions , and in a sense very agreeable to that of the Apostle where he speaks of a 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 with the Father and the Son . 1 Joh. I. 3 . The Passage is remarkable , and not ( that I know of ) taken notice of to this purpose , and therefore worthy the more particular Observation : Mercur. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ap. Stob. Eclog . Phys. L.I. p. 89. Edit. Aurel . Allobrog. 1609. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . And afterwards : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 .

WHETHERSOEVER of these Sect. 14 ways this Term be understood , this 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 will be proper to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and will be grounded on the Mystical 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , as antecedent to it . If it be taken for a participation of the Mystical Sacrifice , and the great Mystery ; then it will plainly depend on the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 as the High Priest who was to offer that Sacrifice , and as the Hierophanta who was to preside in this Mystery . There could be no communicating at this invisible Altar without the permission of the High Priest , nor any access to this 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 without the discovery of the Hierophanta . Nor indeed could any have any Right to them , unless he was first united to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . The 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 could not 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , so as to bring the Parties to any agreement without a Union to each of them . Without this it was impossible that he could unite them to each other , as it is impossible that any Glew can unite two Bodies that is not it self united to both of them . He could have no Right to the Sacrifice unless he be one of that Society to whom the Sacrifices did belong , nor could he be judged one of the Assembly who owned no Union with the President of the Assembly . Nor could he have a Right to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Chief God without a Union with the Hierophanta as the Representative God . Consider it also as a participation in a privileged Society , and so he can have no Title to the Privileges of a Society who is not supposed to be a Member of it ; nor can he be supposed to be a Member of it who does not partake in those Bonds of Union on which the Unity of the Society it self does depend . But the Government of the Mystical Jerusalem , and consequently the presiding in Legal Assemblies , for the Exercise of the Government , did wholly belong to him . He was supposed to be the Pastor , as David and Cyrus are called Pastors . He was supposed to be the Mystical David who was always to have a Lamp in this Jerusalem . And therefore still , by the consequence of all these Reasonings , it appears that Union is still supposed to Communion , and that therefore the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , as the Principle of this Mystical Union , must needs have it in his Power to dispose also of the Right to Mystical Communion .

IT remains therefore that I shew , from the same Principles , that the Sect. 15 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 was supposed to be the whole Author of this Mystical Union . This appears from the Title given the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in that Philosophy . As they call the Father the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , so they call the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , as being the first Unity . And by the Principles of that same Philosophy , the first in every kind is supposed to be , not only the Copy , but the Cause , of all other Beings of the same kind . They supposed it to be but one , but yet to multiply it self in Representations , as the Seal does in Wax by diversity of Impressions . And therefore as all other Impressions received from the Seal , are not the Seal it self , but only likenesses and resemblances ; so they made the Archetypal Beings only to be the True Beings , and all Derivatives to be only Resemblances of the True . This they expressed by an artificial way of speaking received among them . When they expressed the Archetypal Beings , they used the composition of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , as 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. But when the Derivatives , they use the Termination of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , as 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. As therefore they make the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Principle from whence all the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 receive their Goodness ; so , by the same Analogy of Speech and Reasoning , they must make the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Principle from whence all the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , all that indeed are one by participation do derive their Unity . And as they make all Bodies one by the consonancy of their Motions , and their Subserviency to the Universe ; so they do with much more reason make the Intellectual World , ( which , as I shewed , was with them the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ) one . The very Unity and Harmony of the Corporeal World was thought to be derived from him . He was thought 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 to contain the parts together . He was thought 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , to suit and proportion their Motions so to each other that they should prove harmonious . He was thought to govern the whole World in the time when it was best governed , that is , in the time of the Golden Age , Plato Polit. and all ill Government was ascribed to his leaving the Helm . He was thought 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 to give all inferior Beings their Essence , by imprinting the Ideas , nay , to be the very 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 it self , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . For tho they called the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , yet withal they called him 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , because he did not 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . And what can be more intimate to Beings than their Essence ? The very Phrases of the Apostle that of him , and through him , Procl . Theol. Plat. and by him are all things , are the Language of that same Philosophy . But they are particularly careful of using that form of Speech , that all things are in him , rather than he in all things , lest they should seem to make him any where as in a place . Otherwise , as he was thought to be the Intellectual Archetypal World , so they deny not but that he is in all things .

THUS far they proceeded in advancing his power of uniting , even the sensible Sect. 16 World . But they went further as to the Intellectual World , and as to the Union of Intellectual Beings . First as he was peculiarly the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , so the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 of all other 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 did particularly belong to him , not only on that general account whereby all Ideas were thought impressed by him , but by a particular Right as a derivation of his own Property . For tho the Father were also a 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , yet the Propagation of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 was by the Platonists supposed to be from the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , which was at the disposal of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . At least the Hellenists , of whose Reasonings against their SCHISMATICKS I am now discoursing , gathered it from those Expressions of Genesis , where Man is said to be made 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , according to the Image and Likeness of God , understanding the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , or Image of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , or Word . So Philo : De Mund. Opif. p. 31. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. For it pleased him to make use of no other Copy of those inferior Beings for the making of them , but only his own WORD . Accordingly he calls the man breathed into the face of Adam the Image and Resemblance of God . And elsewhere more expresly : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Allegoriar : L. II.29 . The Image is the Pattern of the other things , as he [ Moses ] implies in the very beginning of the Law , when he says , And God made Man after the Image of God , As if the Image indeed were Copyed from God , but man was only made according to that Image which received the Power of its Copy . They further made this Unity of Intellectual Beings to be by an 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 or Conversion of the inferior Intellects to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 or Ideas , Procl . Theol. Platon . which because they were supposed to be in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 caused by them must be supposed to be to him also . And this indeed was the proper way of restoring and uniting lapsed Intellects , of which I am now discoursing . Thus therefore the procuring and effecting all this Mystical Union and Communion was supposed to depend on the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 .

IT remains now that I shew further , Sect. 17 2. That Union and Communion with the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , was supposed to depend on External Communion with the High Priest , as one who particularly represented the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in this Office of Mystically signifying and causing this external Unity . It was to depend on the external Communion on the same account as the benefit of all Mysteries was supposed to depend on their external Representations , being every where understood to effect what they represented , as indeed all Covenanting Symbols were constantly supposed to do . The partaking therefore at the visible Altar , as it signified , so it conferred a Right to Communion with that which was invisible ; as it signified their belonging to the Community confederated by the External Sacrifices , so it also conferred a Right to that invisible Society which was confederated by those Mystical Sacrifices , to which they could have no Right but by their Right to the Society confederated by them . Their communicating with the High Priest who was the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in effigie , implyed and gave a Real Right to Communion with the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 himself , especially considering it as a Symbol used by the consent and Institution of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 himself in a Covenant wherein himself was a Party and a Mediator . The High Priest in this Office personated more than a Human Nature . De Monarch . L.II. p. 828. Ed. Graeco-Lat . Paris . 1640. So Philo : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . For the Law will have him to partake of a more than Human Nature , approaching near to that of God , because he was to be ( if we may say it with reverence ) a common bound of both , that both men may by a Mediator appease the Deity , and God may use him as a Minister in reaching out , and communicating his Graces unto men . What this more than Human Nature was appears from what he elsewhere tells us in the same Discourse , that the High Priest in his Vestments bore the Image of the Universe , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . P. 829. And that the Universe or World here spoken of included also the Intellectual World ( which with him is the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ) is also manifest from what follows concerning the Intercession wherein he conceives that World to joyn with the High Priest , which cannot be understood of any but the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . So he gives the reason why his Vestments were to represent the whole World , Ibid. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . That the whole World might assist him in the performance of his Sacred Offices . It being indeed most becoming that he who was himself consecrated to the Father of the World , should also come accompanied with the Son to the Worship of him who had begotten him . This Son of God can be no other than that same 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 whom the Christians also called the Son of God , and to whom they also ascribed the same Office of Mediating with the Father , which is here ascribed to him by Philo. And this is the way by which Iamblichus endeavours to account for those Imperative Forms so frequently made use of by the Priests in their Mystical Commerce with Beings so much more excellent than themselves , De Myster . Sect. IV. c. 2. that they herein personated a Being to whom the Duty was indeed due which they challenged in his name . The High Priest therefore , in this Action , being designed to represent the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 as a Principle of external Unity , must , by the same Reasoning , give a Right to that Internal Mystical Union , which none but the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 himself can give , but yet he must be supposed obliged to give , having given already a Right to it by this Legal way of Covenanting for it . And indeed in this particular matter concerning Unity , none could pretend so fairly for the Unitive Office of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 as the High Priest . For considering , as I said , that all that the visible Priesthood can contribute to the Mystical Union , is by the Obligation his Act may lay upon the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in whose immediate Power it was conceived to be ; and considering that the Obligation was to be gathered from the signification of the Symbols instituted by him , that what was signified by those Symbols , that he was understood to have obliged himself to perform , and therefore having instituted Symbols of Unity , he was understood to have obliged himself to perform that Unity Mystically which he had shadowed externally ; it thence follows that this external signification was ( as to us ) the ground from whence we could conclude the Obligation . And therefore if the signification of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 as a Principle of Unity was most proper to the Office of the High Priest , it will follow that the effecting the Mystical Unity , answerable to the visible Unity by which it was represented , must have been most proper to him also . And that this was so , will appear , if we consider whence it was that this Unity was derived according to the Hellenistical Hypothesis . And the Apostle who seems frequently to allude to it , Eph. V. 23 . 1 Cor. XI . 3 . makes it to consist in the Unity of a Head . Thus Marriage makes a Mystical Union because the Head of the Woman is the Man ; and Christ and the Soul are One , because the Head of every Man is Christ ; and Christ and God are One , because the Head of Christ is God ; and Christ and the Church are One , because he is the Head of the Church ; and accordingly he is said 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , because he is the Head of all Intellectual , as well as Sensible Beings . But in this Office of being a Head , no Priesthood can pretend to represent him but the High Priesthood . And therefore none can ( in this way of Reasoning ) pretend so properly as that , to be a Principle of this Mystical Unity .

CHAP. IX . The Christian Bishops were answerable to the Jewish High Priests . The CONTENTS .

The Solidity of this same way of Reasoning as urged by the Primitive Christians against their contemporary SCHISMATICKS . The general Principles on which they proceeded were granted by the Generality of that Age. Sect. I. The way of Reasoning from Sacrifices admitted also under the Gospel . Sect. II. The Reasoning from Mystical Sacrifices indeed most proper to the State of the Gospel . Sect. III. The Primitive Bishops designed in imitation of the Jewish High Priesthood . Hence the custom of their wearing Frontlets . Sect. IV. And that of their confining the Succession in Churches to the Family of their first Bishops . Sect. V. This Design very agreeable to the Change intended by our Saviour . Sect. VI. An Account why , for a while , the Christians might defer the committing that eminency of Power into the Bishops hands with which they were intrusted afterwards . Sect. VII , VIII . Hence also the Absoluteness of particular Bishops in S. Cyprian's time . Sect. IX . However this same Reasoning will oblige all to a strict dependence who live within the same Jurisdiction . Sect. X. The same way of Reasoning from Jewish Precedents will include whole Cities within the same Jurisdiction . Sect. XI . How inclinable the Christians were to take up these Arts of Uniting Citizens . Sect. XII . The Solemn Anniversaries of the Jews being continued among the Christians were to be understood as Obligatory in the Times of Christianity ; and their being observed in particular Cities implyed that the Bishops of those Cities were answerable to the High Priests . Sect. XIII .

THUS far I have explained the Prudence Sect. 1 and Solidity of this Argument as insisted on by the Jews against the Samaritans , proceeding on the Popular Hypothesis received not only among the Philosophical Heathens , but the Jews themselves , especially the Hellenists , and alluded to in all the remaining Disputes in the like case in the New Testament . I now proceed further to shew the like Prudence and Solidity of the same Argument as applyed to the Case of Christian SCHISMATICKS under the New Testament . And some things have already been taken notice of that will considerably prepare the way . It has already been observed that Christianity is nothing but a Mystical Judaism , and that this Assertion that it was so is the main thing endeavoured to be proved in the Discourses , and the Supposition that it was so is the main Foundation supposed in the Reasonings of the New Testament . It has been observed further that this Hypothesis is so confessed in the New Testament , as that Reasonings are allowed from Jewish Precedents to shew what ought to be under Christianity , and that most of the Reasonings in the New Testament for introducing now , things proper to the Christian Religion , are indeed of that kind . So far were they then from decrying this as a Legal Way of Reasoning , as our Brethren do now . It has likewise been observed that this agreeableness between Judaism and Christianity , or between the Literal and Mystical Judaism , held also in these very Particulars , that both of them were supposed to have a Priesthood and an Altar , I mean visible , as well as invisible ; and that these Priesthood and Altar were to perform the same Offices with Christians , as they had done among the Jews , and accordingly that Reasonings were also allowed from the Priesthood and Altar among the Jews , to the Mystical Priesthood and Altar which were still kept up among the Christians , so that the Fathers in Reasoning thus did no more than what they could justifie by allowable Precedents in the New Testament . This Reasoning will especially hold , where the Design aimed at is common to Judaism with Christianity , that there the Means of prosecuting that same Design should be also proportionably the same . And therefore seeing that the Church is still a Society , and that a visible one under a visible Government proper to it self , as the Jews were ; and seeing that external Peace and Unity are not by any one pretended to be antiquated parts of Judaism , but are still as seasonable , and as necessary for the subsistence of such Societies as they were then ; and that this way of keeping to the external Communion of the visible Priesthood and Altar of our Christian Churches are as conducive to the maintenance of Peace and Unity now as they were then : It plainly follows , that they ought actually to contribute to the same Design as they did then , That our Mystical Priesthood and Altar ought as firmly to be adhered to in order to the preserving our interest in the Segullah now as the Jews thought themselves obliged to adhere to theirs , for claiming the like Privileges of the Segullah then .

BESIDES these things , it appears likewise how many of the Principles Sect. 2 then proceeded on are still as firmly believed under the Gospel . The Jews made the Privilege of the Segullah to consist in the immediate Worship and Patronage of the Supreme Beings , and his acceptance of that Appropriation . The Christians succeed the Jews in this very Privilege of worshiping the Supreme Being , and as succeeding them in the Privilege of being the Segullah , they must succeed them also in the Right of having the Patronage of the Supreme Being appropriated to him , so that none but Christians now can pretend to it , not even the Jews themselves , but upon a condition , common to them with any other Nations , that of turning Christians . Their way of appropriating this Worship and Patronage to themselves was by their Sacrifices and their Altar . All the whole Nation of the Jews had a Right to partake of those Sacrifices , and by consequence to that Patronage ; and none of any other Nation , whilst they kept their National Distinctions , had any Right to partake with them at their Sacrifices , tho they otherwise pretended to worship the same Supreme Being , and in the same way as they did . This was the Case of the Samaritans , Ezr. IV. 2 . who yet were told that they had nothing to do with them , Verse 3. In excluding them from their Sacrifices they must needs deny their Title to the Mystical Invisible Sacrifices , and to that special Patronage of the Supreme Being , they denyed them any portion in the Holy One. And we also have an Altar , of which the Jews themselves , Heb. XIII . 10 . as well as the Heathens , have no Right to partake , but on the condition of Proselytism , who therefore , by the same Reasoning , can have no Right to the Invisible Sacrifices , and our God . Their High Priest also was a Principle of Unity as he presided over their solemn Panegyres , and the Sacrifices then celebrated on that occasion , not as a Head of their Proseuchae or Synagogues , or of those Assemblies wherein they met for the celebration of their ordinary Offices . And , by the same Reasoning , our Bishops ought to be Principles of Unity , not as presiding over Parishes and such subdivisions appointed for Ordinary Assemblies , but as presiding in those Assemblies which were common to whole Churches of one denomination , that is , as I have elsewhere shewn , of such as were Diocesans .

BUT that which is peculiar in our Sacrifices is that they are rather Mysteries Sect. 3 than Sacrifices . The Jewish Sacrifices did indeed partake of both Offices . As Popular Sacrifices they appropriated a particular God to a particular People in order to National and Temporal Benefits expected from him , as protection of their secular Government , Victory over their Enemies , &c. For these were the things principally designed and expected by the Popular Sacrifices among the Nations . But as Mysteries they related peculiarly to the Mystical Invisible Sacrifice of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , to the Benefits of Souls , and Privileges in the Invisible Intellectual World . And these were the peculiar and principal designs of our Saviour . His Kingdom was not to be of this World . As Man he was not to come in a Royal State of Magnificence here , but was to expect it after his death . As Messias he was to be Prince of the World to come . As 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 his Dominion was peculiarly in the World of Spirits , and his Designs were principally for rescuing captivated Spirits from the Dominion of their Bodies , and the Confinement of the lower World , which were also the principal designs of the Mysteries . And therefore here the Reasoning from the Jewish Sacrifices and Priesthood and Altar will peculiarly hold , if we consider them as Mysteries , ours being indeed no other than Mystical Sacrifices . Christianity it self being really nothing but Mystical Judaism , all the Mystical Reasonings concerning Jewish Matters will more properly relate to Christianity , and proceed more strongly concerning it , than they can concerning Judaism it self . Besides the Notions of Mystical Union and Communion , on which these Reasonings against SCHISM are grounded , do peculiarly concern our Mystical Sacrifices as they are Mystical . Now Christianity , in the Reasonings of the New Testament , is still represented as the Mystery kept hidden from Ages and Generations , that was first revealed in the Gospel , that is , as the Mystery that had formerly been shadowed by the most sacred of the Jewish Mysteries , in which regard it was very properly called the Great Mystery , as that Term was also used by the Hellenists . And in this regard the Revelation of such a Mystery as this was most proper for the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 himself . Philo Allegor . Leg. L.II. p. 79. D. By the Laws of Mysteries the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 of such a Mystery as this , without his Authority , had been extremely Piacular for any Creature . Whence it will follow further both that this proper way of Reasoning in Mysteries is indeed most proper and natural and cogent in a Religion so made up of Mysteries , especially in the Sacraments , which are yet further the most Sacred Mysteries of this most Mysterious Religion ; and withal that the Benefits of Mysteries ( which , according to the received Notions of that Age , would have been expected from Mysteries , wherein undoubtedly the Holy Ghost would not fail their expectations , especially such as were so prudently and naturally grounded ) might be expected here , where the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 himself , the great Author of Mysteries , and the proper performer of what was Covenanted for by Mysterious Representations , was so nearly and immediately concerned . And therefore if upon the Union of the High Priest with the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , as represented by him , they were cut off from the Internal Unitive Power of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 who were cut off from the visible Communion of the High Priest ; then much more we have reason to expect that they should lose their Union with the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 now under the Gospel who are separated from the Communion of the Bishop , who now holds the same place , and performs the same Office as the High Priest did then ; but withal does it in a Constitution of which the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is more professedly , and designedly , the principal Author , and the Person represented .

Sect. 4 THIS Reasoning will hold as it is drawn from the Precedent of the Law , as it was intended by the Ancients . As I have shewn that no other Priests but the High Priests were concerned in this Privilege of being the Principle of Unity ; so , under the Gospel , none but the Bishop could pretend to answer the Office of the High Priest : As the High Priest was a Principle of Unity as representing the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Notion of a Head over the other Priests ; so the Bishop alone answered both the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and the High Priesthood too , in being a visible Head over his Brethren of the Presbytery . And that the Primitive Christians understood their Bishop to answer the Office of the High Priest , appears in that , in the most ancient times , and in the best Records of those Churches which were most certainly planted in the Apostolical Times ( if not by the Apostles themselves , in their own Persons ) the Bishops were said to have worn the Sacerdotal Frontlet which was proper to the High Priest among the Jews , from whom in all likelyhood they borrowed it . So Polycrates in his Epistle concerning the Paschal Controversie , concerning S. John , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. Who was a Priest , Ap. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. V. 24 . III. 31 . and wore the Frontlet . He could not pretend to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 on account of an Ordinary Priesthood among the Jews , and there is no pretence of his being High Priest . And therefore , in all likelyhood , his pretence to it was on account of the Office in the Christian Church , which he thought equivalent to the High Priesthood among the Jews . Besides what he had done , by virtue of any Office among the Jews , must have been agreeable to the Constitutions of the Priesthood of the Literal Judaism , which would not have recommended his Example as so argumentative in Christianity for the keeping of Easter , whose Arguments from Jewish Precedents were not for the same things , but for things answerable to them in the same proportion . The same thing is delivered concerning S. James the first Bishop Jerusalem by Epiphanius . Epiphan. Haer. LXXVIII . Nazar . Vales. in loc. Euseb. H.E. V. 24 . A like passage there is concerning S. Mark produced out of an ancient Manuscript of his Passion by Valesius , tho , it is very true , the Author understands it of his Priesthood among the Jews . His Words are these : Quem quidem B. Marcum juxta ritum carnalis Sacrificii Pontificalis apicis petalum in populo gestâsse Judaeorum , illustrium virorum Syngraphae declarant . Ex quo manifestè datur intelligi , de stirpe eum Leviticâ , immo Pontificis Aaron , sacrae successionis originem habuisse . But we may easily distinguish between the bare matter of Fact , and the Author's conjecture concerning the occasion of it . As for the later , we have no more reason to receive it than we have to value the Judgment and Reason of the Author . But for the matter of Fact it self he gives us more competent Testimonies than his own , the Syngraphae Virorum Illustrium . Nor can it be thought strange , that what was really done by S. Mark as a Christian Bishop in those first times , this Author , because he found it used by no Bishop in his own time , might ascribe it to a Jewish Priesthood . But Valesius himself is of another opinion , and conceives it to have been used ordinarily by the Bishops of those first times as equivalent to the High Priests of the Jews .

AND probably it is to this same Sect. 5 account , that the Christian Episcopacy was then thought answerable to the High Priesthood of the Jews , that we may most prudently ascribe that most ancient custom of chusing their first Bishops of the same Family with the first who had possessed the Chair at the time of their first Conversion . And among the Jews themselves the Person was elective , tho the Election was indeed confined to the Family of Aaron . That the most ancient Christians , who lived nearest to the Apostles , did observe this way , we have reason to believe from the most ancient Monuments we have of Ecclesiastical History . In the Church of Jerusalem , where our Saviour was himself in person the principal Converter , the first Bishops were chosen of our Saviour's Family . First S. James (a) (a) Vide Hegesip . ap. Euseb. Eccl. Hist. II. 23 . the Just , who because of his Relation , is in a general sense called The Brother of our Lord . Then Simeon (b) (b) Hegesip . ap. Eus. Eccl. Hist. III. 11 . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . The Words of Hegesippus ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. IV. 22 . That is , After James the Just had suffered Martyrdom , as also our Lord himself had suffered on the same Account , the Son of his Uncle , Simeon of Cleophas was made Bishop , to whom all gave their Suffrages the rather because he was the second Cousin of the Lord . Epiphan. Haer. LXXVIII . 7.14 . Cleophae the Cousin German of our Saviour , for Cleophas was the Brother of Joseph , if we may believe the Tradition of Hegesippus . And in this later Election it is particularly observed (c) (c) Eusebius , Ibid. that the Apostles had a particular regard to the Counsel and Assistance of the surviving Kinsmen of our Saviour . Among the Brethren of our Lord , Judas is reckoned for one . And his Posterity , Hegesippus says , presided over the whole Church as Witnesses and Kinsmen of our Lord : His Words are very full : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Hegesip . ap. Euseb. Eccli Hist. III. 32 . &c. 20. It seems then they were thought to have a Right to preside over the whole Church , on account of their being Kinsmen to him by whom the Church was first constituted . The same thing he has also elsewhere , only there he says they did 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and for the same Reasons as before . Possibly Eusebius understood it of their being Bishops , but he is there to be explained by the Words of Hegesippus which were as I have now transcribed them . Nor was it only so in our Saviour's Case , who had a Right over the whole Church . There is reason to believe that the same Rule was also observed in other particular Churches besides that of Jerusalem . The forementioned Polycrates derives his Tradition for their way of observing of Easter from his own Kinsmen , of whom seven had been Bishops before him , and himself the eighth . In all likelyhood he means that they were his Predecessors in the same See , and accordingly he mentions only some of them with whom he had conversed , tho he was sixty five years old at the writing of the Epistle . The Succession of those seven Bishops before him in the same See might very probably come near the time of the Apostles . And considering that he insists on their Testimony as an Argument for proving an Apostolical Tradition , it must needs have been that the first of them lived in fresh memory of the Apostles . This way of Reasoning alone is agreeable to the Practice of the Churches of that Age in proving the Doctrine and Consent of the Apostles against their contemporary Hereticks . They prove them indeed by the Testimony of Ecclesiastical Tradition . But then they insist on no Testimony of any Church as competent for this purpose , but of those alone which had at first received their Traditions immediately from the Apostles themselves in person , and insist on no Succession of Bishops as competent for deducing such a Testimony to their own Times , but only such Successions whereof the first were contemporary with the Apostles themselves , that such Bishops might receive their Traditions immediately from the Apostles as well as their Churches , lest otherwise their Adversaries might have had any plausible colour to except against the competency of their first Information . Thus that Argument is managed by S. Irenaeus and Tertullian , the best present Monuments we have of the way of Reasoning of those times . So that this custom also of deriving the Succession in a Family seems also to have been derived from the times of the Apostles . And this way of imputing it to a Jewish Original , as an imitation of their way of deriving the High Priesthood , seems to be the most probable way of giving an account of it .

AND indeed this Reasoning whereby Sect. 6 the Christian Episcopacy was made answerable to the High Priesthood of the Jews , is no more than what is very agreeable to the Change our Saviour intended to make , as we have an account of his Design in his own Discourse with the Woman of Samaria . He there tells her that the time was coming , when they should neither in that mountain of Gerizim , nor yet in Jerusalem , S. Joh. IV. 21 . worship the Father . How so ? That it should be unlawful to worship God at Mount Gerizim , or at Jerusalem ? No , but that , according to the agreement of both Parties in that Dispute , that the publick solemn Worship under the personal Management of the High Priest was confined as the Samaritans thought to Mount Gerizim , as the Jews thought to Jerusalem ; the very Foundation of that Dispute should be quite taken away , that Worship of the High Priesthood should be no more confined , neither to Mount Gerizim , nor yet to Jerusalem . Plainly he must still be supposed to mean the thing he discourses of , in the meaning of the Parties concerned in that Dispute , allowing only the liberty of Mysticizing it so far as the Gospel it self required that it should be mystically understood . The Question therefore , between the Jews and the Samaritans , being concerning the Confinement of the High Priesthood , our Saviour's Answer must be understood to deny the Confinement of that which should be answerable to the High Priesthood under the Gospel . This must be the meaning of the Reason drawn from the Spiritual Nature of God , and the spiritual way of worshiping him . Not as our Enthusiasts are apt to understand it , that there should be no need of Priests nor Sacrifices ( that were to overthrow his own Constitutions under the Gospel it self elsewhere ) but supposing the continuance of the High Priesthood and such mystical Sacrifices as the Gospel allows of , to let them know however , that they should henceforth be so spiritual , as that all who did communicate in the same spirit , how distant soever their Residences were , might notwithstanding communicate in them , which they could not do before . And still it is to be understood , not of single Congregations , but of the Congregations , at least , of whole Cities ( for those publick Sacrifices , wherein the High Priests were concerned , were never designed for less than the whole Cities , how great and populous soever , where they were performed ) that every City should have the same Privilege as Sichem and Jerusalem , to have Mystical Sacrifices and High Priests of their own , with whom they might communicate without such tedious Journies as they of the Dispersion were fain to make at the return of their solemn Anniversaries at Jerusalem . And tho then the Samaritans were guilty of SCHISM for erecting a new Temple and Altar and High Priest in a distinct City , and at a distance from Jerusalem ; yet henceforward the like Charge should not hold . Distant Cities might have their particular High Priests and Sacrifices without any such breach of Unity and Peace between them . All this while this Dispute was between Cities , not single Congregations . And the liberty of having particular High Priests must therefore be understood at least of whole Cities , in which nothing bore such a natural resemblance to the Jewish High Priest as their Bishops .

Sect. 7 PROBABLY this might have been the Reason why , during the first times of the Apostles , they did for a while forbear the setting any Bishop up in any considerable Superiority over his Brethren . Tho by the most creditable accounts of the later times of the Apostles , we have reason to believe that it was done by the last surviving Apostles ; yet we have here a prudent Reason , why , for some time , it should be forborn . If this Superiority of the Bishop were a substituting him in the place of the High Priest , and the multiplying such Superiors in several Cities were the multiplying High Priests in the several Cities ; it plainly appears how this must have been interpreted by those who were Jewishly affected , from the Principles already mentioned . They must have looked on such persons as , not only violaters of their Law , but as Breakers of their Mystical Union , and consequently obnoxious to the same Curses and Execrations which on the same account had been thundered against the Samaritans . And therefore as in other Cases we find them very cautious of giving any Offence to the * * 1 Cor. X. 32 . Jews , tho otherwise justifiable by their own Principles , till they found the Generality prepared for them , or they were forced upon them by some Exigencies of their Circumstances ; so we have reason to believe that they proceeded with the measures of calm Prudence . Whilst they could , they kept in the Communion of the Jewish Church , they worshiped in the Temple , and attended their Anniversary Assemblies , till the Jews themselves seem to have driven them from them , which it should seem they did not till the later end of the Apostles times . Whilst they kept this correspondence with them there was no reason to expect that they would raise up the jealousie of the Jewish High Priest by setting up a Rival against him . Nay , by S. Paul's behaviour to him whilst he was on the Tribunal judging him , and provoking him by unbecoming and unequal behaviour , it appears what a deference the Christians themselves payed to the Jewish High Priesthood of those times , Acts ▪ XXIII . 5 . besides the express Command our Saviour himself gave to observe and do what should be required from them by those who sate on Moses seat . S. Matth. XXIII . 2 , 3.

Sect. 8 THUS far therefore they , for a while , exercised no Government at all , but acted by the Principles then allowed in favor of Zealots and Prophets . And it is observable how low that Passage concerning S. Paul reaches into the Apostles Times . When they did find it requisite for their own sakes to set up an Ecclesiastical Government , yet still they did it by Principles allowable by the Jews . Among the Jews themselves the Synagogue-Way of Worship was allowed in all places , at whatsoever distance from Jerusalem , and among them they had their Rulers in common , and some , as it should seem , over the rest , whom they called their Archisynagogue , which none understood to be done with the least design of emulation against the High Priest . This therefore the Christians might imitate without offence , without pretending any design of making themselves a distinct Body . And this liberty they seem to have taken , allowing their first Presbyters no more preheminence than what was allowed to the Archisynagogus . Afterwards when the Old Testament Texts were thorowly understood which were applyed by them to the Eucharist , by which it appeared to be , not only a Commemoration of our Saviour's Death , but also a Mystical Sacrifice , the Sacrifice indeed that was prefigured and typified by the Jewish Sacrifices , and which was to succeed , and supersede them in the State of Mystical Israelitism , and to take them off from all Obligations of attending and communicating in their bloody Sacrifices ; then it appeared to tend to a breach from those who still maintained the Obligation of the Levitical Sacrifices . And when the Jewish Sacrifices and High Priesthood were taken away , and past all hopes of restitution ; then the Jews themselves who had been proselyted to the Christian Religion upon those other Principles that were not condemnable by Judaism it self , would now undoubtedly be more favorable and willing to receive Conviction by what their Brethren had to say for the continuance of the Mystical High Priesthood as well as their Mystical Sacrifices . For this must have extremely conduced to the comforting them for the Ruine of their Temple and Priesthood , when they might yet enjoy their Sacrifices and Priesthood ( which had been the greatest endearment of Jerusalem to them ) every where else more fully and effectually than they did at Jerusalem . Nay , so far would it be from being scandalous now , that more than formerly , must , on these very accounts , be favorably affected to Christianity . And upon this account it was seasonable to advance the preheminence of the Bishop , when he was to succeed in the Office of High Priesthood by the true Principles of Christianity , as we have all the reason we can desire from the footsteps of those times , to believe that it was indeed , about this time , considerably advanced .

AND this seems also very agreeable Sect. 9 with that absoluteness of Episcopacy so much insisted on by S. Cyprian , who most of all insists on this Argument we are discoursing of against the SCHISMATICKS of his time . He makes all Bishops equal , to have the whole Power in solidum ; to be absolute Judges of their own Acts , and to be accountable to none but God , and that there was but one Episcopacy among them all , which notwithstanding was possessed by each of them not in parcels , but intirely . It is easie to observe how inconsistent this is with that Supremacy which is challenged by the Pope over all the other Bishops of the World . Had the Case been so , the Pope alone had been the only Successor into the High Priesthood , and there had been no other change under the Gospel but that of the Seat of the High Priesthood , that it had been translated from Jerusalem to Rome . Still the confinement had been continued , whereas , on the contrary , it is the principal design of our Saviour's Discourse to overthrow the Perpetuity of that Confinement , as well on the Jews side , as on that of the Samaritans , as well to Jerusalem as to Mount Gerizim , and consequently as well to Rome , as to Jerusalem : And in order hereunto he shews , in his Discourse with the Woman of Samaria , that henceforward all other places like Samaria and Jerusalem , that is , all Cities , should have equal Privileges with those which were , at that time , actually challenged by them , which was of being the Supreme Metropolis of Religion , which is , by no means consistent with that Superiority which is challenged by the Roman Church over other Churches . The most ancient Metropolitane Rights pretended to by the Primitive Christians were not of any real Jurisdiction , but only of Rank and Order . Now this Absoluteness of particular Bishops so much insisted on by S. Cyprian , as it is inconsistent with these pretences of the Bishop of Rome ; so it is withal very consequent to the Notion I am speaking of , that the Bishop succeeded into the Office of the High Priesthood . For as the High Priesthood was so supreme as to have no sacred Power on Earth above it ; so also must the Christian Episcopacy , if it succeeded the High Priesthood in the plenitude of Power . And as the Reason insisted on for the One Altar of the Jews , was that one only God was worshiped by it , and that One only Mystical Altar and Sacrifice of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 was represented by it , and so proportionably the Reason requiring the Unity of the High Priesthood , must also be because the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . represented by him was only One ; these are reasons also concerning Christianity , and explain the Unity of the Catholick Church now as well as then . For neither do we now pretend to any more than One Mystical Sacrifice performed by Christ , tho represented in our several Eucharists , nor to any more than One Invisible Bishop Christ himself as represented by all our Bishops . So that this is a way to understand how all the true Churches in the World do , notwithstanding , make no more than One Church , as all the Altars are only One Altar , and all the Bishops only One Bishop . Even the Jews themselves did not so insist on the Personal Unity of the High Priest as upon the Uniformity of their Solemn Assemblies . It was by accident that the President of their visible Assemblies was but One , because their publick Assemblies were confined to one place . Otherwise , even in that one place , there might be more High Priests than One if they acted uniformly and with consent , that is , so that the same publick Assemblies were owned by them , and managed so that One single Person presided in each of them . So did Zadoc and Abiathar : so did the first and second High Priest : 2 Kings , XXV . 18 . So seem Annas and Caiaphas to have enjoyed that same Office at the same time . And the Rabbins tell us that the High Priests had in course their Segen , who was to officiate for him in case of pollution , or any such unexpected Incapacity in him whose principal Duty it was . And in the same way neither did the Primitive Christians scruple the having several Bishops in the same Cities . So were Narcissus and Alexander at the same time Bishops of Jerusalem , and S. Augustine and his Predecessor Valerius at the same times Bishops of Hippo , and it was proffered by the Catholick Bishops to the Donatists as an Expedient for Catholick Unity , Collat. Carthag . that , during life , both the Catholick and Donatist Bishops should both enjoy the Honor and Stile of Bishops where there were two already made in the same Sees , on condition that both parties might own the Surviver . No Evid . for Dioces . Churches , &c. in the the Primitive Times . And of this kind indeed are all the uncensured Instances produced by a late Author who has collected all the Instances he could think of , of many Bishops in One City . This therefore being supposed , it easily appears how the Christians multiplying their High Priests in several places was justifiable from SCHISM by the very Reasonings of the Jews against the Samaritans . It had not been more repugnant to Unity for the Samaritans to have had a distinct High Priest from the Jews ( if the High Priests Office might lawfully have been performed among the Samaritans ) than it was for the Jews to have two at once at Jerusalem . So that the whole charge of SCHISM on both sides , was grounded on that supposition , which was also granted on both sides , that those Assemblies in which the High Priest was to preside , could not be lawful in any more than one place . And therefore this was also the only scruple those first Judaizing Christians could have against the Christians multiplying their High Priests in several Cities . When it once appeared that this Worship of God in Panegyres with Solemn Mystical Sacrifices was lawful in all other Cities as well as Jerusalem , by the Rules of Mystical Israelitism ; it would also appear that such multiplying their High Priests were no more a violation of Unity , or prejudicial to their representing the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 as a Principle of Unity , than it was that the same Face should be represented in different Glasses , or the same Effigies taken off from the same Seal in different Impressions . And therefore as those two Priests in Jerusalem were , notwithstanding , unprejudicial to their Unity whilst they acted by consent , and without prejudice to the Right of presiding in the common Assemblies ; so neither could they charge the multitude of Bishops in several Cities , with being injurious to the Unity of Christian Communion .

Sect. 10 BUT tho this Reasoning from the Legal Precedent of the Unity of the High Priesthood did not charge the difference or mutual independency of Christian High-Priesthoods in different Cities with SCHISM ; yet it does not thence follow but that it may hold as the Fathers of the first Centuries managed it , against several or independent Presidents of the same Cities and Jurisdictions . It is very true , where the Multitudes are not obliged to meet in common Assemblies , or not to maintain visible Communion in their own Persons ; there the same invisible 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 may be represented by several visible Bishops . But it is withal as true , and as true by the Consequent of this same Reasoning , that where persons are obliged to the same common Assemblies , there it must cut off from the Mystical Unity with the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 to disown their dependence on the same visible Representation of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 as the Head of their visible Assemblies . For here the same Reasoning holds exactly . The Argument of the Jews against the Samaritans was plainly to prove their Obligation to the external Priesthood at Jerusalem , and from their disunion from him , to infer their disunion from the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 also , their invisible High Priest . The Principles they proceeded on were , as we have seen , that the external Communion was the only ordinary means of attaining the internal Communion , the external Altar of the Mystical Altar , the external Priesthood of the Mystical Priesthood , and that therefore they who were cut off from the external Communion with the external Altar , and the external Priesthood , must also be cut off from the internal Communion with the Mystical Altar and Priesthood . Tho therefore it was not against Unity for the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 to have different persons to represent him ; yet it was supposed to be against Unity for any one to presume to represent the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 who did not derive his Power of Representation from them to whom the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 had in an external way committed the Power of deriving it , or against the Rules by which the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 had given them warrant to expect it , as there could be no giving it whilst the place of the High Priesthood was full , without the consent of the High Priest , or his removal by them who had Power to remove him ; nor , even so , was there any reason to expect it any where but at Jerusalem after God himself had been pleased to confine the Office to that place . What was so pretended to must therefore have been against Unity , because it could not be expected by the first Constitutions for Succession in that Office , and for excluding false Pretenders , and for Preservation of Unity . And was not this whole Reasoning as cogent in the case of Christian SCHISMATICKS ? Did God provide greater Obligations to secure a dependence on the Priesthood of the Law than that of the Gospel ? Is it credible that the Spiritual Benefits gained by that dependence were greater , or the Spiritual Loss incurred by denying that dependence more tolerable , than those which are the Rewards and Punishments of the like Cases now ? Can our Altar and Priesthood be Mysteries to them as shadowed by their Altar and Priesthood ? And must they not therefore have a nearer Relation to the Original Heavenly Mysteries ? Have not we a nearer and more immediate Interest in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and his Sacrifice , and Intercession , and Heavenly Ministration ? And have we yet less efficacy in the conveyance of his Invisible and Heavenly Influences ? Or is it probable that God should less confine his Mystical Favors to his external Ordinances now than under the Law ? If God did not confine them then , why must the Samaritans lose them for losing their Union to the Levitical Priesthood ? If he does also now , how can SCHISMATICKS come by them now who are divided from the Priesthood of the Gospel ? I am sure the Apostle in his Reasoning in the Epistle to the Ebrews makes both the Benefits and losses greater which are gained and incurred by a Reverence or Contempt of Gospel-Ordinances . Heb. II. 3 . And how suitable his Reasoning is to the Principles from whence he reasons , let even our Adversaries themselves judge , tho they should have less Reverence , than I believe they will , for his Authority .

I DO not see how they can avoid Sect. 11 the force of this Reasoning in such Cases where God has confined Us to certain Assemblies as he did all them to the Assemblies at Jerusalem . But how , will they say , does it appear that God has obliged all the Believers of a City and it's Jurisdiction to partake in the Assemblies of the Bishop ? By the very same way of Reasoning from the Levitical Precedents . For this is also one Rule of this way of Reasoning , that the Legal Precedent must still oblige where there is not some other express Testimony , or Reason of the thing , to oppose against it . So the Law of Literal Sacrifices they opposed with those express Texts , Psal. L. 8.13 , 14. L I. 16 , 17. Is. I. 11 , 12 , 13 , 14. where God expressed his dislike of their Literal Sacrifices , and his approbation of the Mystical . And so concerning the Sabbath , our Saviour himself pleads the Reason of Necessity , and the approbation of this Reason by the Law it self , by whose Prescriptions the Priests themselves broke the Law of the Sabbath in the Temple , S. Matth. XII 5. and were blameless . But never is it any where pretended by the Apostles , or Apostolical Writers , as our Brethren usually pretend , that any thing is therefore not obligatory because it had no other Obligation besides that of the Old Law . Nay , by this Topick of Reasoning it is generally supposed that in all other Cases the Legal Precedent is still obligatory . And therefore this Law also of confining People to Publick Assemblies must still hold where no particular inconvenience does hinder it , and our Saviours Relaxation of it must only hold in those other Cases wherein there are such particular inconveniences as may be judged inconveniences by the Principles of the Gospel . Thus it was indeed an inconvenience that where all Nations were counted equal , and had an equal Title to be admitted to the Privileges of the Gospel , without any obligation further to leave either their Countries or their Customs , that yet the Publick Worship should be confined to one place , which therefore all other distant places of the whole World ( which was now designed to be converted ) must want for no other reason but their distance . For this looked like an owning that Principle which it is the principal design of the Gospel to overthrow , of the confinement of the Segullah to a particular Nation . And it was but agreeable to this Evangelical Disowning that 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , that as all Nations were in their own Countries , equally capable of being admitted to the Segullah ; so they should enjoy equal Privileges , the Privileges of the Jews Temple-Worship , as well as those of the Synagogue-Worship , and of the two rather those of the Temple-Worship , which were of God's express Institution , than those of the Synagogue-Worship , which seem to have been taken up by Human Prudence . The Communication of these Peculiarities of God's Institution would rather signifie that God did not intend , henceforward , any such Confinement of his favor to a particular Nation , but that all should share alike in his Evangelical Favors . The inconvenience therefore following on this was that all other Nations and Cities , who could not ordinarily meet in those Assemblies , must ordinarily want the Benefit of such Assemblies , and constantly , if they did not take more painful Journies for the sake of their Religion than they were obliged to on account of their Worldly Concernments .

Sect. 12 BUT neither did this Reason , nor this Inconvenience , hold in the Case of particular Cities . The Obligation to the City Assemblies did not signifie such a Confinement of Favor to particular Nations or Countries because this same Obligation was supposed common to all Cities of all Countries and Nations . Nor were they obliged to any greater diligence for communicating with those City-Assemblies for Religion , than they were to the like Secular Assemblies for their Worldly Concernments . All that lived within the Precincts and Jurisdictions , how populous soever , were obliged to a dependence on the City-Assemblies for their secular Government ; and they are no more than these that , by our Principles , are obliged to depend on the same Ecclesiastical Assemblies for their Ecclesiastical Government . And if it was thought necessary that the same multitude should by all Arts be endeared and linked together in one Body for the better management of their Secular Interests : it is no way likely that the Primitive Christians would break them into several Bodies mutually independent on each other , or on any third acknowledged Superior . It is very well known how famous they were for their Love , and how particularly remarked by their Heathen Adversaries themselves . Tertull. Apol. And it is also well known how eagerly they took up and continued any Customs that had been introduced by the Heathens , of that kind , for the more endearing promotion of Love and Unity . Such were their Heteriae , their Jus Hospitii , their Love-Feasts and Kisses of Love . And therefore , tho the Legal Precedent had left them free ; yet they would not have thought themselves at liberty to neglect this way of binding Citizens together , on account of the very Law of Charity . They would rather be for introducing new Endearments and Dependencies , than for dissolving any of those which they had found before . Nor was this Communication of the Publick Assemblies so unpracticable in the most Populous Cities as our Brethren would make it now . Had Preaching been the whole Work of those Assemblies , then indeed no more could partake in them than could make up an Auditory . But when I derive their Obligation to the Publick Assemblies from their Obligation to partake in the Publick Sacrifices ; what difficulty can there be to conceive how the same numbers that communicated in their Popular Heathen Sacrifices might not as easily communicate in the Mystical Sacrifices of Christians ? How much easier was it to distribute so small Proportions of Bread and Wine as came to the share of each , than such vast proportions of Flesh and Wine as were requisite to feast so great a multitude as usually assembled at their Panegyres ? And yet it was not necessary that they should receive their Proportions exactly from the same Land , or in the same place . Whosoever received it within the same Jurisdiction , or from any person employed by the Presidents of those Assemblies was thereby judged to communicate with the Presidents themselves . That must have been the Case of them who carried the Sacrificed Flesh home , or sold it in the Shambles , and of them who obtruded it on the Christians before the Secular Judicatories . And therefore , by this way of Interpretation , all that communicated in the Eucharistical Bread which was carried home ( as that was allowed in those times ) all that communicated in that which was sent to the Absents , and all that communicated with any of the Bishops Presbyters in any other place within his Jurisdiction appointed by the Bishop , were , in the Interpretation of these common Laws and Usages concerning Sacrifices , judged to communicate with the Bishop . And then what difficulty was there then more than now why whole Cities might not communicate with the Bishops ?

Sect. 13 AND this I also infer from the great Anniversary Feasts derived by the most ancient Christians from the Jews . That the Feasts of the Passover and the Pentecost were so derived , every one knows who is any thing acquainted with Antiquity . And that the Feast of Tabernacles was so also is very probable from that very ancient custom of their bringing their First Fruits and Offerings to be blessed by the Bishop . For if they still thought the Legal Precept concerning those Festivals obligatory as to this particular Instance of consecrating the Fruits of their Labors ; the Reason will as well hold for the consecrating the second Harvest in the seventh Month , or the end of the Year according to the Rustick Kalendar , or the old Account before their coming out of Egypt , as for the first ripe Fruits in Easter , or the first ripe Harvest in Pentecost . And it is certain that the Fast of the seventh Month was observed among the Christians of the fifth Century , tho it is hard to say that it was then first taken up by them . The Jewish Original would make one think it rather more ancient . The very celebrating these Feasts with their Mystical Sacrifices in other Cities signified the equalling them with Jerusalem in this very same particular which had before been the Prerogative of Jerusalem . It signified their accounting the City Bishops answerable to the Jewish High Priests , because these Festivals , could not , among the Jews , be solemnized any where but in the Seat of their High Priest . And certainly the design of observing these Festivals in Cities , must have been not for private , but publick Assemblies . By the Rule of Proportion , all the whole Cities must have been , in Reason , as much concerned in these , as the whole Nation of the Jews were in the same Festivals as they were celebrated at Jerusalem . The very introducing therefore of these into other Cities implyed their intending to unite these Cities into intire Bodies as they had before united the Jewish Nation . And considering how very early that Paschal Controversie was , and how much higher the Practice was derived on both sides , both in the Eastern and Western Parts of the Roman Empire ; considering withal how very early those Imitations of the Jews must have been , for that very Reason because they were imitations of them , whom Christians were less disposed to imitate after the destruction of their Temple , and the Dispersion of their Nation , and the National Animosities which from that time forward alienated both sides from each other , when the Jews besides their unwearied Persecutions , cursed the Christians in their Synagogues , as they did in the time of Tryphon , Just. Mart. Dial. cum Tryphone . and the Temptations to yield in hopes of a Restitution of the Jews to their former Greatness were utterly taken away by the Subversion of the Jewish Nation ; and considering withal how very probably they might be continued in consequence of the Reasoning I am speaking of ▪ that nothing was to be laid aside of the Jewish Establishments , but what had been foretold to be of a Temporary Nature , and unsuitable to the State of Mystical Judaism under the Gospel , nor any thing any further than it was so unsuitable : I say , these things being considered , it will be very probable that these things were rather continued from the days of the Apostles to their times , than introduced afterwards . And if so , then it must by the same Reasoning appear , that this uniting the whole Cities in the same common Solemnities was likewise deduced from the same times of the Apostles .

CHAP. X. The City Jurisdictions were Answerable to the Jurisdiction of the High Priest . The CONTENTS .

Tho Christians of the same City had been left to their Liberty whether they would unite , or not , yet , supposing them united , Subjects must have been obliged to their actual Terms of Union . Sect. I. 1. In that Case , it must have been indifferent , and therefore Lawful , for them to unite so . Sect. II. 2. This way of Union being once agreed on , tho the Agreement had been only Human , yet the Obligation to Subjects and Posterity would have been Divine . Sect. III. 3. Tho the particular Instance had not , yet the Power by which even that Instance had been determined , had been from God . Sect. IV. 4. Ch. 10. The Determination of the Limits of Jurisdiction was a thing absolutely necessary for preserving Unanimity among themselves in propagating their common Christianity . Sect. V. 5. The most equal way of determining these Limits , among Equals , is that of Occupation . Sect. VI , VII . This way of determining them will not oblige us to a Recourse to express Scripture . Sect. VIII . All Church Members were obliged , by the ancient Canons , to a Personal Attendance at the Bishops Altar at some solemn Times . Sect. IX . The Ground of that Custom in the Jewish Precedent . Sect. X.

Sect. 1 BUT tho this had been otherwise , and the Christians of the same City had been left to their Liberty , whether they would unite under any common Government or not , as to any general Establishment which God had made concerning it ; yet where a Model was laid , and a Church was already begun , it could not be without breach of Unity that any could resist it , or revolt from it , and therefore were for the future obliged to submit to it . Now that this was actually the Case that all the Christians of the Cities did unite themselves into a Body , is not only clear from the Practice of those times wherein our Adversaries themselves , who are skilled in Antiquity , acknowledge Episcopacy to have obtained , as in the time of S. Cyprian , but also of the times of the Apostles themselves . I mention nothing more to prove it at present but what has elsewhere been mentioned , the Convertibleness of Churches and Cities in the Apostles times . This therefore being supposed to have been their actual Case , whether they were obliged to it or not ; I say , their Sucessors could not infringe this Unity so agreed on without the Sin of SCHISM . I mean such Successors as should attempt it without the consent of their Ecclesiastical Governors for the time being . Such were they against whom S. Cyprian reasoned , which is the Case for which I am concerned at present .

FOR 1. If no Divine Right did oblige Sect. 2 them to unite into one Body , it is withal as certain that no Divine Constitution made it unlawful for them to do so . And in that Case it must have been indifferent , and therefore in their own Power to settle what extent of their Union themselves pleased , which when it was settled might for the future oblige , not only themselves , but their Posterity , at least such a Posterity of their Subjects as I am speaking of . This they might have done by that Right of Human Power which is inseparable from all multitudes that are sui juris , and which must particularly be acknowledged Lawful in Cases undetermined either way by any Divine Interposition . Every single person is acknowledged to have a Power to bind himself and his Heirs , which therefore cannot be denyed to Multitudes . I shall not now digress so far as to debate the Reasonableness and Equity of it , because it is indeed a Subject more proper for another place . I shall now suppose it as a Principle Fundamental to all Societies . This is the only common Principle of Equity , not the less , but the more obliging because not written , as the Laws of Nature and Nations are much more obliging than any Positive Local Statutes , on which the Perpetuity of Societies once established does subsist , by virtue of which the Legislative Power and the particular Laws made by them , do not extinguish with the Legislators Persons ; by virtue of which all Leagues and Covenants made by Predecessors are still reckoned as obliging to Posterity ; without any new Ratification ; by virtue of which the particular consent of every new born Child , and every Stranger is not thought necessary even in those Governments , which did , at first , confessedly arise from the consent of the People . And being Principles of Equity grounded on the common Right of Societies in general , they cannot be denyed to Ecclesiastical Societies more than others , tho they also had been at first confederated by the particular Suffrages of the Laity as well as the Clergy . And

2. THIS being once agreed upon , tho the agreement it self had been only Sect. 3 human , and the Obligation to Posterity human too ; yet the Obligation is Divine . The Sin of Theft is not the less against a Divine Law because the determination of Property depends on Human Constitutions , and is accordingly different in several places . So that as that is Property in one place , which is not so by the Laws of another , it accordingly falls out that what is Justice in that place where it is a Property is Theft in that place where the Property belongs to another . Accordingly tho the determination of the extent of the Union of that Society which we call a Church had been derived only from the agreement of those who at first planted Christianity in a plate , yet the Obligation to preserve the Unity , when once established , may be Divine . None doubts but Parents are as fallible in requiring instances of Obedience from their Children as the Church is . Yet who doubts also but the Sin of Disobedience ( in a matter of its own nature undetermined by the Law of God ) is a breach of a Divine Law , tho the Parents were mistaken in the Prudence of the thing required by them as an instance of Obedience ; and so that it be not unlawful ? Yet such Mistakes plainly shew that the determining the instance of Obedience is from an Authority only Human and Fallible , nay actually mistaken . But whilst the determination extends no farther than their just Parental Power , to things not unlawful , however imprudent , that does not hinder but that the complex Act of Obedience , even in that particular human Instance , is obligatory by the Law of God . Accordingly , supposing the Obligation to external Ecclesiastical Unity to be Divine , and to have been indeed the principal Design of the Positive Establishments of God under the Gospel ; it will also follow , that the Obligation to that same Unity in the extent to which the Human Ecclesiastical Authority had determined it , must also be Divine , supposing that the Human Ecclesiastical Authority had proceeded no further than what was lawful for a Human Authority . Which Reasoning will the rather hold if we consider

3. THAT indeed , tho the particular Sect. 4 Instance be not expresly determined by God , yet the Power , by which even that Instance had been determined , had been from God . For it was God only that could make them sui Juris , and give them the Power of disposing of themselves , and settling Rules for obliging themselves and their Posterity , if the Power had been derived from the consent of the particular Suffrages . But much more it was so , supposing , on our Principles , that the Power of the Church , results from the Power of Sealing Covenants in God's name , and of intitling Persons to the Privileged Society , and to the Privileges of that Society . These were Powers that could come from none but God , and consequently all the Authority resulting from them , must be given together with them . And therefore , let our Adversaries state the ground of this determining the Extent of the Unity of Christian Churches as they please ; yet they cannot state it so as to make the Power of determining the extent of it purely Human. If they call that Power purely Human which is seated in Persons pretending to no more than a human Nature , so the Authority of the Apostles themselves was purely Human , which notwithstanding themselves will not deny to have been also Divine , so that all Affronts and Disobediences to it were resented by God as committed against Him rather than the Persons of the Apostles . So were also Moses and Aaron purely Men , and yet the Murmurings of the Children of Israel are said to have been rather against God than them . So was also the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 to which the Apostle requires the Christians of those times to pay obedience , telling them that They who resisted them resisted the Ordinance of God . If by Human Determination be meant the Determination of Purely Human Prudence , Roman . XIII . 1 , 2. excluding all pretences to any extraordinary Assistances of Divine Revelation ; then such are the fore-mentioned instances of particular Acts of Disobedience required by natural Parents , which yet hinders not but that the concrete Act of Disobedience redounds to God , who , supposing the Parents no otherwise assisted , has notwithstanding obliged Children to Duty to them . If therefore by a purely Human Power be understood a Power wholly due to purely human Combinations , or to which God has not expresly required submission ; then it is plain that this Power of the Church is not purely Human. The Power is , as I said , derived from God , and God has expresly required our Duty to them who are over us in the Lord , and who must give an account for our Souls . And yet this is the only sense they can mean , who make the Determination in such Cases , so purely human as that Men may plead Divine Authority against it , as if the Divine Authority were no way concerned in the Disobedience . Otherwise none thinks it an allowable pretence for Disobedience to an inferior Governor , because the particulars required are not immediately determined by the Prince himself . None thinks it a sufficient Plea in such a Case to pretend that it is not the Prince , but the inferior Governor , that requires such a particular Instance of Obedience ; and that therefore the Disobedience , in such a Case , is not to the Prince , but him ; and that Prosecutions from him would be but causless Persecutions of the Princes Loyal Subjects . The Sentiments of disinterested Mankind in such a Case are clearly otherwise . While the Authority is owned to be from the Prince ; while it is foreseen that there will be Prudential Cases necessary to be determined which cannot , and ought not to be provided for by General Rules ; whilst it is known that the Instance determined is no other than what is necessary for the Practicableness of the principal Ends of Government , and determined only by that Prudential Power which it is presumed the Prince intended to allow him when himself had not limited him by any Positive Prescriptions of his own ; none doubts but Rebellion against such a Determination of an inferior Governor is a Rebellion against the Prince himself , and all Legal Judicatories appointed for such Matters , judge it so . And therefore supposing the first Determinations of this Extent of Churches had been only by the Prudence of the first Ecclesiastical Governors ; yet that will not hinder but that the Obligation might have been Divine . Which will be the rather credible , if we consider

4. THAT this Determination of Sect. 5 the Limits of Jurisdiction , was indeed a thing absolutely necessary for preserving Unanimity among themselves in propagating their common Christianity . For if it might have been in the Liberty of succeeding Itinerants to draw Persons , not only from Paganism but from the Churches already planted , whether on account of personal Emulations , or particular Covenants of Persons proselyted by them , what confusion would this have introduced among them ! How would it have exposed them to the common Enemies of their Profession ? How would it have scandalized and hardened them against all Conviction ? What Bitternesses and Emulations would it have caused among themselves ? What Divisions into considerable Fractions ? What Slanders and Reproaches and mutual Recriminations ? What Weakenings of the common Interest by the inconsiderableness of the single Parties ? These are the natural Fruits our Independent Brethren constantly meet with whenever they practise consequently to their Principles . The Persons , I doubt not , have many of them meant well . But whoever will observe the success of their well-meant Endeavours , will find them more successful at destroying than planting , at dividing Christians than Proselyting new Disciples to that Sacred Name . And if any among them have bestowed pains that way , yet they have had little assistance from their Brethren , which is not so much imputable to the want of Zeal in the Persons , as to their want of Unanimity and Correspondence for acting in a common Body , which has utterly been destroyed among them by those destructive Principles by which themselves had shaken off the Yoak of their own Superiors . Undoubtedly had the Apostles labored under the same Difficulties , they could never have made that progress in converting the World to Christianity , as we see they did . It was therefore absolutely necessary that every one should know his Bounds , and that when they were once settled , all others might be obliged to observe them too , that ( as the Apostles expression is ) none might invade anothers Line . And therefore if there had been no general Rule agreed upon for it by Christ or his Apostles , it must have been permitted to the Prudence of the first Church-Converters . And because their Authority in this particular matter was so fundamental to the success of all their other generous undertakings ; therefore it was necessary that this very particular of their Power should have been from God that so it might lay an Obligation on all others to observe it , who had otherwise been their Equals .

AND 5. The most equal and acknowledged Sect. 6 Right , and that which is sufficient in the Case for which I am concerned , is that of Occupation . This is confessed to make a Right and Property in Cases wherein otherwise , before the Case of Occupation , others had equal Right with the Occupant . Even in the Case of the State of Nature wherein all men had equal Right to every thing , and wherein no Property had been distinguished by Positive Laws , yet Occupation is granted to make a Property . And in things which are yet left common , Occupation does appropriate . The Water in the Fountain is common for any , yet when any has taken a proportion for himself , none has right to that which he has taken but He. And this is also granted to hold true in Jurisdictions , as well as in Possessions . All have an equal Right to uninhabited Countries . Yet when any one has taken Possession , then none has any Right to them but He. So tho , in the propagation of the Christian Religion , none had more Right than others to challenge any particular Precinct for his own Jurisdiction ; yet when a Government had once been set up in a particular place , and a Precinct designed for the Jurisdiction , none can then pretend any Right to the People to be converted within that Precinct but the Government so established . And this Right of Occupation does so appropriate as that all endeavours to deprive of the Right so appropriated are injurious , tho from persons who had otherwise as much Right to it as the Occupant . When a Prince has once seised and possessed an uninhabited Country , no other Prince has thence-forward any Right to it , and the War would be unjust on that Princes side who should endeavour to deprive him of it . And therefore by the same Reason , supposing the Church to have settled a Jurisdiction . Whoever else should invade the Jurisdiction so appropriated , must act unjustly in meddling with that to which he has no Right after the Jurisdiction is once appropriated by Occupation , so that the Sin must lie at the doors of such an Invader . And this Title by Occupation does then especially hold when no more is challenged than what is really occupyed , that is , when the Means of Management are suitable to the Charge that is undertaken .

SHOULD the King of Spain , Sect. 7 on the Discovery of the Continent of America , have laid claim to that whole , and as yet undiscovered Continent , that had been more than could be occupyed by him and his Europaean Dominions , and the same Case it would be in the State of Nature , if any single Person from his Title to particular Dishes of Water , should challenge the whole Fountain : That would be more than himself could use , and therefore could not deprive them of their common Right upon any pretence of Occupation . So it had been , in the Case of propagating Christianity , if a single Person had challenged a District too great for him and his Assistants to manage . But so it it was not in the Case of Diocesan Jurisdiction . A Bishop and his Clergy , whom he might multiply as occasion required it , have oftentimes attempted and succeeded in the Conversion and Government of a Jurisdiction larger than any of our present Diocesses . And therefore in this claim they challenge no more than what is in their Power really to occupy . And it still adds to the Equity of the Title by Occupation , if no more be challenged by it than what is usually challenged by the generality of equally dealing Occupants . What is challenged so , as it cannot be thought partial , when it has the approbation of so many reputed impartial Dealers ; so it is for the common Interest of the whole multitude that the Justice of so many Titles be owned as unquestionable . And tho private Interest be indeed a corrupt Rule of Judging , yet common interest is that Utile , which as the Stoicks say , is so inseparable from Honestum , that we may thence conclude any thing to be indeed Honest , if it be in this sense profitable , and is indeed the Principle on which all Reasonings of this kind are grounded . In deducing the Unwritten Laws of Nature or of Nations , that is judged Lawful , which is for the Interest of Mankind , or of Nations . And therefore the Bishop's Title to a Diocess , that is , a City with its District , was therefore just , because it was agreeable to the general practice of that Age. His Brethren generally as they challenged Jurisdictions , so they had no other Title to their Jurisdictions but this of Occupation , nor narrower Limits of their Jurisdictions than those of a Diocess so explained ; and therefore were in common interest concerned to own this Plea for him as they would expect that he and all others should ratifie their own . This is perfectly agreeable with our Saviour's own Rule of Justice of dealing with others as they design'd to be dealt with themselves .

THIS Title of Occupation is the more proper to be insisted on in this matter , Sect. 8 because as it is the usual way of deciding Titles in Case of equal Right , and where there are no written Laws to determine them ; so it will not oblige any to a direct Recourse to the Scriptures . For it is not necessary , nor reasonable , that we should expect that from Scripture which may otherwise be known , and known certainly , and known by the vulgar of them who are concerned in the Practice of it . As God does not work Miracles ; but in Cases exceeding Human Power ; so neither have we any reason to expect that he should make any Miraculous Discoveries but in Cases exceeding the Discovery of Human Reason . Now what necessity is there that our Adversaries can pretend why God should be obliged to decide such Controversies as these in the Scriptures ? Is it the moment of the thing ? But the greatest and most Piacular Sins that are , are those against the Law of Nature , which yet are supposed known and acknowledged antecedently to Revelation , and therefore do as much concern those who never knew of any Supernatural Revelation as those who have received it . If therefore these greater Sins which are indeed more Criminal than any which are committed against express Revelation , ( and which accordingly do more concern the Goodness of the Divine Providence that his Creatures be sufficiently secured from them ) do notwithstanding not require Revelation when , they , may be sufficiently known otherwise ; there can , on this account , be no need that the now described Principles of natural Equity should be particularly accounted for in the Scripture . Do they therefore expect them there because , tho they might indeed be known sufficiently , yet they could not be known so certainly without express Revelation ? But neither will this oblige God to reveal what may otherwise be known sufficiently without Revelation ( he satisfies the Obligations of his natural Goodness in providing means sufficient , tho it were possible that other means might be thought of which would be more certain ) nor is it indeed true that Truths of this nature could receive any Additional Certainty by being revealed . Revelation it self , as it must be made appear to Us ( and it can no otherwise oblige Us than as it can be made so to appear ) must be resolved into some Propositions neither more certain , nor more evident , than those are , and therefore can add nothing to them unless it be possible to conceive that Conclusions may be more certain or evident than their Premises . Besides that Revelations themselves , when found contrary to such natural Evidence , are either disowned for Genuine , or , ( which turns to the same account ) disowned at least in the Literal Sense , and expounded mystically . Why should this be if evidence of this kind were not , on all hands , owned for greater than can be expected for any positive Revelation ? If they pretend any particular design God had to inform us of things of this nature in the Scriptures , let them produce their evidence of any such design . But that is a task which , I believe , themselves will be willing to be excused from .

Sect. 9 THUS , according to the Notions received in those times , the Bishops answered the High Priests in this very particular , That all within his Jurisdiction , that is , all who , upon other occasions , did ordinarily meet in General Assemblies , were thought obliged to a dependence on those Assemblies in which the Bishop did preside , as the whole Nation of the Jews , where-ever dispersed , were to those of Jerusalem as the fixed residence of the High Priest . This was ordinarily shewn in receiving from the hands of those who were appointed by him in any part of his Jurisdiction , as the whole City of Jerusalem was also holy , and holy in relation to this purpose of Feasting on their Anniversary Sacrifices , wherein I have shewn that our Saviour intended that other Jurisdictions should equal it under the Gospel . Yet there were withal some Customs continued in the Church in favor of a personal Communion with the Bishop as far as was possible that so they might yet keep nearer to the Precedent of the High Priest to whom the Jewish Males were obliged to come from all parts for a personal participation in his Sacrifices . This appeared in the Eulogiae sent from the Mother Churches to the Churches depending on them , especially in those Canons obliging some of each to a personal attendance on the Bishops Altar , as has already been observed by a Learned Friend , Answer to Mr. Baxter's Chur : Hist. ch. 1. p. 35. if those Customs were from the beginning , which cannot easily be disproved . In this they exactly answered this Jewish Original , that they were the chief publick Anniversaries that were particularly designed for them , which were the only Times wherein the Jews themselves were obliged to that attendance . If these Customs were not from the beginning , I am apt to think the reason was not because they were indifferent as to their deference to the Bishops Altar , but because the need of them was supplyed in a way as convenient for communicating multitudes from the same individual Altar , that was by sending Portions to the Absents , for which we have the express Testimony of S. Justin Martyr , as I have elsewhere observed . Even by the Jewish Precedent , their Paschal Lambs , tho they were to be sacrificed in the Temple , yet they were properly to be eaten in their private Houses , which therefore obliged them to no more attendance than to see them sacrificed and brought home . On this account , there seems , for a long while , to have been no need of private Ministrations , unless perhaps with the sick , or the Martyrs and Confessors in Prison , if we may believe some ancient Monuments of that kind . Yet I am withal apt to think that the ordinary way of communicating even such , was , at first , rather of Species already consecrated , than by a distinct and particular Consecration . So it was in the Case of Serapion . Euseb. Hist. VI. 44 . The Presbyter sent the Bread ready consecrated to him , only he ordered the Messenger by whom he sent it , to moisten it before he gave it , probably that the Wine which had been dryed in it , when it was to be kept , according to the practice of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 still continued in the Greek Church , might be thus revived , that so both Species might be received , whereas the consecrated Wine it self was not so capable of preservation . If this were constant , then the Oblation and Consecration were still performed at none but the Bishop's Altar , which was sufficient to make all Communicants with that Individual Altar of the Bishop at what distance soever they were when they so received it .

NOT to repeat what I have elsewhere Sect. 10 said to prove it , this very way of Reasoning from Levitical Presidents might justly make them scrupulous in this matter , when the other Altars , tho subordinate to the chief Altar , were rather connived at , than approved of , under the old Dispensation . Otherwise it is not probable that they would so early have found out such shifts for preserving the Elements for the use of those who desired to receive more frequently than the ordinary returns of their Synaxes . And this doth withal the more confirm me in it that the Deacons were principally confined to the attendance on the Bishop , and not so usually employed in the service of the Presbytery . Hence it is that they were called the Oculi Episcopi ; that even in great Cities where the Presbyters were very numerous , the number of Deacons was very small , generally not exceeding the number of seven , according to the Canon of Neocaesarea , a number small enough for this attendance on the Bishop alone , but very much too small and disproportionable for the Service of the Presbytery ; that , accordingly in Rome they vyed with the Presbyters themselves , which they could have had no pretence for if their Office had obliged them ordinarly to any Service to the Presbyters . But in the ancient Offices of the Church , especially the Eucharistical , the Deacons bore a considerable part , which were therefore not fitted for the use of the Presbyters alone , which makes it probable that it was intended that Presbyters should use the Office of Consecration when they were not with the Bishops . And herein also they answered the Levites , in the Old Law , who had their Offices in the Sacrifices of the Temple so that they could not be performed without them . This Reasoning I take for very agreeable to the Notions of those Times .

CHAP. XI . The Primitive Christians did , and , by the received Principles of those Times were obliged to own their Eucharist for a Mystical Sacrifice . The CONTENTS .

The Sacrifices and High Priesthood of the Gospel are Mystical . Sect. I. Such a Sacrifice necessary under the Gospel as may answer the Publick Sacrifices under the Law . Sect. II. This Mystical Evangelical Sacrifice must be expected from some Positive Institution of the Gospel . Sect. III. Eucharistical Sacrifices most suitable to the State of the Gospel . Sect. IV. Hence probably the very name of Eucharist . Sect. V. Christ's Priesthood being the Priesthood of Melchizedech , his Sacrifice ought also to be the Sacrifice of Melchizedech , that of Bread . Sect. VI. Not only this Reasoning , but the Inference deduced from it , were granted and used by the Ancients , Sect. VII . Suppoposing the Notions of those Times , they must needs have taken the Eucharist for a Mystical Sacrifice . Sect. VIII . On account of it's being a Mystical Sacrifice it had , according to the Principles of those Ages , a juster Title to the Name of a Sacrifice . Sect. IX , X , XI . And to the Thing . Sect. XII ▪ XIII .

Sect. 1 BUT that which more nearly concerns the design of this present way of Reasoning is that these Sacrifices and this High Priesthood of the Gospel were Mystical , and so Mystical as not only to signifie , but also to perform , what was , according to the sense of those times , to be expected from Mysteries . Upon the proof of this depended the whole esticacy of these Principles , in reference to the Mystical Unity , which is indeed the only Unity that is beneficial , and consequently in reference to the Sin and Mischief of SCHISM , which can be no otherwise formidable than as it is a dissolution of this Mystical Unity . And this also they did believe , and had not reason to believe themselves mistaken in believing so , that the Eucharist was the Mystical Sacrifice performing the same thing under the Gospel as the External Bloody Sacrifices under the Law , and that their Bishops were the Mystical High Priests exactly answering them in that very particular Office of uniting with the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 ; when these things are made appear , I know not what can be desired further to shew how prudently , and withal how solidly , they proceeded in this way of managing this Dispute .

SUPPOSING therefore , that this was the way of stating the Controversie Sect. 2 between the Primitive Christians and the Jews , that the Christians did not pretend to oppose the Jewish with a new Religion , but only to oppose the Literal Judaism with a Mystical one ; the consequence of this would naturally be this , that as they did not deny , but mysticize , the Religion , so neither would they deny , but mysticize all those things which the Jews of those times insisted on , and gloryed in , as the greatest Privileges and Advantages of their Religion . I might give Examples in other matters if I were not unwilling to digress . But to confine my self more particularly to my present Subject , one of the things the Literal Jews boasted of as Privileges of their Profession was the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Rom. IX . 4 . meaning thereby the whole Service of the Temple , but especially that of Sacrifice . Accordingly the Christians challenged their 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , their Mystical Service . So I rather understand it than as it is commonly translated Reasonable Service . So 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is Mystical Milk , opposed to Milk in a Literal Sense . And that by 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 the Apostle himself understood the Sacrifices , ●ppears from his application , when he makes the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 to consist in presenting their bodies a living sacrifice , holy and acceptable unto God . Rom. XII . 1 . But this kind of Sacrifice was not sufficient to supersede the publick bloody Sacrifices , for it was as obliging under the times of Judaism , when notwithstanding those publick Sacrifices were thought and granted to have been obliging also . The Sacrifice therefore that must , in this way of Reasoning , at least equal the Mystical with the Literal Judaism , and withal disoblige the Mystical Jew from the use of those publick Sacrifices , must be such as would perform all for which those publick Sacrifices were intended , to as beneficial , tho greater , purposes . And therefore the publick Sacrifices being , as has been shewn , designed as Ceremonies of Admission to a League and Covenant , and intimate Union with God ; such a kind of Sacrifice was requisite to be asserted to our Mystical Israelitism , as might engage God in Covenant with Us , and admit us to a Mystical Union with him .

THIS therefore being granted , it Sect. 3 was also further plain that this Mystical Sacrifice was to be expected by positive Prescription of God himself , and therefore must be found among the positive Prescriptions of the Gospel . For no external Rites could either oblige God , or unite the Worshipers to him by any natural efficacy of the things themselves , and therefore what efficacy soever they were conceived to have must wholly be derived from the Divine Pleasure and Appointment , which it is withal impossible for us to know without positive and express Revelation . Whatever might be said concerning the natural virtue of these Rites for conciliating the good will of the ordinary Daemons who were thought corporeal , and to have Vehicles capable of being naturally affected by Bodies suitable to their nature ; yet the Supreme Being was expresly exempted from all such natural influences by that very same Philosophy which made the others obnoxious to such influences . So we are assured by Synesius , than whom none better understood the whole Hypothesis of that Philosophy which was generally received in the Primitive Times of Christianity . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Ep. 67. ad Theoph. For the Mysteries of the Christians are not so understood , as if the Deity were under any necessity of following the Materials or Words made use of in the Mystical Rites on account of any natural attractive Power in them , which may indeed be the Case of the Mundane Spirit ; but so as that God is present at them from an inclination free from passion , and proper , and becoming a Deity . This Synesius had from the Oracles , especially the Chaldee ones collected first in Verse by Julian sirnamed 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , a Chaldaean , Suid. and after commented on by Porphyry in his 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Passages to this purpose may be seen in the Oracles as extant at present , and in other Fragments of Oracles of Porphyries Collection mentioned by Euseb. Pr. Eu. IV. 9 . V. 8 , alluded to by Synesius himself de Insomn . and Niceporus Gregoras upon him . And this Notion of the Exemption of the Deity from all influence of Corporeal Beings is , at large , insisted on by Iamblichus in his excellent Work de Myster . Egypt . So that the Supreme Being ( which was that which both Parties , the Literal and Mystical Jews , appropriated to themselves as the Segullah ) was on all hands owned free from all Obligations but those of his own arbitray pleasure and appointment , which cannot , as I said , appear to us but by his express Promise and Revelation . And yet even among those inferior Daemons , as no Sacrifices were effectual but those which were suitable , and accordingly each Daemon had his peculiar Sacrifices , and upon extraordinary occasions of expiating the displeasure of some unknown Daemon , some appointments yet more singular ; so the knowledge of the Sacrifices which were peculiar , was reserved to the Daemon himself , and it was thought piacular for any mortal to obtrude himself into the Secrets of such a Daemon without his leave and his discovery , and they were accordingly accounted Divine Persons who first acquainted mortals with Discoveries of this nature . So that if it were needful we might take the Proposition for universally granted in those Ages , That no Sacrifices could oblige the Deity without Positive Revelation either of their natural influence , or that it was his actual pleasure to be obliged by them . And therefore these Mystical Sacrifices can only be expected from the Positive Institutions of the Gospel .

IF therefore we can only expect these Sect. 4 Mystical Evangelical Sacrifices among the positive Institutions of the Gospel , the enquiry then cannot be difficult . There are but two Institutions of this kind pretended , and whether of these was more probably intended to supply the Office of Sacrifices will easily be known by the Analogy they bear to the Sacrifices then received . That which came nearest them was , in all likelyhood intended by God himself to supply their use in this new Institution . And this will then be best known if we first remember what kind of Sacrifices were granted by the Christians to be really useful , and therefore of eternal Obligation , even under the state of Mystical Israelitism . Ch. 10. It is certain they thought some Sacrifices designed by God himself as temporary , and what they thought so , they could not think themselves obliged to continue . Now what they thought so will best appear by these Reasonings against the Jews on this very Subject concerning Sacrifices . Therein they shew , that it was impossible that the blood of Bulls and Goats could be available for the expiation of Sin , Ebr. X. 4 . which Reasoning does indeed proceed against Expiatory Sacrifices , such of them especially as were to be of the Blood of Brutes , and needed Repetition , which the Apostle makes an Argument of the imperfection , not only of such Sacrifices themselves , but of the Dispensation also which was provided of no better Sacrifices , and for that reason concludes them not agreeable to the Dignity of the Gospel . But in Eucharistical Sacrifices , no Expiation was pretended to be made , but only a return of acknowledgments for favors received , and among them there was the Liba , the Meat-Offering and the Drink-Offering , which indeed seems to have been most proper to such Sacrifices , almost exactly answering our Eucharist . These are the Sacrifices which are there approved where the other Sacrifices are rejected , Ch. 11. the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Psal. L.14 . In these no Sins were commemorated , and therefore they must needs have been thought most agreeable with a state of perfect expiation . These are common to a perfect as well as an imperfect condition , and therefore more likely to be of eternal use , and not antiquated with the temporary shadows of the Law . And , which comes more exactly home to my design , these were , according to the Customs of all Nations who admitted any Sacrifices , used on such occasions when good News were brought them , they did 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and therefore extremely suitable to the very Title of the Gospel as an 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Psal. LXVII . 12 . or LXVIII . 11 . Is. XL. 9 . LII . 2 . Nah. I. 15 . Rom. X. 15 . the very word taken up by the Christians from the Hellenistical Version of the Old Testament , and thence derived by the Apostle himself in the Epistle to the Romans . Nay , according to the sense of the Heathen Philosophers themselves who undertook the defence of Religion against the Epicureans ( and who very much influenced the Hellenists , as those did also the Primitive Christians ) these were most agreeable to the primitive design of Sacrifices , I mean not only as they were Eucharistical , but as they were confined to the Liba without Blood , and were withal owned as most suitable to the Dignity of the Supreme Deity . So the farre litabo in Persius , the thure pio & saliente micâ in Horace , the Oracle concerning Hermioneus in the Notes of Hierocles on the Golden Verses . Both these things are not only granted , but also proved by one of the greatest Enemies of the Christian Religion in a just Discourse upon that Subject . Porphyr . de Abstin . And upon this Supposition , it was very natural for the Primitive Christians to take it up , not only as they challenged to themselves that Right of the Segullah only , of worshiping the Supreme Deity , but also as they insisted on that , among other particulars , in their Reasonings against the common imputation of Novelty , that they reduced all things to their first Originals , and those Originals more ancient than the Mosaick Law which was urged against them . Thus our Saviour in the Case of Divorces . Thus S. Paul in that of Abraham's Justification by Faith before he was circumcised , to name no more at present .

ACCORDINGLY I am very Sect. 5 apt to think that this is indeed the true Original of the name of Eucharist as applyed by the Primitive Christians to this very Sacrament , that they intended thereby to signifie that this was , among them , to perform the Office of a Sacrifice of Thanksgiving . The very name was thus commonly applyed to the Bread it self in the time of S. Justin Martyr . So he tells us expresly : 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Apoll. II. p. 97. And this is indeed a more natural account than that which is there alluded to by that blessed person , as if it were called so from the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , the Thanksgiving and Blessing that was used over it in the Office of Consecration . This giving of Thanks was no more than what was generally used by the Christians of those times in their common Meals , which yet were never therefore called Eucharists . Nor is it to be thought strange that the word thus used in the Abstract should be thus applyed . The ordinary form used concerning the other sort of Sacrifices which were expiatory is to call them 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. Yet the very Abstract name of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is also used concerning them . So the Priests are said to eat the Sins of the People : Hos. IV. 8 . because they did indeed eat their shares of those Sacrifices which were offered for the Sins of the People . This expression exactly answers our present Case .

THUS far the Christians might Sect. 6 have been led into this substitution of the Eucharist as the proper Evangelical Sacrifice , even from the popular received Notions of the Hellenists concerning Sacrifices . But yet , in this Reasoning from the Old Testament Prefigurations even of Evangelical Sacrifices , they might yet justifie a further Change from the common usages as designed by God himself in that Sacrifice which he intended should last for ever . Thus having shewn that Christ's Priesthood was not after the order of Aaron , but a new Order , that of Melchizedec , to which perpetuity was expresly appropriated by the Psalmist ; the same Reasoning would then hold for an alteration in the Sacrifice which is used expresly by the Apostle himself to prove an alteration of the Covenant . If there be any difference , it would rather be here that the Reasoning proceeds more strongly in the former Case . For the Notion of Sacrifice is more intrinsecally involved in the very Notion of a Priest , who has no other Relation to a Covenant than that of a Mediator , nor mediates any otherwise than as the Covenant it self was entred into by such Sacrifices wherein it was his Office to preside . As therefore his concernment in Sacrifice is fundamental to his concernment in the Covenant , so also the change of the Covenant must necessarily suppose a change in the Sacrifice as antecedent to it . And this would bring the Reasoning yet more close to the Materials of our Christian Sacrifice as consisting of the very Elements of Bread and Wine . For if our Saviour's Priesthood was to be of the Order of Melchizedec , then his Sacrifice must also be of the same kind as those of Melchizedec . And if we may again reason concerning the Sacrifice of Melchizedec from what is mentioned concerning it in the Story , as the Apostle concludes his being without Father or Mother , or Genealogy , or beginning of Days , or end of Life : because the History of Genesis mentions neither his Father , nor Mother , nor Genealogy , &c. Then for the same reason we may conclude that he had no other Sacrifice but that of Bread and Wine because no other is mentioned in that place . Which Inference will the rather hold because of the Connexion of that Action with the mention of his Priesthood . So it is in the Text , Melchizedec king of Salem brought forth bread and wine : Gen. XIV . 18 . and he was the priest of the most high God . The Vulgar reads it , Erat enim , with a Causal Particle . And unless some such thing be understood , it will not be easie to give any tolerable account of the pertinency and connexion of the former part of the Verse with the later . For what relation could his bringing forth Bread and Wine have with his Priesthood , if not as the proper Sacrifice which concerned him as a Priest ? Why should this Mystical Priesthood be mentioned as a Precedent of a future Priesthood ( as it was supposed to be by those who used this Reasoning ) unless it were also known what Sacrifice was to be proper to him , seeing that , in the same Reasoning , it was also granted that every Priest ought to have something to offer ? And what was so proper for Melchizedec as a Priest as to meet Abraham with congratulatory 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Sacrifices for his Victory , and to entertain him and his Army with a Feast upon those Sacrifices ? And why should Abraham return his thanks in a way becoming him as a Priest by giving him the Tithes and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 of his Spoils , the usual way of expressing their thankfulness to their Gods for Victories , according to the customs of those times , and which the Apostle understands to have concerned him as a Priest , when he thence concludes the preference of the Priesthood of Melchizedec to that of Levi who payed Tithes to him in Abraham ; unless himself had been first treated by him as a Priest in that entertainment of him ? Whatever may be thought of the Reasoning it self as abstracting from Inspiration ; yet certainly considering the Opinions and Circumstances of that Age , there can be little reason to doubt but that this would have been the actual Reasoning of persons so circumstantiated , and so perswaded . And then considering them as persons for whom Providence was so peculiarly concerned as not to leave them to their own Reasonings in matters of great consequence , but only in such cases where their Reasonings , how fallible soever in themselves , were yet secure from actual error ; it plainly follows that if they were left to them here , they must here also be secure from actual error . But then especially this Argument will hold when the whole Reasoning is grounded on such Principles , as are otherwise allowed and supposed by such persons , whom all grant to have been assisted , in those very Discourses wherein they are supposed , by a Supernatural and Divine Inspiration .

IT hence appears how naturally this Sect. 7 Reasoning , so agreeable to the Principles then granted by the Christians , does proceed on this Supposition , that the Eucharist was their Mystical Sacrifice . I might now proceed to shew that not only the Reasoning , but the Conclusion it self , was also owned by them , that they did own the continuance of Sacrifices under the times of Christianity , and particularly that they took the Eucharist for the Sacrifice proper to those times , if this had not been a common place usually debated between Us and the Romanists , where our Writers and our Church too , do usually grant as much as I am concerned for , that it is indeed an Eucharistical Sacrifice , and that this is the true sense of those passages of Antiquity which are produced for this purpose . And I have shewn that their Principles of Reasoning were against the repetition of Propitiatory Sacrifices , which is that which is denyed by our Writers . I am unwilling to inlarge on things already commonly observed , especially when what I am concerned for is already granted me on all hands , as it is here . I only observe now that this particular Reasoning is the Reasoning of S. Cyprian : Item in Sacerdote Melchizedec Sacrificii Dominici Sacramentum praefiguratum videmus , secundùm quod Scriptura Divina testatur & dicit ; & Melchizedec Rex Salem protulit panem & vinum . Fuit autem Sacerdos Dei summi , & benedixit Abraham . Quòd autem Melchizedec typum Christi portaret , declarat in Psalmis Sp. S. ex personâ Patris ad Filium , dicens ; Ante Luciferum genui te : tu es Sacerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchizedec . Qui ordo utique hic est de Sacrificio illo veniens & inde descendens , quòd Melchizedec Sacerdos Dei summi fuit , quòd panem & vinum obtulit , quòd Abraham benedixit . Nam quis magis Sacerdos Dei summi quàm Dominus noster Jesus Christus ? qui sacrisicium Deo Patri obtulit , & obtulit hoc idem quod Melchizedec obtulerat , id est , panem & vinum , suum scilicet corpus & sanguinem . Ep. LXIII . Pannel . I mention this the more particularly , because S. Cyprian is our principal Author in the whole Argument from One Priesthood and One Altar , that the Reader may see how accurately , what is said concerning it , is agreeable to his mind . Now these things being put together , That this whole Reasoning , both Premises and Conclusion too , were owned by them , and that they were withal taken up from such Originals as could not fail them , it plainly follows that the whole Reasoning was solid as urged against the Ancient SCHISMATICKS , at least as to this Particular , That the Eucharist is a Mystical Sacrifice .

BUT that I may as little urge them with Authorities as is possible , who , I Sect. 8 know , have little reverence for any Authority that is purely Human , let me intreat our Adversaries to remember , how the Hellenists themselves conceived the Sacrifices available for procuring the Benefits expected by them , and then let themselves judge whether the Eucharist may not reasonably be allowed to perform the Office of a Mystical Sacrifice . In the Reasonings of the Hellenists the Archetypal High Priest was the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , the Adytum was Heaven , the Sacrifice that which was there spiritually offered to the Father . This Sacrifice was indeed acknowledged alone for the true Sacrifice as the Platonists used the term of Truth only concerning the Archetypals , and the external Sacrifices themselves were no further thought to deserve the name of Sacrifices than as they represented and transacted and applyed the Benefits of that invisible Sacrifice . Which being supposed , it will plainly follow that , if the Christian Eucharist do perform the same Office of representing , and transacting , and applying that invisible Sacrifice , this will have as just a claim to the name of a Sacrifice as those visible Slaughters of Beasts had . Now to bring this home to the Eucharist , what is there that could be doubted of by any who lived in those times ? that can be doubted of even by our Brethren themselves ? Is it that Christ is the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 who was supposed by the High Priest who offered the invisible Sacrifice ? Is it that his invisible Sacrifice is most efficaciously represented and applyed by his external Oblation of himself upon the Cross , so that even those External Legal Sacrifices could no otherwise represent and apply the Virtue of this invisible Sacrifice than as they primarily represented this bloody Evangelical Sacrifice on the Cross , and therefore hence derived immediately their very Title to the Name of Sacrifices ? Is it that this Blessed Sacrament was designed purposely for this end , to represent that Sacrifice of our Blessed Lord upon the Cross , and more immediately so designed than those Legal Sacrifices themselves ? I suppose our Adversaries themselves will not doubt but that the Eucharist was designed , at least , to represent this Prototypical Sacrifice upon the Cross. But can they indeed think that Representation was all , and that Application was not designed also ? Was there no Application in those Representations under the Law ? Wherein then consisted the material Benefit of those Representations ? Was this indeed the glorious Privilege of the Segullah to have great things only represented to them ? Or are the Evangelical Representations less efficacious than the Legal ? What some of our dividing Adversaries may deny I know not ; But I cannot foresee any thing in this Reasoning that would be doubtful either by the Reasonings of the New Testament , or the Sentiments of the most Ancient Times of Christianity .

THUS they must unavoidably Sect. 9 have been obliged to acknowledge the Eucharist for , at least , a Mystical Sacrifice . Nor let any one think it a diminishing expression to call it Mystical . Whatever People may think of it who judge of ancient things and opinions by present Notions and significations of Terms much changed from their ancient Design : yet whoever would judge truly concerning them , what either the Ancients would have thought reasonable , or what himself would have thought so if he had lived in the advantageous Circumstances of the Ancients for deriving things from their first and purest Originals , must reason from the Notions of Terms as then understood if he would infer Consequences agreeably to their minds that used them , or know what was really solid reasoning then . And if we consider the Notion of a Mystical Sacrifice as understood then , it will be far from diminishing either the propriety of the signification , or the efficacy of the thing . As to the propriety of the signification , it has appeared that the prime signification of Terms was , according to the Platonists ( from whom these Notions were first derived , tho afterwards further confirmed by Revelation ) principally applyed to the Archetypal Incorporeal Beings , which are therefore called 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , so that all Corporeal Beings have the same name communicated to them only by extrinsecal Denomination ( to use the Language of the Modern Schools ) from them , as not truly worthy of the name any further than as they were related to them . This very Language is imitated by the Sacred Writers themselves . Thus the true Tabernacle is the Incorporeal Idaeal Tabernacle , which the Lord pitched and not man . Heb. VIII . 2 . The true Riches are the invisible enjoyments of Heaven . S. Luk. XVI . 11 . Christ is the true Light , not the sensible but the intellectual Light , which inlighteneth every man that cometh into the world . S. John I. 9 . His Flesh is meat indeed , and his Blood is drink indeed . S. John VI. 55 . Neither the Subject nor the Predicate are here to be understood corporeally . So Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands , which are the figures of the true , but into Heaven it self . Heb. IX . 24 . By the emphatical connexion of Heaven it self immediately with the mention of the true holy place it plainly appears that the Apostle understood them as synonymous . According therefore to this Mystical Way of speaking the Heavenly Invisible Sacrifice offered by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Heaven will be the true Sacrifice from whence all Corporeal Sacrifices must derive their claim that would pretend to the name of Sacrifices .

BUT then there seems indeed to Sect. 10 have been this difference between the Notions of the Christians , and the Hellenists , in this matter . The Hellenists who knew nothing of the Incarnation of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , nor consequently the Sacrifice of his human Body , did notwithstanding conceive him to officiate in Heaven as a Priest , and there to offer Invisible Sacrifices . What could those Sacrifices be but the Sacrifices of the Brutes performed here below by the Priest , only represented in a more spiritual manner ? But there the whole Benefit was to be ascribed to the invisible Sacrifice , not only on that general Principle received among them , that all Corporeal Beings were derived from their Incorporeal Ideas , so that the spiritual Representation was not derived from the Corporeal Sacrifice , but on the contrary ; but also because the external Sacrifice of Brutes was indeed unsuitable to the Benefit expected from it , of expiating Sin , even upon a Corporeal Account . On the contrary our Saviour's External Sacrifice was suitable , and therefore if it any way depended on the invisible Representation , it must only be on this general account , as this Corporeal Body ( as I may speak properly according to this Hypothesis ) was derived from the Incorporeal , as the Body offered on the Cross was derived from the Body prepared for him before time in the Divine Decree . However it had certainly this advantage above all other Corporeal Sacrifices , that the virtue of this was derived immediately from the Incorporeal , the virtue of all other Sacrifices only mediately as they were Representations of this . And this was accordingly their Doctrine , that the virtue of all the Jewish Sacrifices was to be derived immediately , even from this Corporeal Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross , as the virtue of an unsuitable Corporeal Sacrifice was to be resolved into that of a suitable one , tho Corporeal also . This therefore being so , it plainly followed , that this Corporeal Sacrifice of our Saviour on the Cross had the same relation to all other Corporeal ones as the Incorporeal Sacrifice had to Corporeal ones in general , and therefore on the same account deserved the name of the true Sacrifice among Corporeal ones , as the Incorporeal did simply .

Sect. 11 THIS was also a Consequence admitted by them who reasoned on this Hypothesis . The Manna which came down from Heaven was , without doubt , Corporeal , and yet it is called the true Bread as descending from Heaven , S. John VI. 31 , 32. as more immediately Copyed from the Incorporeal Ideal Manna which these Mystical Discourses took to be the food of Angels . Thus all the Legal Ceremonies are said to be figures of the true , Heb. IX . 24 . because all things befel them in a Figure ( as the Vulgar has it ) and were written for our Admonition , upon whom the ends of the world are come , 1 Cor. X. 6 , 11. And this I take to be the true Reason , why the Gospel , in opposition to the Law , is called the Truth . The Law was given by Moses , but Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ : John I. 17 . and in the whole Reasonings of the Epistle to the Hebrews , and those of S. John . Because the whole external State of the Law was indeed a Representation of the whole external State of the Gospel as that which was indeed more suitable , in the whole contrivance of it , for the real exhibition of those things which were only shadowed in the Law . And this was agreeable to the practice of the Platonists , from whom the Christians received it , to give the names of Originals to inferior Beings in comparison of other Beings inferior to themselves . Thus they make the Son a 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in respect of the Father , but a 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in respect of Man , as also Man a 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in respect of inferior Beings , but a 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in respect of the Son . So they make the Son only an 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in respect of the Father , but an Original in respect of all others , whence the name of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. And even the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , tho it be a Divinity in regard of other inferior Beings , yet is made an 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 only in respect of the Son , and an 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in respect of the Father . Accordingly the Externals of the Gospel may be only 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in respect of the Heavenly Originals , and yet 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 as Archetypal to all other Externals even of Divine Institution . To make application therefore of my present Subject , and withal to speak suitably to the now described Principles , the first Archetypal Sacrifice of all visible ones will be that of our Saviour on the Cross , and of all others each will have the better Title to the name of a Sacrifice , as it comes nearer to that . If therefore the Eucharist be the immediate 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Copyed out from that , as the Christians then supposed all the Externals of the Gospel to be more immediate ; then it will follow that the Legal Sacrifices themselves cannot otherwise challenge the name of Sacrifices than as they are Copyed from the Eucharist as that which was immediately shadowed by them . And in this way of Reasoning , as the Eucharist , on account of its being the Copy which was imitated in the ancient Popular Sacrifices , will have a better Title to the Name of Truth , as being that of which the ancient Sacrifices were indeed Resemblances ; so it will have a juster claim to the very name of a Sacrifice , on account of its being a Mystical One .

AND as to the name , so also to the Sect. 10 thing . In truth all Title to the Name ought to be grounded on the nature of the thing . That will best deserve the name of a Sacrifice which best performs the Office , and confers the Benefits designed in the use of a Sacrifice . This is agreeable to the reason of the thing , and was so also to the sentiments of those Ancients who used this way of Reasoning . They therefore ascribed the Truth to these Archetypal Beings , because they thought them really to perform the Office signified by the name . Nay more , they did not think the sensible Beings to have any real influence in performing it , but that whatever efficacy they had was to be wholly ascribed to the Relation they had to these Originals . In which way of Reasoning the greatest Mysteries must be most effectual , and by how much the more Mystical any thing is , that is , by how much nearer any thing approaches the first Archetypal Beings of all , by so much the more efficacious it must be proportionably . And thus the Eucharist coming nearer the first Archetypal visible Sacrifice , that of our Saviour upon the Cross , must therefore have more efficacy , even as a Sacrifice , than those which represented it only at a distance , as the Jewish Sacrifices did . So the Apostle seems to reason in a like Case , That because the Tabernacle was only a Figure for the time then present , Heb. IX . 9 . therefore the Gifts and Sacrifices that were offered in it could not make him who did the service perfect . And again , That the Law having a shadow of good things to come , Heb. X.I. and not the very Image of the things , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , could never with those Sacrifices , which they offered year by year continually , make the comers thereunto perfect . It could not have been his design , because it was not for his Interest , to deny the efficacy of the Institutions of the Law in order to the Benefits designed by it . That had been to have reflected on the Divine Institutions , even for the Seasons for which they were appointed . His design therefore must have been so to grant the efficacy of those appointments to them who lived under that Dispensation , as notwithstanding to oblige them to receive the Gospel when it should be revealed and proposed to them . And that he does very sufficiently by shewing that whatever efficacy they had , even in their season , was notwithstanding not derived from themselves , but from their Evangelical Originals which were represented by them . This did indeed oblige them to receive the Evangelical Originals for their own sake , when they had already received the Legal Representations only for their Relation to them , that is , to receive that Power immediately from themselves which , on this supposition , they could not have received from those Legal Representations any otherwise than as influenced by them .

NOW this he proves from this Sect. 13 Principle of the Hellenistical Platonists , that the Archetypal Beings were the Causes of all particulars , the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 of all particular 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 of all particular 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 received , and that the Ectypal Beings had no other influence in producing others of the same kind , than what was received from the Archetypal . Supposing therefore that the Institutions of Moses were not Originals , but Copies , ( which they proved from that command to Moses that he should make all things according to the Pattern shewed him in the Mount ) supposing also that the Institutions of the Gospel were indeed those Originals from whence those Legal ones were Copyed , which was the main thing aimed at in all those Mystical Reasonings of the Primitive Christians ; these two Consequences plainly followed , Both that the Legal Institutions did not perform what they were designed for by any Native Virtue of their own , and that whatever was performed by them , was no otherwise performed by them than as the influences of the Evangelical Originals were derived by such instituted Representations . And it was very agreeably hereunto that the Evangelical Originals are usually called everlasting , the Legal Representations only Temporary . Thus the Gospel was called the Everlasting Gospel , Rev. XIV . 6 . Heb. XIII 20 Dan. IX . 24 . Heb. IX . 12 . V. 15 . the Evangelical Covenant , the Everlasting Covenant , the Righteousness of the Gospel , an Everlasting Righteousness , and the Redemption of the Gospel answering that of the Jews out of Egypt ( is called an eternal Redemption , and the Evangelical Inheritance ( answering the Jewish Canaan ) is an eternal Inheritance , and the Legal Tabernacle a Figure for the time then present . The very same attribute of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 was by the Platonists ascribed to their Ideae , and the same Temporariness to their Ectypal Beings . Nor was this Notion of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 understood only as it might signifie 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , or what we call Eternity a parte post , as the Institutions of the Gospel were to last to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , whereas those of the Law were , at first , designed no further than the later days . Act. XV. 18 . It was also understood as it signified 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , or what we call Eternity a parte ante , which is the same with that Phrase of the New Testament , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , so often used to express the Antiquity of Evangelical Institutions , Heb. I. 2 . as the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is the same thing with the making of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . This was also a thing insisted on by the Primitive Christians for vindicating their Religion from the aspersion of Novelty with which it was upbraided by Adversaries of both sorts , both Jews and Heathens . This they proved by shewing that the Institutions of the Gospel were prefigured , and so predicted before the Law of Moses ; that even in the Law , these were they which were designed by those Legal Shadows , and from which the Legal Rites themselves derived their Influences . By all which it appears how solidly the Primitive Christians proceeded in grounding their Discourses against SCHISM on this supposition , that the Christian Eucharist was the Christian Sacrifice , and to all material intents and purposes the more properly and more effectually , for being a Mystical One .

CHAP. XII . The same Christians did , and , by the same Principles , were obliged to , own their Bishops for Mystical High Priests . The CONTENTS .

The Bishops were thought to represent a Divine Person . The seven Angels of the Divine Presence had their Office in the restoring of Souls . Sect. I. To these S. John accommodated his precise number of seven Churches in Asia . Sect. II. Sometimes the Bishops represented the Person of Christ himself , and then his seven Angels are represented by the seven Deacons . Sect. III. How fitly this agreed to the Circumstances of the first Beginnings of Christianity . Sect. IV. The name Bishop seems originally designed to imply a Mystical Representative of a Divine Person . Sect. V. The Comparisons of the Bishops in Ignatius to God , and Christ , &c. accounted for . Sect. VI. The Mystical Representations of Ecclesiastical Officers in the Revelations . Sect. VII . There could be no Mistake in taking their Church-Officers for Mystical Representatives . Sect. VIII . The force of the Inference relating to Union with Christian Bishops . Sect. IX . Tertullian's Futuri Judicii Praejudicium explained . Sect. X. How consequently the Primitive Christians reasoned hence for proving those who were disunited from their Bishops to be also deprived of the Mystical Invisible Union with Christ himself . Sect. XI . And of the Benefits of that Invisible Union . Sect. XII , XIII , XIV .

AND as they thus took the Eucharist Sect. 1 for a Mystical Sacrifice , so they also took their Bishops for Mystical High Priests . I have already shewn that they conceived their Bishops to be answerable to the Levitical High Priesthood . I now proceed to shew that they understood them answerable in a Mystical Sense . I observed that the Hierophanta in the Mysteries represented a Divine Person . The same , in all probability , were the thoughts of the Primitive Christians concerning their Bishops . This I take to be the true design of that Description of the Majestatick Presence in the Revelations , to represent the Divine Presence and Assistance in the Church in as lively a way as was possible according to the ways of Mystical Representation received in those times . In the Utensils of the Tabernacle there were to be seven Lamps . De Vit. Mos. L.III. p. 455 , 456. Ed. Turneb . Exod. XXV . 37 . These Philo understands to represent the seven Planets , and indeed very suitably to the Notions of the Egyptian Philosophy then received . The seven Spheres belonging to them made up the Harmonia through which they thought the Soul was to pass in its 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , its Ascent to its Heavenly Original . And as they thought that the confinement of the Soul to these inferior Regions depended on the Grossness of the Vehicles to which it was nailed ( 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , if I mistake not , is their word ) by their passions ; so they thought that at the passage of each of these it was to leave some Vehicle and some Passion behind it , what was to be left at each is particularly accounted for in the Poemander of Hermes . Poemand . c. 1. But then , as in all the sensible World they made something answerable in the Intellectual which was to preside in managing that whole design for which those sensible parts were intended by God , so here also they placed seven Spirits , or Daemons , or Angels , for that purpose of admitting and purging the Soul from those things which were thought to hinder the Soul in its Ascent . These I take to be the seven Angels so usually received by , not only the Modern Jews , but those also who lived in the first Beginnings of Christianity ( still alluded to as the peculiar Satellites of the Divine Presence , and employed only on Affairs of the greatest consequence ) and that even in the Sacred Writings themselves . And because they were so concerned in transacting the Soul's passage to Heaven , therefore the several Speeches of the Souls to them are transcribed from the ancient Hereticks ( who took occasion for most of their Heresies from some misapplication of that Philosophy ) in Origen . Contr. Cels. L.VI. p. 296. Ed. Cantabrig . Therefore the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 or Petasus , in allusion to that of Mercury in the Poets , which Sophia was to put on her Seed , to make them invisible to those Angels in the Doctrine of the Valentinians , that I may not instance in other fancies of the Hereticks of those times alluding to these Notions as commonly received . Therefore it is that the Orders of Angels are said to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 of those below them in reference to the initiating them in these great Mysteries , alluding to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 used in the ordinary Mysteries , as Fire and Light in the Ebrew Idiom signifie the same thing , and accordingly Prometheus's stealing Fire from the Chariot of the Sun is nothing else but his 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 of these Mysteries . And as this is granted concerning all Superior Orders in reference to their Inferiors ; so , on this Hypothesis , it appears how particularly it was applicable to these seven Angels in relation to the initiating of human Souls .

Sect. 2 AND as these Mysteries were principally designed for the Benefit of Souls , their 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , or return from their Exile from Heaven ; so from hence it appears how proper it was in these Prophetick Visions , which were generally conducted by Mystical Representations , to personate God as particularly attended by these seven Angels rather than any of the rest of his train . Accordingly S. John's Design being particularly to affect the Churches he writes to , those of the Lydian or Proconsular Asia , with a very feeling sense of the Divine Presence among them ( which might add the greater authority to his several Exhortations respectively ) he represents our Saviour in a human visible shape ; and that the rest of the Scene might be suitable ( that is , sensible also as well as himself ) he personates the Angels by their Visible Bishops , that so Christ might be apprehended as present with the Bishops as God was supposed to be where ever these seven Spirits were which were peculiarly deputed to represent the Majestatick Presence . This I take to be the reason why he confines his number , not that by any Geographical Distinction those seven Cities were incorporated into a Body more than others of that Province , but that he had a particular regard to that number of those Angels of the Presence . Therefore he makes seven Candlesticks , alluding , as I said , to the like number of those in the Tabernacle as Emblems of these seven Churches , Vers. 13. Therefore seven Stars , alluding to the number of the Planets , and the Angels who presided over them , as Emblems of the Bishops of those Churches . Therefore those Stars are in his Right Hand , to signifie his care and concernment for their Protection , and to conciliate a greater reverence for their Authority . Thus it appears plainly that the Bishops are here represented in a Mystical Way ; and how particularly suitable it was , in this way , to personate them by the name of Angels . They were indeed to perform the same Office under Christ as a visible human person , which the Angels were under him as the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , in reference to the Restitution of Souls to their Original Dignity . The pretended Areopagite , than whom perhaps none better understood the Mystical Language of the Hellenistical Philosophy of that Age , uses the same Expressions concerning them as concerning those Angels , that these are also 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . And so also does Clemens Alexandrinus . In one place he calls the three Orders of the Church , Bishops , Priests and Deacons , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Strom. VI. p. 283. Ed. Sylburg Imitations of the Angelical Glory . And he elsewhere gives his Explication wherein that Imitation consisted , Strom. VII . init . p. 297.35 . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . In the Church the Presbyters bear the resemblance of the bettering Office , as the Deacons do of that of Service . The Angels perform both these Services to God in the Administration of the Terrestrial World . No doubt the Bishops , in this Dichotomy are comprehended under the common name of Presbyters , and comparing this later place with the former it must needs have been so . But of this I have elsewhere given an account .

THIS was the properest way , I think , that could have been thought of Sect. 3 for representing Christ as the Invisible Bishop presiding among the Bishops . But because even his human nature , tho visible in it self , is yet invisible to Us , therefore another way was thought of for copying out that Heavenly 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , even in the ordinary external visible Government of the Church . And here the Bishop was to personate Christ himself as the High Priest had formerly represented the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . The seven Deacons were to represent the seven Mystical Angels , as I am very apt to think they were designed from the very Original . I cannot think it casual that the number first pitched on was exactly seven . Act. VI. 3 . But that which more confirms me in this opinion is the real suitableness of the Office of the Deacons to the Bishop as representing the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in a visible way , with that of those Angels to the same 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 as he was invisible . The Office of the Angels in general is thus described by the Author to the Ebrews , that they are 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . These are exactly the very terms by which the Church would have expressed the Office of these Deacons , if she had been to have described the same Office as vested in mortal men . And I know not whether that expression concerning the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 do not allude to this , that even the Holy Ghost himself , in distributing his Gifts , did exercise the Office of one of those ordinary 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . And indeed the Office of those inferior Daemons was proportionably the same according to the Notions of the Hellenistical Philosophy . As the first Institution of the Office of Deaconship was for the distributing the Treasures of the Church , so it was also taken for the Office of those Angels to convey the spiritual Treasures ( those Gifts and Largesses which Christ bestowed on Men upon his Ascension in allusion to the Congiaria bestowed by the Roman Emperors in their Triumphal Ascent to the Capitol ) to Men , as well as to offer and present the Sacrifices and Prayers of Men to God . Tob. XII . 15 . Lat. They were to stand before the Presence of God , in a posture of readiness to be sent on Messages by him , and so were the Deacons to stand before the Bishop , to be sent by him on his Messages . They were the eyes of the Lord which run to and fro through the whole earth . Zach. III. 9 . IV. 10 . So also the Deacons are , in the Language of the ancient Church , called the Oculi Episcopi , for the same reason . They were to present the Prayers of the Faithful before God . Tob. XII . 15 . Gr. Rev. VIII . 3 . And the same Office of presenting the Prayers was peculiarly the Deacons in the Primitive Church . But of all Offices that of being sent on Errands seems to have been the most intrinsick to the notion of a Deacon in the notions of those times . Thus it was synonymous with the name of Apostle . 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 are exegetical of each other in the forementioned passage of the Epistle to the Hebrews . Judas's Apostleship is called his 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Act. I. 17 . and not only so but his 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Verse 20. as the very Episcopal Office was to be a 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in reference to Christ in the comparison now described . The Apostles themselves were to give themselves to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Act. VI. 4 . even after the institution of Deacons . And S. Paul calls his Apostleship his 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Act. XX. 24 Rom. XI . 13 . Archippus's Bishoprick is his 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Col. IV. 17 . So is that of S. Timothy , 1 Tim. I. 12 . 2 Tim. IV. 5 . So is that of the Angel of the Church of Thyatira , Rev. II. 19 . That now we may not wonder why the Bishops are called Angels in the forementioned Mystical immediate Relation to our Saviour himself the chief Bishop of our Souls : 1 S. Pet. XI . 25 . Because indeed in regard of him they bear no higher Office than that of Deacon . And this same Office of being sent on Errands was indeed the principal employment of these Angels of the Presence , especially in Affairs of so great importance and honor as this was of the Gospel .

ACCORDINGLY the Primitive Sect. 4 Church were extremely rigorous in insisting on this very number of their Deacons in all places , as I have elsewhere shewed . Let. II. to Mr. Baxter . Sect. 57. The Council of Neocaesarea imposed it as a Universal Rule , how great soever the Church were to which the Deacons were to serve . Certainly they would not have ventured a Change of that Consequence in the Government in a Canon ( which , tho it were at first designed only for their own Province of Cappadocia , was notwithstanding afterwards extended first to the Eastern Empire by being taken into the Eastern Code composed between the times of the Councils of C.P. and Ephesus , and quoted as a commonly received Authority in the Council of Chalcedon , and afterwards to the Western Empire when it was also taken into the Roman Code by Dionysius Exiguus ) but by conforming the fewer Deviations to a Rule already more generally received . And therefore even then it is much more probable that this number was already received in more Churches than otherwise . But in the Reasoning now insisted on , as most generally used in those Times , of keeping close to Jewish Precedents , excepting only such Instances whereof they could give an account of the Change , from the Old Testament it self , I cannot think of any Reason so probable why the numbers of the Christian Deacons was so limited , whereas the Jewish Levites were so unrestrained , as this of their being designed in imitation of the attendant Angels . And on this supposition , the account which may be given will be this . When the Levites were first instituted there was as yet no knowledge of any particular number of Angels allotted to this purpose , and therefore the number of the Levites might well be indefinite , because , by the Revelations then made , the number of the Angels might have been so also . But the same Analogy of Reasoning required that the number of the Christian Levites should answer the number of these Angels of the Presence as then received in the time of the Gospel Institution , especially such as were so received on account of Old Testament Revelations , tho later than the times of Moses , yet ancienter than the Gospel , and so actually understood then by the generality even of the Jews themselves . This does therefore also most probably suppose that the Deacons were thought mystically to represent that number of the Seven Angels on the account now mentioned . It may be the same thing also was alluded to in other the like Establishments in those Eastern Parts . This very number was exactly observed in a Supreme Council of State among the Persians , as appears not only from the famous Story of the Seven who conspired against the Magi , who were all equal by the places which they already possessed , the reason why they pitched upon that way of the Neighing of their Horses for chusing an Heir to the Crown , but also from the Book of Esther . There they are called the Wise Men who knew the times , Esth I. 13 , 14. the seven Princes of Persia and Media , who saw the King's Face , an expression exactly answering that concerning those Angels , S. Matth. XVIII . 10 . and in the Fragments of Orpheus ; 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , &c. and their Title of being Angels of the Presence . And the same was the number of the Governors of the Jewish Cities , if we may believe Josephus , tho I know we are told other things by the Talmudical Jews .

AND this I take also to be the true Sect. 5 Original of the name 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . I know what other Notions are commonly taken notice of from the practices of that Age. The Athenian 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 were Itinerant Officers sent to oversee the Affairs of the Cities subject to their Jurisdiction , Suid. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . answerable to the Lacedaemonian 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Something of the like nature was that Episcopatus of the Sea-Coast of Campania , which Tully says was committed to himself by Pompey . It was no other than a care of guarding that Sea-Coast , not fixed to any one certain place , but obliging him to a readiness to defend all . That which comes nearest to the Case of the Christian Episcopacy is that of Philopoemen , who , as Appian tells us , In Mithridatic . was made 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 by Mithridates . Here seems to have been a particular Bishop of a City and the Jurisdiction of it , to inspect the behaviour of the Citizens in relation to Mithridates . But none of all these were Sacred , but only Civil Officers . None of them seem to have been received in all Cities , but only in subject ones , nor in all those neither , but such only as had a Magistracy and Government of their own , and a Power of the Sword within themselves , and then especially even in those , when their Superiors had some particular ground of Jealousie concerning them . Much less was any of them so universally received in the Sacred Administration ; either of the Jewish Synagogues or the Heathen Temples at the times of the first beginnings of Christianity , as to be any likely occasion why this name should have been universally imitated in the new Establishments of the Christian Church . I therefore rather take it to have been a design of Mystically representing the Presence of God in the Government of his Church , in the Person of his Bishop . For thus as the name of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 properly signifies an Overseer , so the Providence of God is expressed by his inspecting things below . Thus the Eyes of the Lord are over the Righteous , and an Eye was the Symbol of Providence in the Egyptian Hieroglyphicks . By which it appears how suitably those Spirits which are made to be the Eyes of the Lord in Zachary are made the Symbols of the Bishops in the Revelations . And as all the Heathen Deities , especially the Supreme are , ( as Macrobius has observed , no doubt , from the Stoicks ) reduced to the Sun ; Saturnal . so it is the Character of the Sun , 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . And in the Language of that Age the Tutelar Daemon was the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and the Supreme Being is 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Sibylline Oracles . The Gods of the Pagi are called 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Halicarnassaeus , Arist. Hym. in Jov. p. 1. and the Nymphs are 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Aristides . And to shew that this Title is indeed derived from God , even when it is applyed to Men ; therefore it is oftentimes applyed to God himself , and the whole obligation to reverence it even in Men , is derived from the concernment of God for them as his Representatives . So our Saviour himself is called the Bishop of our Souls . And Polycarp , in Ignatius , is said to be not so much 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , Ep. ad Polyc. in Tit. but 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , implying God to be the Bishop to whom the Irreverences would , by Interpretation , redound , which were offered to Polycarp himself . A strange thing that Blondel should understand this as a reflection on Polycarp , which was indeed designed to render his Authority more awful . As for Ignatius , he elsewhere uses it , and uses this same notion for the same design , not as a curb upon the Bishop , but upon his Subjects , that they might not presume upon him . Damas Bishop of the Magnesians , was a young man . This might make his Clergy and People too bold with him . But he warns them to have a care of abusing his Age , but rather to shew him all respect as other holy Presbyters had done , Ep. ad Magnes . Sect. 3. 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . Accordingly he adds that , for the honor of him who had required this at their hands , they ought to pay their duty without dissimulation . If they should do otherwise , he shews who would resent and punish it ; 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . The reasoning is no other than what I have elsewhere shewn was ordinarily used , in that Age , Sep. prov . Schism . ch. 14. on the like occasions . The deceit used by Ananias and Sapphira to the Apostles , in not bringing the whole price of the Land they pretended to sell for charitable uses , Act. V. 3 . is called a lying to the Holy Ghost , nay , even as to the negative expression of Ignatius , a lying not unto men but unto God . Verse 4● As the like expression had been also used in the case of the Israelites murmuring against Moses and Aaron . Thus therefore it appears that the Bishop was understood and designed to represent a Sacred Person after the custom of the Mysteries received in those times .

AND now the Comparisons of the Sect. 6 Bishops in Ignatius cannot seem so strange , these things being considered , as they did to Blondell who had considered none of them . They are generally designed to express the Sacredness and excellency of the Persons which the Clergy bore in these Mystical Performances . Nor is there any thing in them that is really affected or strained , much less blasphemous , no nor any extravagant flights of fancy , as they who have read them without a kindness for them , and much more who have read them without this Clew , have hitherto conceived them . When he was to express the correspondence between the Coelestial and Ecclesiastical Hierarchy ( as I have shewn that the virtue of all Mystical Performances was to be derived from this correspondence ) it was very proper sometimes to make the comparison sometimes with the Invisible Originals , as I have shewn that the Jewish Sacrifices did not only answer the Invisible Sacrifice offered by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Heaven , but also the visible one offered by the same 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 as incarnate on the Cross , and that the virtue of those visible Sacrifices was to be judged by the nearness of their approach , not only to that invisible one , but also to that first of those which were visible . If he was to compare them with the first invisible Archetypes of Unity ( as that is indeed his great design in those Epistles in opposition to the SCHISMS then rising ) then it was very proper for him to take notice only of the two Orders which were then immediately concerned in the Office of Ministration , and then to compare them with God the Father , and the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , because as this Unity consists in the Unity of the Head , and the Scripture tells us that the Head of every Man is Christ : so also the same Scripture tells us that the Head of Christ is God . Besides that the Title of 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 is oftentimes ascribed to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in reference to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Hypothesis of that Age , not with any design of signifying any Inferiority of Nature , but only of Office and Subordination . If therefore , by his Office he was a 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 who could be more fit than he to personate the Archetypal 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , who was here Archetypal to that of the seven Angels themselves already mentioned ? And who fitter than the Father to represent the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 to such a 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 as this ? Nor can it be thought strange that there should be several gradual intellectual Archetypes as there were among those which were sensible . But when his design is to compare the Ecclesiastical Judicatory to the first which was sensible , Deacons were not as yet instituted ; and therefore the only comparison remaining was between Christ and his Apostles , and the Bishops with their Presbyteries . And then who sees not how aptly the Bishops will answer Christ himself , as presiding over their own Presbyteries the same way as Christ did over his Apostles ? In each of these comparisons one Order is omitted , the Deacons in the later , and the Presbyters in the former . Why the Deacons are omitted , the Reason is already given . Why the Presbyters are , the reason may be that they are sometimes reckoned as one Order with the Bishop , by those who never thought of any Parity therein , that is , by such who do as expresly reckon three Orders upon other occasions . Thus many of the most ancient Fathers , as their Testimonies are produced by Blondell himself . And thus Philo before them sometimes reckons the High Priest in the same Order with the common Priests , Vid. Disser . Cypr. ad Ep. Cypr. XXXIII . sometimes he makes him a distinct Order by himself . So that notwithstanding the Bishops being of the same Order with Presbyters , he might however have as great a pre-eminence above them on account of his place as the High Priest had above the Ordinary Priests , which is as much as they do or need desire . However in the same Order the Bishop only as a Head is concerned as a Representative of the Mystical Unity which is the main thing designed in these Comparisons . Which is a reason not agreeing to the common Presbyter .

HOWEVER because , on other Sect. 7 occasions , they reckoned them as distinct Orders , therefore there are not wanting such Mystical Representations of the Heavenly Hierarchy as make it exactly answerable to the Ecclesiastical , even in this paricular also . Thus S. John in the Sixth Chapter of his Revelations represents him who sate upon the Throne , the very expression used concerning the Bishops , even in those Primitive Times . Then , as the Presbyters used to sit ; and to sit on Seats ordered in a Hemicycle about the Bishop within the Chancel , or 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , or 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , so here are represented twenty four Elders sitting likewise on Thrones about the the Throne of the Lamb. That they were designed for Priests appears from the circumstances of their Representation . They are cloathed in White Raiment , answering the Linnen Ephod among the Jews , Verse 4. They have also Vials full of Odors , which are interpreted to be the Prayers of the Saints , and Harps to sing the Hymns which were usually joyned with the Sacrifices , Chap. V. 8 . What is this else but exactly the Office of ordinary Priests in those Times ? That therefore they had also Crowns , Chap. IV. 4 . &c. is only to intimate their being a Royal Priesthood , which was one of the Glories pretended to by the Literal Israel , and therefore , by the Reasoning then used , more justly claimable by that which was mystically so . And it is thus expounded by those Elders themselves , Chap. V. 10 . that the Lamb had made them Kings and Priests to their God . That the number is exactly twenty four , was , in all probability derived from some Jewish Precedent . If we might trust the Rabbins , this was the number of the Elders in ordinary Cities , answerably whereunto the Great Sanhedrim at Jerusalem consisting of three such as those had seventy two . And then this would very aptly fit the Christian Presbyteries which were ordinarily multiplyed by them according to the number of Cities . But because Josephus , who knew better than any of these Rabbins , owns but seven , and because those City Presbyters seem to have been rather for the Civil Government than the Ecclesiastical of those Cities ; therefore as it will be more agreeable to the Interest of our Cause , so I believe it will be also to that of Truth , to derive it rather from an Ecclesiastical Council of the High Priest . And this might very probably be twenty four , exactly one out of each of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 into which the Body of the Jewish Priesthood was divided . As for the Rabbins they are all too late to give us any certain Information of matters of Fact in that Age , and I cannot foresee any better Testimonies of that Age why this might not have been the precise number . Nor will it the less fit our Hypothesis concerning the Christian Presbyteries , if it be remembred , what I have proved , that Christian Episcopacy is only a multiplication of the Jewish High Priesthood . Whence it will also follow that the Christian Presbyteries ought to be understood as answerable to that Sanhedrim which immediately related to the High Priest himself . Clemens Alexandrinus conceives the number of twenty four , to be the number of the Apostles doubled , to shew the interest that the Gentiles , Strom. VI. p. 283. Ed. Sylburg . as well as the Jews , were henceforth to have in the Apostles . Thus the Christian Presbyteries were mystically represented in the Vision of S. John . As for the Deacons , they are also represented as formerly , by the same Vision , by the seven Lamps , which were the seven Spirits of God ; Chap. IV. 5 . and his seven Eyes , which are the seven Spirits of God , sent forth into all the Earth . Chap. V. 6 . According to the Exposition which follows from what has been already proved .

THUS I have shewn that the Office Sect. 8 of Episcopacy was actually understood as a Mystical Institution . Nor yet have I descended so low as the pretended Areopagite or the Times of Constantine . What I have insisted on has been partly from the Apostles themselves , partly from the freshest memory of them . So that there can be no pretending that , tho indeed they understood it so , yet they might have been mistaken in so understanding it . I have prevented this Answer by insisting only on such things as , by the Principles of Christianity , are not obnoxious to it . I have shewn that these Notions prevailed in the Apostles Times , nay , among the Apostles themselves , S. John for Example . I have shewn that , in all probability , they were thought of by them who either gave or first assumed the name of Bishops . And let our Brethren consider how it is possible to charge them with a mistake of this kind without involving the Apostles themselves . I have shewn that nearer the Apostles Times they were more received than afterwards ; that proceeding on that way of Reasoning which must have been their only Guide , and that a very secure one , in all matters for which they had not an express Revelation ; that Reasoning on the Apostles Authority ; that Reasoning on those very Principles on account of which most of them had received their very Christianity , and which are indeed fundamentally supposed to most of the Reasonings of the New Testament , they could hardly avoid these things as just and certain Consequences by a clear and evident Deduction . And if after all , we cannot yet be secure , that this was the meaning designed by God himself ; it will be hard to shew how we can be secure , even of the Scriptures themselves , or of any Revealed Religion , or even of any matter of Fact whatsoever that is to be deduced at a distance .

Sect. 9 AND now the same Reasoning is applicable also here which was made use of concerning the Eucharist as a Mystical Sacrifice , That , as this Gospel Priesthood comes nearer the Original Priesthood of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and nearer even the first visible Priesthood of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 as Incarnate , by so much the more it must derive of the influence of the Invisible Priesthood . Whence it will follow that if Union with the Legal Priesthood was an Ordinary Means of procuring an Union with the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and Disunion from that was like also to disunite from the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and consequently from the Father ; then much more these same Consequences must likewise follow from the like Union or Disunion from the Christian Episcopacy . The Consequence will hold both as to the greater Certainty of the Inference it self , and as to the greater moment of the things so inferred . The Inference must be more certain , because indeed all the force of this Reasoning as applyed to the Case of the Jewish Priesthood was , in the Principles of those persons , intirely due to its being a Type of our Christian Episcopacy , and therefore it must hold more certainly concerning our Episcopacy it self as the Certainty of all Premises is still greater than that of the Inferences deduced from them . It will also hold as to the greater moment of the things inferred . For our Covenant being established on better Promises , and more Explicite Revelations of the Rewards and Punishments of a future State ; it will follow that the Rewards of Obedience , and the Punishments of Disobedience to our Bishops , and the benefits of Union and the Mischiefs of Disunion with them , must be greater than those relating to the Jewish High Priesthood , and that particularly in regard of the Soul , that being the chief design of Mysteries , and our future Interests being those on which our Evangelical Covenant is principally grounded , and the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 being that which principally concerned our Saviour as he was to be the Messias the Prince . And accordingly this greater Moment is expresly owned in the Reasoning of the New Testament , especially by S. Paul in his Epistle to the Ebrews , as he has already been observed .

Ch. 11. NOR will it now be difficult to Sect. 10 understand the reason of those severe Expressions in Tertullian concerning Censures passed by the Bishops upon Criminals . He tells the Heathens that the Christians themselves were certain De Dei Conspectu , Apol. § 39. and that it was Summum futuri Judicii Prejudicium , if any one should so offend as to be excluded from their Prayers and Assemblies , and all Holy Commerce . They might well be certain of it , upon the Hypothesis now described , if the Ecclesiastical Judicatories were Representatives of that Coelestial Judicatory by which all must be judged at the last day ; if God himself , or the Son to ( whom the Father has committed all Judgment ) was represented by the Bishops , and the Apostles , ( who are then to sit on twelve Thrones judging the twelve Tribes of Israel ) were represented by the Ecclesiastical Presbyteries , as Ignatius says they are ; and if the Angels ( who with their Voice and Trumpet were to gather the Elect from the Four Corners of the Earth , plainly alluding to the Office of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , who were to call and dismiss Sacred Assemblies with their Voices and Trumpets ) were represented by the Christian Deacons ; and withal so represented , Ch. 12. not as one Person is represented by another in a Theater , who is not concerned in the Representation , but as a Client , is in Law , represented by his Proxy , who is thereupon thought obliged himself to ratifie whatever is done in his Person by such a Representative ; and if this Mystical Representation was by the appointment of God himself , as the Legal Proxies were made by the Clients represented by them , and the Mystical Representation was designed , not for an entertainment of fancy , but purposely to constitute a Legal Person , and with a design of concerning himself consequentially in all the slights which may be put upon the Ecclesiastical Judicatories , as the nature of these Mystical Representations were every where understood as Obligations to the Gods themselves to ratifie what was done in their name and persons by such appointed Representatives , and as Christ himself has expresly promised to resent and punish affronts offered to such Representatives , and to look on them as interpretatively designed against himself . These things being thus understood , there was no part of the future Judicatory which was not represented in the Ecclesiastical , and being so , they might be sure that the future Judicatory was obliged by the Act of the Church , as we are sure every person is obliged by what his Proxy acts in his name in open Court . He might well call it Futuri Judicii Praejudicium , when , upon these Supposals , the same Judicatory who are to judge all things at the last day , must be supposed already to have judged such Cases which were decided in the Ecclesiastical Judicatories . God grant our Brethren may lay this seriously to heart .

Sect. 11 THESE things therefore being thus solidly laid down by the first Fathers in their Disputes against their contemporary Hereticks and SCHISMATICKS , all the Inferences thence deduced against them will follow naturally and undenyably , and withal so evidently , as that the Inferences could not be disowned by any who owned the Premises , and therefore must have been as much the sense of the whole Church of their Age as the Premises . It will follow that Disunion from the Bishop was a Disunion from Christ and the Father , and from all the Invisible Heavenly Priesthood and Sacrifice and Intercession . It will follow that Disunion from any one Ordinary must consequently be a Disunion from the whole Catholick Church , seeing it is impossible for any to continue a Member of Christ's Mystical Body , who is disunited from the Mystical Head of it . It will follow that Visible Disunion from the external Sacraments of the Bishop is , in the Consequence , a Disunion from the Bishop , and from the whole Catholick Church in Communion with him , who ought to ratifie each others Censures , under pain of SCHISM , if they do not . For this visible Communion in Sacraments is , proceeding on these Principles , the only Means and Title to that Communion which was invisible , and whoever received him to external Communion who had been thus validly disunited from the invisible Communion by the act of any one in whose Power it was validly to do it , must thereby , in effect , disunite themselves from that invisible Communion , by professing themselves one with him who had been validly disunited from it . At least this Act would be , interpretatively , a Profession of Disunion , which is also in consequence a Disunion , seeing none can have this Union but by professing it . Thus it appears how consequently they reasoned in proving such Persons disunited in all regards both of Visible and Invisible Communion .

Sect. 12 THIS therefore being also granted , it thence appears further how consequentially they reasoned in proving them deprived also of the Benefits of this Union . For it was impossible that they should have the Benefits of Union who wanted the Union it self from which those Benefits were to result . They deny them to have any pardon of their Sins . And how could they have it who had no portion in the Heavenly Sacrifice which Christ as the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 was supposed to offer in Heaven , by which their Sins were to be attoned ? or in his Intercession by which his Father's Displeasure was to be appeased , and which was grounded on that Sacrifice ? And this they must want who were cut off from the Mystical Representation and Transaction of that Sacrifice in the Eucharist . They denyed them a Portion in their own Prayers . And how could they do otherwise when they thought them to have no Interest in the Prayers and Intercession of Christ himself ? They could not expect to be heard but in such Prayers as were agreeable to his will . For indeed the whole hope of having their own Prayers heard , was , 1 S. John V. 14 . in this way of Reasoning , grounded on this , that their own Prayers in Earth were Mystical Representations of what the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 was supposed at the same time to be Praying for in Heaven . And therefore such Prayers as were disagreeable to his mind could lay no claim to the Divine Acceptance , because they could not truly pretend to be such Representations . For indeed how could the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 be supposed to be offering Covenant-Sacrifices for them who were no Members of that Covenant which was maintained by those Sacrifices ? I mean for the obtaining those special favors which were promised on God's part on his part of the Covenant . Such are pardon of Sins , the Holy Ghost , Eternal Life , &c. which peculiarly related to the Spiritual Kingdom or the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . As for other more general temporal Benefits which were not confined to the Covenant , the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 was supposed to pray for them for the whole World as being indeed himself the King and Governor of it in that general sense . And accordingly the High Priest himself is said to represent the whole World in Philo by the Mystical Signification of his Vestments . And so the Temple , relating to the Sacrifices offered by the High Priest , represented also the Great Temple of the World , as not he only , but Josephus also , collects from the Hellenistical Interpretations of its Coverings . And thus the Christian Eucharistical Sacrifices were also offered for all Mankind , as appears not only from the several remaining Forms of the ancient Liturgies , but also in the yet more ancient Offices which were used in the time of Tertullian . And yet even as to this inferior sort of Prayers , they have undoubtedly a worse Right , who , by their Misdemeanors , are judged , by their Superiors , to have forfeited their Right in the other sort , than they who never had any .

Sect. 13 THEY denyed them also the Holy Ghost . And this they might also do very solidly and consequently on the received Doctrines concerning Sacrifices . For if the Holy Ghost took the same way to insinuate himself by the Christian Sacrifices as the ill Spirit was supposed to do ; then they , who would have him , ought to make use of those Sacrifices as the Ordinary Means whereby they were to receive him , and they who did not communicate in the Sacrifices must , for that Reason , be supposed to have no part in the Holy Ghost which was communicated by them . Nor did this Reasoning hold only concerning the first reception of him , but proceeded altogether as strongly for the continuance of him by the same means . For by all the similitudes , by which the Holy Ghost is expressed in the Scripture , it appears that he is so given , as to need a continuance , and so to need such a continuance as that he must immediately cease to be where that continuance is interrupted . He is likened to Springs of Water , and Water must immediately fail in the Rivulet whenever they are cut off from the Fountain . He is likened to a Light shining in a dark place , and neither can that continue when it is broken from the Luminary . Nor is the way of Reasoning from Similitudes to be rejected in a Subject of this nature , because they are indeed the proper Scripture-Language in such matters , and God has therefore peculiarly fitted them to express the nature of things so spoken of . As therefore this is implyed to be the nature of the Spirit that it immediately ceases to be where the Channels of its conveyance are interrupted ; so its influences are confined to one Body . The external Society of the Church is called the Mystical Body of Christ , is called a Vine , &c. And the Consequence is allowed in that very particular , that as the Branches of a Vine can no longer bear fruit than they are incorporated in the Vine to which they belong , so neither can Christians partake of the common influences of Christianity any longer than they continue in the common Body of Christians . And the Holy Spirit is called the Bond of this Unity , because , as he makes them all one whom he inspires , so neither does he inspire any but such as own and belong to that Unity . Therefore it is that Unity is so recommended as a Qualification for receiving these Influences of the uniting Spirit . Our disagreeing hinders our Prayers . Therefore marryed Persons are obliged to avoid mutual Provocations , that their Prayers might not be hindred . If they do pray in this condition , yet such Prayers have no Promise nor Encouragement that they shall find acceptance . Christ's Promise of hearing even two or three when gathered in his name is only on condition that they agree in the things they desire from him . Otherwise they are not capable of the Intercession of the Spirit of Prayer and Supplication . And if this hold , even in private Animosities when obstinately persevered in , much more in Case of Division from the Church . If Animosities , as they are tendencies to Division , hinder the Influences of the Spirit , it will but be proportionable Reasoning , that actual Division from the Body should cut off all Title to the Influences of the Spirit .

AND as this holds in other Prayers , Sect. 14 so particularly in this sort of Prayer which is joyned with Sacrifice . Our Saviour does sufficiently imply that even Sacrifices themselves are not acceptable without Unity . We are to leave our Gift at the Altar in Case of any Animosity , and first to be reconciled to him before we have any encouragement to offer it with any hopes of acceptance . This comes exactly home to the Case of the Lord's Supper , as our Christian Eucharistical Sacrifice , That this is absolutely necessary to keep us actually joyned to that Unity , which is a qualification without which it is as impossible for us to have the Spirit , as it is impossible that any Branch of a Tree can enjoy the Vegetative Life if divided from the Trunk , or that any Member of our natural Bodies can partake in the Animal Life when separated from our Bodies , or that any Light should remain either in the Object or the Air when cut off from the Luminary from whence it proceeds . I do not mean that none can have the Spirit , or be actually united , any longer than he actually communicates , nor did any think so concerning the Popular Sacrifices . The Unity was always supposed to continue as long as the Right , that the person might communicate and be admitted if he pleased . But then the question concerning this Right was to be decided , like other questions of the like nature , by the sentence of the competent Judge . In other Cases of Right relating to Possessions , the sentence of a competent Judge proceeding on the Rules and Evidences which are allowed by Law ) tho after all it be fallible with how much integrity soever it be pronounced ) is notwithstanding thought sufficient , even in Equity and Justice , to cut off all contrary Pleas of Right in opposition to it ; and every one would be sensible that the opposing unaccountable Pleas of Right to the satisfaction of the competent Judges , would make Controversies endless , and dissolve the whole Societies where such Pleas should be admitted . And our Brethren will never be able to explain why the same Reason should not hold concerning the Decision of Spiritual Rights as well as Temporals , if God himself have been pleased to erect a Spiritual Judicatory , tho that be also acknowledged fallible . Thus it appears how prudent and solid , and how little fancyful , the Reasoning is from these similitudes , as applyed by S. Cyprian . Nor does this hinder but that God may consider the mollifying Circumstances which are allowable in the Cases of such persons as have indeed no claim to Legal Right . But it is for the just Interest of Government in general , that the Decision of Legal Rights do peremptorily depend on the Sentence of competent Judges ; and that recourse to extraordinary 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 be rarely and very difficultly admitted , so as that still the Generality of Mankind be obliged to depend on such ordinary Decisions , for the satisfaction of their own Consciences concerning even such Rights themselves .

CHAP. XIII . The forementioned Reasoning applyed to the present Case of our Modern SCHISMATICKS . The CONTENTS .

The Applicableness of this same Reasoning to the Case of our Modern SCHISMATICKS . Gospel-Constitutions designed Perpetual . Sect. I. Unity designed perpetual . Sect. II. Even that of this Life . Sect. III. Christ designed and instituted Means sufficient for perpetuating this External Unity . The same Means of erecting the Church into a Body-Politick as conducive to the perpetuating an External Unity Now ( as Then ) and for Ever . Sect. IV. The Means of confining the Benefits of the Covenant to the Solemnities of it by Sacrifice as conducive to the same purpose of erecting a Body Politick now also , and for Ever . Sect. V. Our Christian Sacrifice of the Eucharist is of a perpetual Use. Sect. VI. And perpetually useful for the same purposes as in the Apostles Time . Sect. VII . And therefore perpetually useful in order to the partaking in the Invisible Heavenly Sacrifice . Sect. VIII . No communicating with the Father and the Son but by Communion with the Bishop . Sect. IX . This same Reasoning , if it was good in S. Cyprian's time , is still as good as it was then , and will be so for ever . Sect. X. These Symbolical Representations are not otherwise to be interpreted Now than they were in the Primitive Times . Sect. XI . Our Adversaries , in their separate condition , can lay no claim to the One Altar . Sect. XII . Nor to the One Priesthood . Sect. XIII . The sad condition of SCHISMATICKS . Sect. XIV . How little Friends they are to Souls who are for prejudging persons against our Reasons by Popular Arts of raising Odium against our Cause , or our Persons . Sect. XV.XVI.

AND if this Reasoning was good Sect. 1 and solid as thus applyed by the Ancient Christians to the Case of their contemporary SCHISMATICKS , what can our Adversaries pretend why it should not be as good and solid still ? Is it possible that the nature of things can be changed ? Can Truth cease to be Truth , or SCHISM to be SCHISM ? Can SCHISM become less Criminal in our Age than it was formerly ? Or have they any assurance of being more indulgently dealt with , if they should prove equally criminal ? These things , alas ! to say no more , are too ticklish for them to venture their immortal Souls on , and I doubt not but the more considerable among them will not so much as pretend them . What is it then that may be trusted that they can pretend ? Is it that tho the nature of SCHISM be eternally and equally criminal , yet it may change in its imputation , that the matter of Fact may be chargeable with SCHISM in one Age , as the Samaritans were guilty of SCHISM for separating from the Jewish High Priest , which yet the Apostles were not , tho they were likewise chargeable with the same Separation ? But does it follow that because such Changes were allowable from the Positive Institutions of Moses , therefore the like Change is also now allowable under the Gospel ? And have I not proved that the ancient Christians used this same Reasoning , and used it solidly , even under the Gospel ! That the Law had any Temporary Constitutions they concluded from the Praedictions of the Law it self which foretold a Change in the later times . But can they pretend the like Change under the Gospel ? Does the Gospel foretel any further later Days wherein it s own Constitutions shall be antiquated also ? Nay , do not the same persons stile the Gospel the Everlasting Gospel , in opposition to the Temporariness of many of those Legal Constitutions ? Why so , if its Constitutions were also Temporary ?

BUT tho I should not take this general Sect. 2 Advantage from the designed Perpetuity of the Gospel Constitutions , what is there that our Brethren can pretend to be Temporary to excuse themselves , in the particulars of our present Dispute , tho we had no other direction to judge by than the nature of the Things themselves ? Can they think Unity it self a Temporary thing , especially that Unity which is invisible ? This I am confident they will not pretend ; and if they should , I am yet more confident they could not produce any plausible ground , of such pretence from any Words or Principles of the New Testament . As the Mystical 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 was thought to be the proper Office of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the Hellenistical Philosophy , so the main design of our Saviour's coming is as plainly said in the New Testament to be that he might make all one . And can they think that Temporary which is the main Office of our Saviour as the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and the main design of his Incarnation , and which is then likely to be most perfect when all Temporary Things are antiquated in Heaven ?

Sect. 3 But is Unity in this World at least a Temporary Design ? Was it not one of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 sung by the Angels at his Birth , that he was to bring Peace on Earth ? Was this Blessing designed only for a while ? He is the Prince of Peace , and his Kingdom may as well be made Temporary as his Designs of Peace . The Prophecies concerning his Kingdom are , that it should bring abundance of Peace so long as the Sun and Moon endureth . And can this be any other than a secular Peace that was here spoken of ? And indeed if we will keep consonant to Principles , there could be no Office more suitable to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 incarnate than to transact that visibly on Earth which he is supposed to perform invisibly in Heaven . This was it alone which , on the Principles already described , could make his proceedings on Earth available . The Power of them must be derived from their being true Representations of the invisible Transactions in Heaven . This will make his Sacrifice on the Cross a true Sacrifice , if it represented the Invisible Heavenly Sacrifice offered by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 . This will make the Man Jesus a true Priest , if he personated the Lord from Heaven . And this would argue him indeed to be the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 Incarnate , if all he did on Earth was in correspondence with the same designs which the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 was driving on in Heaven . And if so , then ( as the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Heaven was driving on Designs of Invisible Unity ) a Visible Unity must also have been the principal Design of the Incarnate 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 as visible . And as the Unity designed in Heaven was perpetual , and designed that it should be so ; so also the Visible External Unity aimed at by our Saviour on Earth could have been no other than a Perpetual one , as it was designed by him .

WELL then . If this Unity thus Sect. 4 designed was both an external and a perpetual Peace , where can they yet suspect whether themselves be unconcerned in the Consequence of those Discourses against those ancient Violaters of this external peace of the Christian Church ? Can they think that Christ made no Provision for the Preservation of this External Peace so designed by him ? Or can they think that his Provisions were designed but Temporary for an End which he designed should be perpetual ? They cannot have so mean thoughts of the Prudence of our Blessed Lord . Or if they should , these very Discourses of those earliest Christians are sufficient to convince them , whose very Age must qualifie them for knowing what Provision was actually made . And not to urge them again too closely with the Prudence of our Saviour's Institution , what is there that they can think temporary in that whole Constitution on which those Ancient Christians did proceed ? I may now confidently take it for granted , that the Constitution so alluded to was indeed suitable to the Circumstances of those Ages , because I have already proved the Prudence and Solidity of their Reasonings upon it . What is therefore in that whole Scheme that for the same Reason that made it seasonable then , will not be seasonable still , and for ever ? Was it then thought expedient in order to the preservation of this External Unity to confederate them into a Body Politick ? And is not such a Constitution as naturally conducive still to the maintenance of an external Unity , as it was then , and will it not be so for ever ? Will not all their little Latitudinarian Objections proceed as effectually against the Prudence and Justice and Expedience for Unity of such a Provision in the Primitive Church as they do now against the same in ours ? Can they in earnest think that the same Principles they insist on for justifying their present contempt of the Ecclesiastical Government and their present Separation , would not have obliged themselves to separate , if they had lived in those times , or would not have excused and justified those who did then separate ? I speak not of the particular Laws and Constitutions which are changeable with the change of Circumstances , but of the Obligation of the Government it self , and the Legislative Power which , of their own nature , are coeternal with the Societies to which they belong respectively . And it is too great an Argument of their consciousness of Guilt in this particular , that they are so forward to undertake the Patronage of those Ancient SCHISMATICKS . Their late Church Historian is very kind to the Memory of the Novatians and Donatists . Why so , but that he seems sensible that his own Principles would have made him do as they did , if he had lived in those Circumstances ? On the contrary , there is nothing in those Reasonings which obliged persons to Submission to Government of the Church , in those ancient times , which will not do so still , and for ever ; and we have no reason to believe but that they , who , upon those Reasons thought themselves obliged to Submission to their Ecclesiastical Governors , under pain of SCHISM , then , would , for the same Reasons , have thought themselves obliged to it now , under the same pain of SCHISM , if they had refused it .

AS therefore an external Government Sect. 5 is still as naturally conducive as ever for the preservation of External Unity ; so also the Means then used are still as efficacious both for erecting a Society , and supporting the Government of if when once erected , and fitting it to the end of maintaining a Mystical Unity . The Means we have seen then designed was the confining the Benefits of the Covenant to the Solemnities of the Covenant , and transacting the Solemnities by Sacrifice , and confining the Power of Sacrificing to a certain Order of Persons ; so that none could partake of those Sacrifices but from them , and obliging every Individual to the Publick Panegyres , that none might think himself secure without a participation in those Sacrifices , and extending those Panegyres to whole Cities , and confining the management of those Panegyres to a single Person . Now what is there in all this that our Brethren can think temporary ▪ or not as conducive as ever to the obliging all to a dependence on a City Monarch ? Is it not still as reasonable as ever , that the Benefits for which the Stipulation is made , should be confined to those who are interessed in the Covenant ? If not , what Obligation will remain for any to enter into the Covenant , if they may enjoy the Benefits without it ? Or is it not still as reasonable to confine the Covenant to the Solemnities of it , that the Obligation may be solid in form of Law , and that there may be a notorious way of distinguishing truly interessed persons from false pretenders ? And is not this distinction as necessary as ever for the External Administration of things , and the preservation of an external Unity ?

Sect. 6 IF this be so , what can be said to the way of maintaining this external Unity , of transacting these external Solemnities of the Covenant by the Blessed Sacrament ? What can they say why this should not be a way as seasonable to the Circumstances of the present Age as it was in those of the Primitive Christians ? Is not the Sacrament it self of a perpetual Use , and as seasonable now as formerly ? If it be ( as I think none of our Adversaries will deny , except the Socinians and our lately Socinianiz'd Enthusiasts ) does it not perform the same Office as it did then ? This is indeed the only thing that can make it ( in this way of Reasoning from the Reason of the thing it self ) perpetual , that the same Ends are perpetual , and that no other Means but this are appointed , or are ever to be expected for the future , for the attaining of those Ends. And undoubtedly , in the way of Reasoning on which the Primitive Christians took up the Use of this Sacrament , they could not chuse but think , that it must be perpetual . For so I have shewn that , in their Mystical Reasonings from the Old Testament , as they took the New Testament Institutions to be Archetypal to those of the Old , so in allusion to the Platonick Notions then received that made all Archetypal Beings eternal , they use the same form of speaking concerning the Gospel it self , and concerning all its Institutions that were taken up as typified in the Law . And if the Eucharist were taken up as typified by the Bread of Melchizedec , then it must by the consequence of that particular way of Reasoning , be an Everlasting Sacrifice , because it answered an Everlasting Priesthood , that of Christ , in opposition to the Levitical Priesthood , as typified in the Priesthood of Melchizedeck . But yet there is no need , in this matter , to insist much on Notions so little observed . Those which are commonly received are sufficient to my purpose . The Sacraments cannot be antiquated on that general account , which is commonly taken for granted , of antiquating the whole Old Testament , because indeed neither of them , tho taken up as some conceive in imitation of some unwritten Traditionary Observances , were yet grounded on any express Old Testament Institution . If therefore they will otherwise , by Reasoning , prove them antiquated , they must either prove them such discretionary things as are included in the general power of those who are by God appointed to judge of Circumstances , or they must prove it from the New Testament by the same way of Reasoning by which the Primitive Christians undertook to prove the antiquating of those Rites of Judaism discontinued by themselves from the very design of the Old Testament . The former way they can hardly venture on , if they would be pleased particularly to consider the nature and design of the Eucharist . If they consider it as a Mystery , that is , as a Representation of the Heavenly Eucharist , or of what is there transacted by the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in his own Person , so none but the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 himself is competent for determining any thing concerning it , because none but he can know the Original Mystery to which these Copies are to correspond ; and without knowing that , it is impossible to know when it does indeed correspond , and when it ceases to do so , especially for any Creature to do so without Actual Revelation , which is not here pretended without the Scriptures . If they consider it as the Great Seal of Heaven , so tho it be communicable to such Subjects whose Office it is to use it , yet either totally to lay it by , or to frame a New Broad Seal without express Authority from the Prince whose Seal it is , is counted Treason even in those very Subjects who are otherwise entrusted with the Power of administring it . But considering it further as a Bond of Union , so there can be less pretence to this Power of antiquating it in any Office that is purely Ecclesiastical . For this Union of the Multitude of Believers as grounded on the external Administration of these Symbols , as confined to a certain Order of Men is , in Truth , the Foundation of Ecclesiastical Authority in those Persons who are entrusted with the Power of administring them . Because it is by this means put in their Power to admit to , or exclude from , this Society , therefore it also consequently follows that it must be also in their Power to impose what Terms they please of such Admission . And therefore there being no human Authority imaginable but what is thus built on it , the Authority thus consequent to it , cannot extend to what is antecedent to it self , cannot subvert its own Foundations .

IT remains therefore that they prove Sect. 7 them antiquated from the design of the New Testament it self . But yet neither will they , I believe , pretend to this when they thoroughly consider it . For will they , can they , think that there is any future Dispensation to be expected to succeed the Gospel , and to which the Gospel must give way ; or that any such Dispensation is in the least foretold by the Gospel it self , as the Primitive Christians proved that the Gospel was predicted by the Law it self , as that by which it should in course be antiquated and abolished ? Can they shew that the Institutions of the Gospel are Shadows and Resemblances of the Institutions of any such future Dispensation , that so they may , in reason , be obliged to yield to the Substance represented by them when that shall appear , as the Christians proved this true concerning the Legal Ceremonies from the Letter of the Law it self ? Can they prove in particular that there is , or ever shall be , any nearer Draught of that Archetypal Visible Sacrifice of our Saviour upon the Cross than this of the Eucharist , as the Primitive Christians did prove that their Eucharist was a nearer draught of that same Sacrifice on the Cross than the Sacrifices of the Mosaick Law ? When they can prove any of these things , they will indeed say something . But if they can prove none of them , how can they pretend to prove the antiquating of this Sacrament ? How much less can they pretend to do it by any Parity of Reasoning with those of the Primitive Christians ? Thus it appears how little reason we have , even at present , to depend on any Courtesie of our Adversaries in this particular .

IF therefore the Blessed Sacrament Sect. 8 be of a perpetual use and perpetually useful , for the same designs as formerly ; it will then follow that it must be a Symbol of Unity . And then it must still be understood not only as a Ceremony of Admission into the Society of the Church , but as a Title to the Privileges of the Society into which men are so admitted . By partaking of this visible Sacrifice they must be intitled to an Interest in the Invisible Sacrifice of the 〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉〈◊〉 in Heaven , and by consequence to all the Benefits obtained ▪ and all the Evils expiated in that Sacrifice . And on the contrary Exclusion from it must be a Forfeiture of all the Benefits so obtained , and an exposing of the Person defenceless to all those Evils of which that Heavenly Sacrifice is an Expiation . And if it still must have the same efficacy it ever has had in its Mystical Capacity , it must not only unite or disunite to the Sacrifice , but to all the Company which have here a Right of Communicating , and not only to the Visible Company , but to those Invisible Societies in Heaven represented by those in Earth . By this Reasoning the partaking of this visible Sacrifice will unite us to all that do , or may , partake with us in it here on Earth , that is , to the whole Visible Church by an Act of External Communion , because all who are by the Governors of any Communion taken to belong to the Catholick Church , in what part soever of the World , are for that reason granted to have a Right to their own Communion , if they had been present , and desired it . And by the same Mystical Reasoning it must also unite us to the Invisible Society of Saints and Angels in Heaven , not only as these are also confessed to make up that Mystical Body of which Christ is the Head , who is the Head of Angels and Principalities and Powers and of every Creature , but also as they make up the Invisible Church communicating in the Invisible Archetypal Sacrifice in Heaven . For as , in this Mystical way of Interpretation our communicating at the Visible Altar which represents the Invisible Altar is accounted a Communion with the Invisible Altar so represented by it ; so by the same Rule of Interpretation our Communicating with the Visible Assistants at this Visible Altar must be accounted a communicating with those Invisible Communicants in Heaven , who are also represented by our Visible Communicants on Earth . Besides the same thing will also follow from the other Supposition , that our communicating with the Visible Altar is accounted as a communicating with that which is Invisible . For if , by this means , we and they are accounted as Communicants at the same Invisible Altar , we must , on that account , be the same way made One with them in Heaven , as all who communicate at the same Visible Altar are made One on Earth .

BUT S. John makes communicating Sect. 9 with the Church to be a communicating with the Father and the Son . But this particular cannot be understood , in this Mystical Way of understanding things , so conveniently of any thing as of Communion with the Bishop . I have shewn how , in the Mysteries , the Hierophanta was to personate the God who was concerned in those Mysteries , and that it was , on account of this Personation , that he who communicated with the Hierophanta , was accounted to communicate with the Deity represented by him . I have shewn that the Bishop alone answered the Hierophanta as the Supreme of all those Officers that were concerned in the Mysteries ; nay , that he answered him in this very particular of personating the Father and the Son , as the Comparisons were then made by those earliest Christians . If therefore Communion with the Archetype was to be maintained by Communion with the Ectypal Representative ; then Communion with the Bishop must be the only Means of maintaining a Communion with the Father and the Son , because he only represents them . And that he only could represent them as Principles of Unity appears from the Foundation of this Unity , because it is grounded on Headship . Christ is a Principle of Unity to Mankind , because he is the Head of the Man , and God is a Principle of Unity even to Christ himself because he is the Head of Christ . And because none that has Interest in the visible Government of the Church can represent God and Christ in this particular regard of Headship but the Bishop , therefore none but he can represent them as Principles of Unity . And therefore in this Mystical Way of Reasoning from Representations to Things , none but the Bishop can unite us to the Father and the Son . Whence it will further follow that whoever are disunited from the Visible Communion of the Church on Earth , and particularly from that Visible Communion of the Bishop , must consequently be disunited from the whole visible Catholick Church on Earth , and not only so , but from the Invisible Communion of the Holy Angels and Saints in Heaven , and which is yet more from Christ and God himself , and all the Benefits consequent to all these Unities , whether Visible or Invisible , which cannot in reason be thought communicable to him who is disunited from the Original from whence they flow .

THIS was good Reasoning in S. Sect. 10 Cyprian's time . And what can our Adversaries pretend why it should not still be allowed for good Reasoning now and for ever ? Were these Instituted Representations understood then as Covenants on God's part obliging him to ratifie the things so Represented by his own Appointment , and were they understood so by the most solid ways of judging that those Ages were capable of ; and can they yet think it possible that those very Ancients , to whose Capacities these Institutions were originally fitted , could be mistaken concerning God's mind when they used the most likely means for finding it that they were capable of ? Or if they cannot deny but it was solid then , what can they say why it should not be so still ? Is not the Bishop as apt as ever to signifie a Principle of Unity , and to represent God and Christ under the Notion of a Head ? Nay , does not his Monarchical Presidency over his Brethren of the Clergy peculiarly fit him for such a Signification ? And does he not the more naturally represent God and Christ in the Notion of a Head by how much he is more like in their Monarchy , I mean over that particular Body over which Bishops were at at first placed by Divine Institution ? Or do they think them less of Divine Institution now than formerly ? This would indeed weaken the Obligation on God's part . For even in the use of Covenanting Symbols none is obliged by them but he that uses them , and therefore neither would God be obliged to ratifie what is here represented in his name , if the Representation had not been of his own Appointment . He would not then be obliged to make them partakers of the Invisible Unity who are united to the Bishop , nor to exclude them from that same Invisible Unity , who are disunited from him . But what can be requisite for deriving this appointment at a distance but an uninterrupted Succession from them who had it immediately ? What more had those earlyer Ages themselves to pretend for it ? What more can our Adversaries themselves pretend , at least , what more can they rationally account for , without Enthusiastick Pretences to new Revelation ? And do not our Bishops plead the same Argument of Succession ? Nor is it any matter in Law for weakening the Claim , at what distance this Succession be deduced , so that it be still deduced through unquestionable hands . No matter how long the Chain be , so the Links be entire and equal to the burden supported by it .

IF those Symbolical Representations Sect. 11 were of Divine Institution , and were withal to be interpreted according to the way of Interpretation of that Age , I cannot see how they can avoid but that God will be obliged to ratifie a Union or Disunion with the Bishop on Earth by the like Union or Disunion in Heaven . Will they therefore to avoid it , say , that we are not now to follow that way of Interpretation in expounding it , particularly that we are not now to regard what were the received Notions concerning Mysteries in those Ages , nor what Interpretations were inevitably consequent from these Notions , and must therefore have been infallibly thought just and solid with them among whom these Notions were so received , but that God intended the Scriptures intelligible in all Ages , and therefore could not make the true sense of such Scriptures to depend on Notions antiquated so long agone , and so little observed and known in our Modern Ages , this may indeed seem more plausible at the first prospect , than it will be found solid on a thorough and impartial Examination . For can they indeed think that all those several and contradictory senses which may easily be raised of the several Terms and Expressions from the Usages of different times both of Words and Things and Notions to which those Words have relation , could ever have been designed by God ? Could they think that the Sacred Writers themselves could possibly mean them in senses unknown to them , and with Relation to Things and Notions not as yet in being ? Was not Providence , at least , as much concerned for Them as for Us ? And was it not as necessary that they should understand those Writings which were primarily designed for their Use as that we should understand them ? And was it not as harsh that they should be remitted to Senses and Notions not yet existent , as that we should be obliged , in order to the same design of understanding them , to have recourse to those Senses and Notions then used and notoriously alluded to , however since discontinued and antiquated in the many Changes and Revolutions that were in course to be expected in such a distance ? If so great a Variety of Senses be allowed of as may be gathered from the same Letter understood according to the Sentiments of different Ages , it cannot be avoided but that every new Age , may , under pretence of New Expositions , introduce a whole new Scheme of Christian Doctrines . If , to avoid this , all must be confined to one certain Sense and way of expounding the Scriptures ; there can be nothing thought on more convenient than that this one Sense be that Sense in which it was understood by the Primitive Christians to whose Capacities it was peculiarly fitted by the Holy Ghost , and the way of expounding the Scriptures be the very same which was , and must have been , made use of by the Inspired Writers themselves in expounding their own Prophesies which were not expounded to them by a Second Revelation . Our Brethren themselves will easily grant that the Scripture was always clear in matters necessary to Salvation . And certainly all Duties , and Duties of so great importance as these of preserving Peace and Government , and so universal Use in all Ages of the Church , must be necessary , if any thing . And therefore those Senses of the Scriptures relating to such matters must have been clear to them then , however they may seem to our Brethren now , either because the Monuments , to which they then notoriously alluded , are lost , or because our Brethren take the wrong way to understand them , whilst they neglect a prudent recourse to those remaining Monuments by which they might have been informed .

THUS impossible it is for our Adversaries Sect. 12 to prove their Title to the One Priesthood and One Altar , if the same Scriptures be still to be expounded the same way as formerly in matters of Duty which still remain , and are like to do so for ever , the same as formerly . And as impossible it will be to make good any challenge of Benefit from Sacraments so administred in their separate Condition , whether we consider their Altar , or their Priesthood . If we consider their Altar . They cannot pretend to represent the Invisible Altar in Heaven , at least not so to represent it as Legal Symbols which may infer a Legal Obligation . We see the way of making the Jewish Altar such a resemblance was first , by fashioning it after the Archetypal Altar in Heaven revealed by God himself to Moses in the Mount . Then by framing all other Sensible Altars after the resemblance of that which was first Copyed from the Heavenly Original . What was the meaning of this but to oblige all other Altars to as strict a dependence on the first Archetypal of Sensibles as that had on the Heavenly Archetype it self . But this our separating Brethren cannot pretend to . Their Sacrifices do not so much as unite them to one another , according to the Latitudinarians . Much less do they unite them to that Archetypal Sensible Altar of the Bishop , with which they were at first united , and from which they have since departed . How can they then pretend to represent and apply the Sacrifice of the Heavenly Altar , when withal they do not so much as pretend to any new Revelation like that to Moses , by which they might Copy it immediately from the Heavenly Archetype ? What portion then can they pretend to in the Heavenly Altar and Sacrifice which are only designed for an United People on Earth , and united in a Visible Altar and Sacrifice , and united with the first of those that are Visible ? How can they hope such Altars can apply the Benefits of the Heavenly Altar when they cannot so much as pretend to represent it , being neither Copyed from it , nor from any others that were so ? How can they be taken for Sealing Representations that may oblige God to convey those Benefits , when they are neither appointed by him immediately , nor by any Succession of Men impowered to act in his Name ?

AND as little Comfort can they Sect. 13 hope for from their Priesthood in the State of Separation , on this very account that it is not an One Priesthood . I do not only mean that it is not the One Priesthood which alone had the lawful Original Right to that Title of the One Priesthood . None of our Adversaries have any that can so much as pretend , however injuriously , to such a Title as was requisite on this occasion . I have shewn that the One Priest was not to answer the Jewish Ordinary Priests , whom none ever pretended to be Principles of Unity , nor was it ever disputed with the Samaritans whether there ought to be any more than one of such , nor could any such pretend to be a Head to his Brethren , which , as has been shewn , was the only way of making them fit Representatives of God and Christ as the Principles of the Mystical Unity . The High Priest was he alone who could challenge these things to himself , and when all were agreed that he ought to be only One. And therefore our Brethren ought to shew some single person answerable to him , if they will , by these Principles so much as pretend to any Principle of Unity . This none of our Modern Sects , except the Presbyterians , can so much as offer at . None of them have any single Minister , who , by their Principles , can pretend to Superiority over his Brethren . And all that they can pretend is a Moderator over their Classes , either for a certain time , or , at the utmost for Term of Life . Yet even that is not sufficient for a Principle of Unity . Seeing the Sacrifices are they which are the Cement of this Unity , it must be a Presidency , not in their Assemblies only , but their Sacrifices , which can intitle to a Principle of it . But there is no one person of their Classes that pretends to any Interest more than others in their Eucharistical Sacrifices , none to whom the Union is principally designed that is made to them all in common . Hence it will follow , by the tenor of our present Argument , that they can pretend to no Signification of God and Christ , in their Sacraments , as Principles of Unity , and consequently to no Stipulation in God's part , for a share in the Invisible Celestial Unity , nor indeed to any of that Union , whereby Christians on account of their being so , are supposed united to Chirst , who have no other way of procuring such a Union but by their Sacraments , so that still they must be supposed as much disunited from Christ , as the best of those are who have not yet undertaken the Profession of Christianity . And then for all the consequential Benefits which plainly suppose a Union , they must needs have as weak and ill grounded a Title as they have to the Unity it self to which they are consequential .

WHAT a sad consideration must Sect. 14 this be to any serious hearty lover of Human Souls , to think what Multitudes , of those immortal Beings whom the Son of God has been pleased to ransom with his dearest Blood , are notwithstanding so sadly and so deeply concerned in the consequence of this Discourse ? That still they are Aliens from God and Christ , and Strangers to the Covenant of Promise , and the Commonwealth of Israel . It is one of the most dreadful aggravations of the condition of the damned that they are banished from the Presence of the Lord , and from the Glory of his Power . The same is their condition also who are disunited from Christ by being disunited from his Visible Representative . Whatever Enthusiastick Raptures they may feel , which are oftentimes the effects of an Enthusiastick Temper influenced by false Principles of a deluded Conscience ; yet , by these Principles , they must certainly be deprived of all those real Enjoyments and holy Relishes which devout Souls experience even in this Life in the Communion with their best beloved . They can have no true solid Comfort of Conscience who stand on these Terms with their Judge , who is withal the Lord of their Consciences . None of that Peace which passeth all understanding who are no Subjects of the Prince of Peace , no Members of his Kingdom . No Visitations of the Heavenly Spirit who are divided from that Body of which the Spirit is the Bond and Cement . And , which is the saddest consideration of all , this condition cuts them off from those future hopes which are the only supports and alleviations of good men in this Life under their severest Sufferings . They who are disunited from Christ here have no hopes of recovering a Union with him hereafter . It is certain that whatsoever condition they die in they must abide in it to all Eternity . And it is extremely uncertain , and , at least , infinitely hazardous , that they can have any Right to the Invisible Unity who have none to the Visible by which it is conveyed and promised in a Legal Way , that they shall ever share in the uncovenanted Mercies of God who can make out no claim to the Divine Promises and Covenant . How disconsolate must such a condition seem to every truly Gracious Soul , that it must want the Comforts of Religion here , and lose the hopes of enjoying them hereafter ? What Terms of indifferent Impositions can it think less tolerable than the being reduced to such a desperate condition !

AND is it not , in the mean time , Sect. 15 strange that these men should take upon them to be the great Zealots for Souls who use all the endeavours they can to keep them secure and careless in a state of so great , and so imminent , a danger ? They will neither let them receive Conviction , nor so much as fairly to examine that which might possibly convince them if it were equally examined . Instead of answering our Arguments , they first endeavour to make our Cause , and then our persons odious , and then make use of their little Arts and Popular Talents of Declamation to raise the Passions of their Auditors and Readers . And then they must avoid our Persons and our Books , or come to them with minds possessed with Prejudice , and uncapable not only of Conviction , but also of all equal Information . What other Art could the Enemy of Souls use for securing his Prey , than to make them senseless of their danger ? And can they notwithstanding insist on this very particular as an Argument of their Love of Souls , which the implacable Enemy of Souls takes for the greatest kindness to his own Interest ? We can hardly find any one sort of persons against whom more dreadful Judgments are denounced in the Prophetick Writings of the Old Testament than seducing Prophets , and hardly any one Practice of that sort of Persons than this one of hardening the Wicked in a state of Impenitency , a speaking peace where there is no peace , a strengthning their hands with flattering Misrepresentations , a sowing cushions to their Arms on which they may securely solace themselves in ( God knows ! ) an extremely unsecure condition . This the Scripture calls hunting of Souls , and making them to fly , and destroying them . And must we take them for Friends of Souls who are guilty of it ? Human Frailty and the Weakness of our Understandings may possibly go far in excusing Errors , tho otherwise of no inconsiderable consequence , where the will is not ingredient in the occasion of them . But besides that the very nature of these things is such that they must prove proportionably momentous if they should prove at all erroneous ; the Scripture it self does every where insist on this as one of the most aggravating Circumstances of imputation to the person , as that which must render him most inexcusable , and most uncapable of an Apology . This is the condemnation that men love darkness , and hate the light , when they hate God's Discipline , and refuse to receive Instruction , when they put God far from them , and the evil day , and refuse the knowledge of his ways . When they will not receive the Truth in the Love of it , then God gives them over to strong delusions , to a reprobate Sense , and a seared Conscience . And as the New Testament is in many places very plain in asserting the Limitedness of the Day of Grace ; so there is hardly any thing more spoken of as an ill omen that more fatally prognosticates its being near an expiration , than that men are come to this desperate pass of avoiding or resisting sufficient conviction , of loving their Flatterers , and being averse to unpleasing Truths , and angry at their faithful Monitors . And what can be indeed more formidable to truly conscientious persons ?

Sect. 16 There would be less reason to be positive in a Charge of so high a nature , if they would , at least , give our Reasons an equal hearing , tho , after all , they should prove mistaken in judging concerning them . But they who deny us even this , how can they answer it to God , how can they to their own Consciences , how can they to the World in that dreadful day when all their Secrets must be revealed ? What will they say for themselves , or to clear themselves from the destruction of their Followers and Disciples , when God shall require their Blood at their Hands who have undertaken to be their Shepherds ? Can they plead Ignorance , when Evidence is offered , and rejected by them ? Can they pretend the Evidence insufficient when they have never examined it so far as to be able to say on their own knowledge , that it was insufficient ? Can they say they were not aware of their Duty even of examining it ? But what greater warning could they expect than the great moment of the thing ? And what can be , if this be not , momentous ? Nor is the condition of those who are misled much more secure than that of their Misguiders . The following as well as the leading blind do both of them fall into the ditch . He that is not warned by the Watchman is overtaken by the Sword ; and then what comfort can it be to him that his blood shall be required at the Watchman's hand ? The great Lover of Souls who has already done so great things for their good , discover their duty to them in this particular also . He alone can open their Eyes , and captivate their Wills , and subdue their Affections and worldly Interests , and whatever other Prejudices do sway them , and make them partial in these great Affairs of his Glory and their own Salvation . Good Jesus do it , and give us all to know and follow and embrace the things which belong to our Peace before they be hid from our Eyes .

FINIS .