of Glory by which he is pleased to presentiate himself so long even the subordinate Governours must be presumed to be Authorized by him For it is an inseparable Royalty of the supreme Governour to have the nomination of subordinate Governours either by himself or by his Laws And where the nomination is made of the Persons by the Laws it is always to be presumed as much the Act of the supreme Governour as if it had been performed by him in his own Person and will as strictly oblige Subjects to Obedience to them and will make their resistance as properly a disowning of the supreme Authority The King does not concern himself in Person in the nomination of every inferior Officer nay many times knows not what is done by others in his name Yet the resisting of such Persons who are Legally invested in their Office the Law looks on as a resistance to the Royal Authority it self And though it may be lawful in some instances to deny them active Obedience when they require it in Cases wherein the Law who gave them their Power gave them no power to require it yet even in those Cases to gather Parties against them and to disown dependence on them and to separate from them would also be taken for a Rebellion against the supreme Authority where-ever it is Passive Obedience must be paid to them where Active cannot and upon no pretence of recourse to the supreme Prince can be denyed them without a violation of the Authority of that Prince to whom they pretend to have recourse Nor is this only necessary by the Principles of secular Government much less of that only which is proper to our Kingdom It is absolutely necessary by the Principles of Government as it relates to a visible Society without this no external Society can be maintained And even in the reason of the thing what a man does by his substitute is the same thing in Law as if it had been done by his own Person If therefore the supreme Authority delegate his Power by Legal Rules settled by him as such a Delegation is properly his Act and therefore properly obliges him so the Power so delegated is his also and the resistance made against it does properly affront him in his own Authority This I note to shew that our Adversaries present opposition to Persons Legally Authorized by the Holy Ghost according to the Rules settled by him for maintaining a Succession must be a Rebellion against the Holy Ghost himself though such subordinate Governours should prove mistaken and though they received no other gifts by their Ordination for the discharge of their Office but their bare Office alone And yet the Church has always thought that even such Gifts were given them at their Ordination But that not being necessary for my present design I shall not now enlarge on it § XX IN all these instances it appears that all sins against the Gospel-Dispensation are very properly sins against the Holy Ghost If were easie now to shew further that a separation from the Canonical Assemblies of the Church is a sin against the Gospel-Dispensation I say against the Dispensation it self and not only against particular Provisions of it It is an interpretative disowning Christ for our Master when we leave his School and his Chair It is a disowning his Royal Authority when we resist his subordinate Governours who have succeeded Canonically according to the Rules by him established for Succession It is a violation of that Peace which it was the great design of his Death to settle among us and of that Vnity of the Spirit which I have shewn to be necessary for deriving the influences of the Spirit to particular Members It is a violation of our Baptismal Promise and Covenant when we cut our selves off from being Members of that Society of which we professed our selves Members in our Baptism Most of these Arguments I have shewn to have been made use of by the Apostles themselves And undoubtedly the charges if true will strike at the Gospel-Dispensation § XXI AND for the Punishment assigned by the sacred Writers for this great sin And the way of reasoning used by them in applying the instances of the Old Testament to this purpose I consider that the Authors who were then for the Mystical Expositions of the Old Testament as we have seen that the Christians both by their Genius and their interest were for these Mystical Expositions those Authors I say supposed that even the Historical parts of it were not delivered by the sacred Writers purely for the sake of the Histories themselves but with relation to future Ages wherein they might be useful and yet more especially with relation to the times of the Messiah Now on this supposition it was not proper for them to mention any Histories but such as were designed for Precedents even to Posterity when Circumstances should prove exactly the same Nor was this only supposed to have been designed by the sacred Writers themselves but also by the Holy Ghost by whom they were inspired nay by him rather than by the Writers and these Mystical secondary applications were thought more principally disigned by him than the concernment of the Original History as to the Persons who were at first concerned in it So that on this supposition it was as rational even to ground Arguments for present Expectations on those past Histories how Personal soever they might otherwise seem in their Original design as no man doubts but it is rational to plead Precedents in our ordinary Courts because they were at first designed for that very purpose But more especially this was rational in the â—imes of the Messiah because the whole Old Testament was thought to have a pecular regard to those times Thus it was as rational for the Author to the Hebrews to apply the Promise made to Joshua Heb. xiii 5 I will never leave thee nor forsake thee to the Christian Hebrews to whom he wrote as it was for Jushua to whom it was made to apply if to himself because according to this supposition it was more principally designed by God himself for them than for him and indeed for him no otherwise than as his was to be a leading Case And this will give an account of the reasonableness and Prudence of many of the like reasonings from the Histories of the Old Testament thus applyed in the New And that they did really proceed on this supposition St. Paul himself assures us when after he had reckoned up several of the Judgments that befell Apostates in those times he tells us 1 Cor. x. 11 All these things happened to them as examples and were written for our instruction upon whom the ends of the Worlds are come And though all the New Testament Writers use this way of reasoning yet none more frequently than St. Paul § XXII And as this Observation cleares the reason and the Prudence of such reasonings at least ad homines in regard of the
this Obligation is such as will make them who rather than they will submit to such conditions either separate themselves or suffer themselves to be excluded from Communion by such Governours for such a refusal of submission guilty of the sin of SCHISM Here are two Parts I. That all are obliged to submit to all unsinful conditions of the Episcopal Communion where they live α if imposed by the Ecclesiastical Government thereof This proved by these two Degrees 1. That the supposition of their being less secure of Salvation out of this Episcopal Communion than in it is sufficient to prove them obliged to submit to all terms not directly sinful however unexpedient rather than separate themselves or suffer themselves to be excluded from this Communion Ch. I. § 7 8 9 10. 2. That there is indeed less security of salvation to be had even on performance of the moral conditions of Salvation out of this Episcopal Communion than in it This proved from two things 1. That they cannot be so well assured of their salvation in the use of extraordinary as of ordinary means nay that they being left to extraordinaries is a condition either very hazardous or at least very uncomfortable at present whatever it may prove hereafter Ch. II. 2. That these ordinary means of Salvation are in respect of every particular Person confined to the Episcopal Communion of the place he lives in as long as he lives in it This proved from two things I. That these ordinary means of Salvation are confined to the external Communion of the visible Church This proved from four things 1. We cannot be assured that God will do for us what is necessary for our Salvation on his part otherwise than by his express Promises that he will do it Ch. III. § 1 2. 2. The ordinary means how we may assure our selves of our interest in his Promises is by our interest in his Covenant by which they are conveyed to us Ch. III. from § 5. to the end 3. The only ordinary means by which we may assure our selves of our interest in this Covenant with him is by our partaking in these external Solemnities by which this Covenant is transacted and mainteined Ch. VI V VI VII 4. The participation in these external Solemnities with any Legal Validity is only to be had in the external Communion of the visible Church Ch. VIII II. That this visible Church to whose external Communion these ordinary means of Salvation are confined is no other than the Episcopal Communion of the place where any one lives whilest he lives there This proved in both parts 1. That the visible Church to whose external Communion these ordinary means of salvation are confined is the Episcopal Communion This proved by these Degrees I. That Salvation is not ordinarily to be expected without an external participation of the Sacraments 1. Negatively Not by those other popular means which ordinary Persons are apt to trust in to the neglect of the Sacraments that is 1. Not by hearing the Word Preached Ch. IX 2. Not by private Prayer nor indâ—ed by any out of the Communion of the Church Ch. X. XI XII XIII XIV 2. Positively That Salvation is ordinarily to be expected only by this external participation of the Sacraments 1. Proved concerning Baptism Ch. XV. 2. Concerning the Lords Supper Ch. XVI XVII II. That the validity of the Sacraments depends on the Authority of the persons by whom they are administred Ch. XVIII III. No other Ministers have the Authority of administring the Sacraments but only they who receive their Orders in the Episcopal Communion This proved by four Degrees 1. That the Authority of administring the Sacraments must be derived from God Ch. XIX 2. That though it be derived from God yet it is not so derived without the mediation of those men to whom it was at first committed Ch. XX. 3. That it cannot be so derived from those men to whom it was at first committed without a continued succession of Persons orderly receiving Authority from those who had Authority to give it them from those first times of the Apostles to ours at present Ch. XXI 4. That this Authority is not now to be expected any where but in the Episcopal Communion Ch. XXII XXIII XXIV XXV 2. That the Episcopal Communion to which every particular Person is obliged to joyn himself as he would enjoy the ordinary means of his own particular salvation is the Episcopal Communion of the place wherein he lives whilest he lives in it Ch. XXVI II. That the nature of this Obligation to unsinful conditions of their Episcopal Communion is such as will make them guilty of the sin of SCHISM β who rather than they will submit to such conditions either separate themselves or suffer themselves to be excluded from Communion by their respective Diocesan Ordinaries Ch. XXVII INTRODUCTION THE CONTENTS The concurrent sence of all Irreligious as well as Religious concerning the present necessity of our Ecclesiastical peace and the great mischief of our Ecclesiastical Divisions § 1. The management of Religious Controversies with a design of peace will best answer the qualifications of an useful Controvertist § 2. It is most agreeable with the most prudent Rules of managing Controversies either for finding the truth it self or where humane frailty might fail of that for making the error innocent and excusable § 3 4 5 6 7. What influence this design of peace would have particularly in those Controversies which are debated between us and our Non-Conforming Brethren How far the unpeaceableness of a Position of this kind may be urged as an Argument of its falshood and on the contrary § 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29. That our present undertaking is not unsuitable to the Office of a peace-maker § 30 31 32. How much the peace of the Church is concerned in this Controversie concerning SCHISM How differently the Notion of SCHISM must be stated by them who make the Church a Body Politick and by them who make it not so Our Adversaries Notions of SCHISM and of the duty of a peace-maker exactly fitted to the supposition of the Churches being no Body Politick and indeed very rational on that supposition What is to be thought of the Independent â—enet of placing all Ecclesiastical Authority originally in the people and how far that will clear their practices from the charge of SCHISM § 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40. How the Notion of SCHISM must be stated on supposition of the Church's being a Body Politick § 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51. An account of the Division of this Work into the Rational and Historical parts Some intimations concerning the usefulness and design of the Historical § 52. page 1. CHAP. I. 1. That for proving our Obligation to enter into the Communion of the visible Church it is not requisite to prove that we must otherwise be
of this in that Age. § XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX. 2. That by this means they might be assured of the Resurrection of their Bodies § XXI 5. Therefore according to the Practices and Conceptions then prevailing the Eucharist was the most proper means whereby this Bodily Union with Christ could have been contrived whether it be considered 1. as a Sacrifice and that either as an ordinary Sacrifice § XXII XXIII XXIV Or as a Federal Sacrifice § XXV Or 2. as a Mystery and this of the greatest sort The likeness between the Heathen Mysteries and the Blessed Sacrament The Mysteries were Commemorative and that generally of the sufferings of their Gods § XXVI They were performed by external Symbols Particularly Bread was a Sacred Symbol of Unity Observed in the Rites of Mithras among the Pythagoraeans § XXVII XXVIII In the ancient way of marriage by Confarreation and in Truces § XXIX And among the Jews § XXX The Mysteries designed particularly for the good of the Soul and that in the state of Separation § XXXI In the Mysteries they were obliged to Confession of sins and to undertake new Rules of living well § XXXII In the Mysteries it was usual to change the Names of the things used in them without any thoughts of a change of Nature § XXXIII 6. Vpon these Principles and according to the nature of these Mystical contrivances this Bodily Union may very well be supposed to be made by our Saviours changing the Name of Bread into that of his own Body § XXXIV XXXV XXXVI p. 352 CHAP. XVII It is probable that our Saviour spake the words in St. Joh. vi with relation to the Sacrament which he was to institute § I. It is probable that St. John also understood and designed them so § II. Being so understood they agree very well with the account of the design of this Sacrament already given § III. The meaning of the signs expected from Prophets § IV. Manna the sign of Moses which our Saviour designed to imitate in giving the Bread here spoken of § V. An account from the Hellenistical Philophy of those times how the Bread given by our Saviour is called the true Bread § VI VII Mystical Manna understood by Philo of the ΛΟΓΟΣ § VIII The Bread given by our Saviour Bodily as well as Mystical § IX The way of reasoning in the New-Testament from Mystical Expositions of the Old § X. The prudence of this way of reasoning § XI The course this way of reasoning obliged them to in proving the Christian Sacraments § XII XIII The Ideal Manna communicated to us by the Eucharistical Bread § XIV The consequent danger of wanting this Eucharistical Bread § XV. The usefulness of the method here proposed for understanding this and many other like places in the New-Testament Submission to Superiors § XVI p. 389. CHAP. XVIII 2. The validity of the Sacraments depends on the Authority of the Persons by whom they are administred This Assertion explained § I II III IV. Proved by these degrees 1. The Spiritual advantages of the Sacraments are not immediately conveyed in the external Participation of them § V VI. 2. The reason of this holds not only in acts of Authority that no Authority can be derived from God unless the Persons pretending in his Name to give it be Authorized by him to give it but also in deeds of giâ—t § VII 3. There is much less reason to expect that God should perform what is done in his Name by such Unauthorized Persons than to expect it from ordinary Governours § VIII 4. The case we are now speaking of is such as where it does not oblige him to performance will oblige God to punish such Usurpers of his Authority § IX It will oblige him as a private Person § X. It will oblige him as a Governour § XI The heinousness of sins against Authority § II. An inference by way of Application § XIII 5. All these Reasons will particularly hold in those places where these Usurpations are in danger of proving injurious to the rights even of subordinate Governours that is in a place already possessed § XIV How God as Supreme Governour is concerned for the honour of the Supreme visible Governours § XV XVI This honour due to inferior Governours impossible to be preserved if Subjects be allowed the liberty of setting up opposite Societies as often as they are of another mind and of perpetuating such disorders by the validity of what they do in such their Usurpations § XVII XVIII It is inconsistent with Government that Subjects should be allowed to râ—fuse their duty in case of inevidence against a presumptive title This proved in two particulars § XIX 1. It is necessary for the security of visible Government as such that a presumptive title be not rejected but on very evident proofs to the contrary § XX XXI XXII XXIII XX V XXV 2. The failures of this presumptive title in those who were at present possessed of the Government cannot justifie the like Usurpation in them who should discover it § XXVI It cannot secure their doings from a Nullity § XXVII It cannot secure their Persons from a crime which may oblige God to take the uttermost advantage which the Legal invalidity of their proceedings might afford him § XXVIII The case proposed concerning the assuming an Authority to administer the Sacraments in a desolate Island How impertinent this is to our Adversaries case and therefore how little temptation we have to be partial in answering it § XXIX Answer § XXX Their Persons could not be excused from presumption § XXXI Their proceedings could not be secured from Nullity § XXXII p. 404. CHAP. XIX 3. No other Ministers have this Authority of administring the Sacraments but only they who receive their Orders in the Episcopal Communion This proved by several degrees § I. 1. he Authority of administring the Sacraments must be derived from God Explained § II. The importance of this Proposition § III. Though this were not proved yet our Adversaries practices are unjustifiable by the Principles of Government in general § IV. As they were at first unjustifiable by the Principles of Government so they can plead nothing which may make that justifiable now which was then unjustifiable They cannot plead a lawful prescription § V. If they could yet this Proposition will cut them off from pleading it against God § VI VII VIII The Proposition proved 1. From the reason of the thing § IX This performed by two degrees 1. It is God alone that has the right of disposing the Spiritual benefits here conveyed § X XI XII The reason of the Adversaries mistakes § XIII 2. It is none but he that can give Possession of them § XIV 2. From the actual establishment of God No such Authority actually conferred upon the people § XV XVI XVII The weakness of the Argument from bare Primitive precedent for proving a right conferred shewâ— from the many condescensions of those times and the prudence
p. 239. l. 8. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 35. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 240. l. 23. r. that as p. 241. l. 30. r. also separated p. 245. l. 35. r. therefore as p. 247. del marginem and add ad not a p. 248. p. 248. l. 6. r. excuse marg 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 249. l. 16. r. to them p. 250. marg 10. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 11. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 254. l. 15. r. there p. 256. l. 14. del that p. 259. l. 21. r. severity p. 261. marg 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 262. marg 17. r. Poliorcetes p. 263. marg Psal. L. p. 276. l. 15 r. Xeno 279.32 ingenuously p. 281. l. 1. r. guilt p. 291. l. 34. r. extremely p. 295. l 14. r. then l. 35. r. sin p. 297. l. 33. r. far p. 307. l. 17. r. faxit p. 308. l. 29. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 35. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. r. breath p. 309. l. 17. r. of purer l. 24. r. wink p. 310. l. 21. r. which l. 26. r. Soul p. 311. l. 18. r. and. l. 23. r. Poets is l. 26. r. is yet p. 313. l. 4. del if we deal ill with p. 35. l. 5. r. think strange l. 31. r. which p. 319. l. 4. r. on l. 9. r. be yet p. 323. l. 29. r. proving Without p. 326. r. Spirit only p. 336. marg 11. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 337. r. the return of Souls p. 342. l. 23. r. are not p. 361. l. 19. r. for l. 27. r. consider we p. 362. l. 21. r. then p. 363. l. 4. r. need a. p. 369. l. 16. r. propagation l. 17. r. invention p. 373. l. 5. r. intention l. 35. r. the. p. 376. l. 19. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 31. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 377. marg 11. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 378. marg 14. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 380. l. 38. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 394. l. 6. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 marg 4. r. Numenio p. 396. l. 10. r. knew l. 30. r. a Mystery p. 397. l. 22. r. were p. 403. l. 9. r. new p. 425. l. 17. r. pleases Whatever p. 442. penult r. Texts p. 443. l. 34. r. there p. 447. l. 21. del his l. 22. del to p. 450. l. 25. r. the Spirit p. 461. l. 25. r. prosecution p. 463. l. 25. r. Power p. 478. l. 18. r. former p. 482. l. 1. r. loss p. 495. l. 10 r. favourable p. 498. marg l. 8. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 546. 11. r. it p. 550. l. 22. del not p. 597. l. 22. r. the. p. 604. l. 1. r. lot p. 614. l. 31. del not p. 619. l. 17. r. anothers THE INTRODUCTION THE CONTENTS The concurrent sense of all Irreligious as well as Religious concerning the present necessity of our Ecclesiastical Peace and the great mischief of our Ecclesiastical Divisions § 1. The management of Religious Controversies with a design of Peace will best answer the Qualifications of an useful Controvertist § 2. It is most agreeable with the most prudent Rules of managing Controversies either for finding the Truth it self or where humane frailty might fail of that for making the Errour Innocent and Excusable § 3 4 5 6 7. What influence this design of Peace would have particularly in those Controversies which are debated between Vs and our Non-Conforming Brethren How far the Unpeaceableness of a Position of this kind may be urged as an Argument of its Falshood and on the Contrary § 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29. That our present undertaking is not unsuitable to the Office of a Peace-maker § 30 31 32. How much the Peace of the Church is concerned in this Controversie concerning SCHISM How differently the Notion of SCHISM must be stated by them who make the Church a Body Politick and by them who make it not so Our Adversaries Notions of SCHISM and of the Duty of a Peace-maker Exactly fitted to the Supposition of the Church's being no Body Politick and indeed very Rational upon that Supposition What is to be thought of the Independent Tenet of placing all Ecclesiastical Authority Originally in the People and how far that will clear their Practices from the charge of SCHISM § 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40. How the Notion of SCHISM must be stated on Supposition of the Church's being a Body Politick § 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51. An account of the Division of this work into the Rational and Historical Parts Some intimations concerning the usefulness and design of the Historical § 52. THE Peace of the Church is a thing at present so extremely desirable not only in regard of its intrinsick Charitableness but it s many happy influences on our dearest Interests not only Sacred but Secular that he must be as Imprudent as Impious as Inhumane as Vnconscientious as little deserving the name of a Friend of his Country as of a Lover of his Religion who can still be unconcerned for a design I do not say of such worth but of such importance for our settlement For though there are few so Prudent as to foresee Inconveniences at a distance or of so tender sense as to be vehemently concerned for Absurdities in Reasoning or of so Spiritual an apprehension as to be moved by the purely Spiritual Threats or Rewards of the Gospel yet every one is apt to be affected by his own Experiences And accordingly we find not only the Practicers but the very Enemies of Religion to be now more than ordinarily inclinable to a Reconciliation Not only such who are endued with that Modesty which would hinder Men from Imperious Dogmatizing or easie Censuring of Dissenters or that ardent Charity for their Brethren of the same Profession which would hinder them from either giving or taking any Offence which were by any Lawful means avoidable or that Humility which would incline unskilful Persons to submit to the Judgment of Persons more skilful at least in such matters wherein they might be convinced of their own Unskilfulness and would make them diffident if not in their Judgment yet at least in their Practice when contrary to the sense of the more Judicious which would very much conduce to secure the Church from disturbing Innovations or that Pious Prudence which would make Men especially cautious of Errors either in Opinions or Practices which would prove extraordinarily mischievous if Erroneous as those must do which are destructive of the Government of that Society to which the Erroneous Persons are related and yet more especially Cautious in such Cases wherein their past Experiences might be sufficient warnings against future Inconveniences as they may here where Men may find how little available
reason of the thing § IX This performed by two degrees 1. It is God alone that has the right of disposing the Spiritual benefits here conveyed § X XI XII The reason of the Adversaries mistakes § XIII 2. It is none but he that can give Possession of them § XIV 2. From the actual establishment of God No such Authority actually conferred upon the People § XV XVI XVI The weakness of the Argument from bare Primitive Precedent for proving a right conferred shewn from the many condescensions of those times and the Prudence of the Reasons that required them § XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV The unreasonableness of this way of Arguing § XXVI There were then circumstances proper to that Age which required particular condescension § XXVII Though the Negative Argument be not good yet the Positive is that the actual claim of Governours then is a good presumption that they had a right to the Power so claimed by them § XXVIII Persons extraordinarily-gifted at length made subject to the ordinary Governours of the Church § XXIX XXX XXXI This derivation of Power rather from Governours than from the People agreeable to those Precedents whom the Primitive Christians were most likely to imitate § XXXII XXXIII XXXIV XXXV A way proposed for accommodating the several Interests concerned in Ordination according to the Practice of those times § XXXVI XXXVII The Apostles unlikely to confer this right of Government on the People if left by God to their own Liberty according to the Notions which then prevailed among the Christians § XXXVIII Remarks tending to the satisfaction of the Lovers of Truth and Peace 1. This way of arguing from the actual establishments of God as it is much more modest so it is also more secure for finding out the right of Government than any conjectures we can make from the reason of the thing § XXXIX XL. 2. Though the People had this inherent right of Government originally yet it cannot exclude a right of God who may when he pleases resume this right into his own hands § XLI 3. If the People ever had such a right originally yet all that has been done since for alienating that right which could be done § XLII § I 3. THEREFORE no other Ministers have this Authority of Administring the Sacraments but only they who receive their Orders in the Episcopal Communion This I shall endeavour to prove by these Degrees 1. That the Authority of Administring the Sacraments must be derived from God 2. That though it be derived from him yet it is not so derived without the mediation of those men to whom it was at first committed 3. That it cannot be so derived from those men to whom it was at first committed without a continued Succession of Persons orderly receiving Authority from those who had Authority to give it them from those first times of the Apostles to ours at present 4. That this Authority is to be expected no where now but in the Episcopal Communion § II 1. THE Authority of administring the Sacraments must be derived from God I do not only mean that it must be derived from God as all other things as well as Authorities are derived from him who is not only the Supreme Prince but the first Cause of all things Nor do I mean only that it must be from God the same way as all other even Secular Authority must be derived from him at least Providentially though the Power of Government were originally never so much at the disposal of the Persons to be governed For whatever the Creature has originally the disposal of it must be supposed at first derived from God But yet in a way of Providence God does also frequently dispose of Governments which had been otherwise in the Creatures liberty to dispose of as in those rights which are gotten by just Conquest and Prescription where the rights of Government are certainly disposed of by Providence without any possible pretence of consent in the Persons obliged to submit to it For the right of the Creature where-ever it has any is not to be understood so as to derogate from the right of God to dispose of them as he pleases whatever right they have as it must necessarily be derived from him if it be indeed any right at all so that derivation does not rob him of any of that which he had before It is to be understood not Privatively as they say but Accumulatively My meaning therefore is that this Power of administring the Sacraments must be so derived from God not as to exclude the mediation of such men who have received it in a Succession from him but so as to exclude all right originally derived from the Creature as far as the Creature is capable of such a right originally in contradistinction to God That is that no men have a right to Government in Ecclesiastical affairs but by a particular donation from God not by vertue of that general right which God has given every one by his general Providence to take care of himself and which therefore every individual Person may for himself and much more whole Multitudes may by common consent commit to others § III THE consequent whereof will be that all Ordinations and all Administrations of the Sacraments derived from any Multitudes or Persons on account of their general right of governing themselves without an express donation from God are not only irregular but invalid and such as can neither in Conscience oblige any Subjects to submit to them nor encourage any who are otherwise willing to submit to expect any benefit from them And my design in proving this Proposition is particularly to oppose not the Independents only but those others also who by the badness of their Cause have been forced upon their Principles and do assert a power in the mutinous Communalty to legitimate the Calling of those Pastors which they have been pleased to set up for themselves in opposition to their original Superiors on what account soever they assert it to them besides this of an express donation which I do not know that any yet have pretended to whether in regard of that intrinsick right every one is supposed to have for his own Government in Spirituals where he is not expresly imposed on by positive Provisions though withal he have not that intrinsick right either confirmed or enlarged by any such Provisions or in regard of their Election according to them who conceive the Elect only capable of constituting a Church and that according to the popular Notion of that word of Election § IV I AM sensible how needless my present undertaking is for proving the first Dividers of the several Parties to have been guilty of Schism For if any other form of Government be lawful in the Church besides Democracy that is indeed if it be in the Power of the Multitude to alienate their own Power by their own Act and if they cannot it is impossible
they are said neither to have been of men nor by men Gal. i. 1 Eph. iv 11 2 Cor. v. 20 They are reckoned among the gifts of Christ upon his ascending up on high They are called Embassadors for God and in Christs stead And it has always been reckoned among the Prerogatives of Majesty to have the sending of his own Embassadors Nay it was counted so peculiar a property of an Apostle to be sent by God himself as that St. Paul insists on it as an Argument to vindicate his own Apostleship against the false Apostles who quarelled at it Gal. i. 11 12. 1 Cor. ix 1 that he had received nothing from the other Apostles themselves and that himself had seen our Lord that he might receive his Authority from him Thus far therefore there appears no Precedent of any Authority either received from the Multitude or given to the Multitude by Christ himself who as yet alone had power to give it § XVI NOR do I think that our Adversaries themselves will pretend that the Apostles received their Authority from the People Yet so unwary they are in their arguing for the Authority of the People as that they produce such Proofs as must conclude this if any thing If the Peoples Expostulation with St. Peter concerning his baptizing of Cornelius had been an Act of proper Jurisdiction it must have been an exercise of Jurisdiction over St. Peter himself And if so they must in reason be supposed to have had some power of punishing him either by deposing him from his office or by suspending him from the exercise of it or at least by Authoritative withdrawing from him yet so as still to continue in the same good condition wherein they were before which can hardly be understood without a weakening of his Apostolical office For no proper Jurisdiction can be understood without a proportionably proper power of inflicting punishment in case of misdemeanour And if they will not own this that the People had a Power over the Apostles they must at least let go all their proofs which prove this if they prove any thing Which will extremely streighten them in their pretended Scripture Precedents For where-ever they find the People doing any thing without the Apostles which is the only Case wherein they could shew the proper extent of their own Authority they will find the Apostles themselves concerned which must therefore oblige them to understand such actings not to have been by way of Jurisdiction but of Expostulation § XVII WHEN was it therefore that this Authority was given to the Multitude By whom was it given to them who had a just Power of giving it them Was it afterwards given them by the Apostles who had hitherto held it independently of them If so it were well our Brethren would remember to insist only on such Proofs as are later than the date wherein they think it was given them and on such Proofs which speak more home to their design than those which are antienter than those times wherein themselves conceive this conveyance to have been made and which they must therefore acknowledg unconclusive But so far were the Apostles from giving away that Power to the Multitude which they had never received from them as that we find generally the Ordinations mentioned in the Scriptures performed either by themselves or by Persons Authorized as themselves were either by God himself or by them not by the People Tit. i. 5 Act. xiv 23 Act. vi They ordeined Elders in every City By them the order of Deacons was instituted and the Persons promoted to the Order They visited whole Countries and settled and confirmed the Churches they constituted what Officers and gave them what degrees and prescribed what Rules of Government they pleased according to their own Prudence and the suggestions of the Holy Ghost without consulting the Authority of any others which they could not have done if they had either acknowledged any self originated Power in the People or immediately given them that power which themselves had received immediately from God It cannot possibly be understood how the Rules of a Democratical Government could ever have permitted them to act so arbitrarily as it is plain they did in those first beginnings of Christianity § XVIII THERE were indeed many prudent reasons proper for those times which might prevail with the Apostles to desire the Peoples consent in the administration of their Government though the obliging validity of what was done had not depended on their Authority The Church was then a Body linked together only by an awe of Conscience not by any other external coercion And though now that the truth of Christianity and the Authority of the Apostles are sufficiently confirmed all are obliged to submit to the Rules prescribed by them as they would secure their happiness which will not leave them to that Liberty nor consequently intitle them to that right in the Government before they submit to it as our Brethren fancy yet before this conviction had prevailed on the minds of men it could not have been prudent for them to exercise the utmost extent of that Authority which did really belong to them Our Adversaries themselves will at least acknowledg the Apostles to have been infallible whence it will follow that their word alone ought to have been taken in Controversies then started at least where there appeared not evident reason to the contrary But we plainly find that even themselves durst not venture their Authority on so hard a tryal Even in probable things we do not find that they required their Auditors assent without such reasons as the matter would afford that is at least without probable ones And generally we find them so laying the stress of their persuasion on those reasons as if their Authority had been no reason at all Therefore in the Controversie concerning Circumcision Act. xv the Elders and the Multitude convened together with the Apostles to give their judgment concerning it and that in a Case which was to be decided by the Holy Ghost But what need had there been of all that trouble if the Apostles Authority alone had been sufficient for this decision The Holy Ghost spoke by the Apostles alone And could the whole Synod after all their diligence in enquiring and debating the Truth in that matter pretend to any greater Authority Was it likely that the ordinary Presbyters much more that the Laity themselves should have had any thing revealed to them which had been concealed from the very Apostles But we find the whole matter debated by reasons and rational applications of the Mystical sense of the Old Testament as if no new revelation had been pretended § XIX THE like might have been observed from the debates with St. Peter concerning his Preaching to Cornelius and with St. Paul concerning his Preaching against the obligation of the Ceremonial Law The lawfulness of Preaching to the Gentiles and of forbearing the externals of the Law were
of that Age which we have lost which would certainly have acquainted us with many precedents which have now miscarried for want of them Especially considering withal that it is purely matter of fact which they here insist on no express approbation of that power of the People not the least conveyance of any power to them but only such a conuivance at it as we might very reasonably expect that the exigency of their affairs might have extorted from them without any direct approbation This is most certainly the way to deprive Successors of all those branches of power the exercise whereof they then thought fit to forbear And certainly it is not ingenuous to make condescension an Argument against right Themselves do not think it equal to make St. Pauls precedent of serving the Corinthians without any contribution of theirs 1 Cor. ix 12 18. nay labouring with his hands for a livelihood an argument against either his or his Successors titles to a competent maintenance And what if the commands of those times may indeed give Rules to all succeeding generations Does it therefore follow that their Histories must do so too Were there no peculiar circumstances proper to that Age no accommodations suited to those peculiar circumstances no Prudential Provisions of the Apostles as Ecclesiastical Governours as well as Revelations by them as Apostles Our Adversaries themselves when they consider it cannot be so mistaken as to think they were not And why then should they make the very actions of that Age precedents for all succeeding ones in all variety of circumstances § XXVII THIS is indeed so far from being true as that it has plainly appear'd that there were indeed circumstances extraordinary which might hinder the practice of Government in that Age which yet because they were indeed extraordinary and have long since failed can be no Arguments against the right or the exercise of those same branches of Government in ours Then Officers were sent extraordinarily from God without the Ministry or mediation of men and together with their extraordinary Call had their extraordinary Credentials too But now none are called immediately but by the Ministry of those who have derived their Call from God in a Succession And sure they cannot think but that they who have no other title to a Divine Call but what they derive from men Authorized by God to call them must needs be obliged to a more intire dependence on those Superiors from whom they receive their Call than they who were never beholden to them for their Authority And while some had really this extraordinary Call more were at liberty to pretend to it and could not easily or suddenly be discovered all their Credentials not being of equal evidence which doubtfulness alone must weaken the exercise of Authority Then ordinary Superiors knew not but that their Prudential restraints might clash with Divine Inspiration For the Spirit was free as to choose what Persons he pleased for Prophets so to reveal what he pleased to Persons chosen by him and sometimes he revealed to one Prophet that which he concealed from another 1 Cor. xiv 30 though otherwise greater than him to whom he revealed it And is there any reason to confine our present Superiors now when there are either no pretences to these extraordinary Inspirations of their Subjects or at least no plausible pretences to any extraordinary Credentials which might convince Superiors of the truth of their pretences to other things Their extraordinary Calls then seem to have extended even to the Sacraments themselves if that conjecture hold true which I now proposed concerning the state of the Corinthians when St. Paul wrote his first Epistle to them And if so Superiors could have no curb over them though they had thought fit to exercise their Authority upon them But what is that to our modern Separatists who can pretend no gifts and Personal qualifications that may be taken for so much as a Providential Call to administer the Sacraments whatever they pretend for those other offices of Preaching and Prayer If the Sacraments alone be exempted from these extraordinary pretences this alone will be sufficient to oblige them to Subjection by our Principles § XXVIII BUT though this Negative way of arguing be upon all these accounts extremely weak yet the positive is very solid that whatsoever Power was exercised by the Apostles or any other ordinary Governours empowered by them and was challenged in any Case that was certainly their rights how rare soever the precedents were wherein they were pleased to exercise or challenge it This is thought equal even in humane right where prescription it self is thought sufficient to make a right One exercise of right is sufficient to confirm the right and to overthrow the Legal force of a prescription But how much more must it hold in Divine Right wherein I have shewn how little reason there is to ascribe any thing to Prescription If they will allow any equal means for judging between right and condescension I do not know any way more equal than this is to judg of right by positive Rules by the nature of the Government it self and by avowed practices and to conclude all practices soever that are different from these how numerous soever to be only connivances and condescensions And certainly they will not deal more irrationally than disingenuously if they will allow of no equal means to distinguish them if they will needs make condescension an Argument against right § XXIX NOW though the reason of these condescensions was never any pretence of any right of Government to be derived from the People whether on account of any original inherent right in them or of any new conveyance to them from the Apostles but purely on such accounts as might have been expected though the right of this Government had been as absolutely derived from God as I suppose it to have been as absolutely as that Power they had of proposing new Revelations and of obliging all to believe them on their own Authority which none can think derived from any concession or compact of the People to be governed by them for still this right of the People could neither have obliged Persons extraordinarily gifted to Subjection nor the People themselves till they were satisfied of that Authority the Apostles had to oblige them yet even these Persons were at length made subject to the Government of the Church as soon as ever the Authority of the Apostles was intirely acknowledged and as soon as any certain provision was made for Government and as soon as the inconveniences of this other state grew to be of that moment as to deserve a diversion of their thoughts from those other more important employments which at first took up their whole care § XXX AND that was certainly as soon as could in reason be expected And it is observable that as this Subjection of Persons extraordinarily inspired was a thing too great for any inherent right of the
People so it was plainly introduced by them whose right it was without any ratification of the People that might signifie any right they had in this matter by any positive gift Immediately on writing that first Epistle to the Corinthians the women that were Prophetesses were wholly forbid the publick use of their Talents in the Church and obliged to a modesty of learning from their Husbands at home notwithstanding their Divine Inspirations and notwithstanding that these Inspirations were given them rather for the publick than themselves And even the men were obliged to order in their exercise of those Divine Gifts And as soon as we certainly know that Government was settled in that very Church of Corinth we find withal that it was to the ordinary Governours that those extraordinary Persons were obliged to be subject That was their Case when St. Clement wrote his Epistle to them Clem. Ep. 1. ad Corinth §. i. 46 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rather 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as in Clem. Alexan. For the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is mentioned as one of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 §. 48. §. 3 4 5 6. §. 40. §. 42 43 44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 §. 41. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 §. 57. Those two or three Persons who had occasioned the Schism then mentioned seem plainly to have been such as were puffed up on account of their extraordinary gifts This seems to have occasioned that part of his Discourse against Aemulation and in favour of Humility because those Persons taking themselves to equal their Superiors in gifts seems to have been encouraged on that account to do what they did in disparagement of the Ecclesiastical Authority and are therefore called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ringleaders of Aemulation Yet even these he obliges to keep to their own station as severely as the several ranks of the Clergy were obliged to do so in the time of the Law Over these he asserts the rights of the then present Governours and that from the very Argument I am now insisting on of Succession and in regard of the Divinity of the Institution Nay he plainly tells even these Persons themselves that it were better for them to be small and of mean account in the flock of Christ than by seeming considerable to be cut off from the hope or fold of Christ. So dangerous he thought it even for such to be cast out of the Church and out of the Communion of the ordinary Governours of it how much milder soever the Notions are which our modern Brethren have entertained concerning it § XXXI BUT I shall hereafter have a fitter occasion in my Second Part to consider the Notion of Schism alluded to in this Epistle All that I shall further observe out of it at present is that the Apostles not the People took care of settling a Rule for preserving Succession §. 44. a sign that the Apostles never gave the Power out of their hands at least not so far as to deprive themselves of it The same might also have been proved from those Catalogues of Bishops in the Apostolical Sees which the Antients insist on in their first Disputes against Hereticks and which as it was a matter as notorious so is attested to us by the same Authority on whose credit we receive the Canon of the New Testament it self and attested with as much confidence as that Canon it self Yet this Argument would lose much of its force for proving that the then present Successors of the Apostles must have taught the same Doctrine with the Apostles if the Peoples interest in the Government had been then so considerable as that it had been in their Power to have obtruded a Succession different from the sentiments of his Predecessors And though the reasons now given to shew that the Authority it self did exceed all inherent right of the People yet still the prudential reasons might hold that they should not have any particular Person obtruded on them without their own consent Which as it will not suffice to justifie any orders or Sacraments derived only from the People so I am confident that it is the uttermost that can be pretended from these Primitive Ages § XXXII NOR was this agreeable only to the nature of the Power here conveyed that it should be conveyed by these Divinely Authorized Persons who alone had power to convey it but also to the precedent imitated herein I have already observed that the assemblies of Christians were taken from the Schools and that succession was the same way pleaded in the School and Chair of Christ as it was usually made use of for mainteining the Schools of the Masters and Doctrines where they had settlements We know the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Platonists at Athens were continued till later Ages and we have Catalogues of the severa◠Masters which supplied that Chair like those of the Primitive Bishops from the Apostles And as the deserting these and setting up new Schools in opposition to them was the introducing new Heresies among the Philosophers from whom that term was taken so to desert Apostolical Chairs and to follow new ones was the same thing among the Christians who derived that term from them Now among the Philosophers the empowering of Successors was either performed by the Predecessors or at least by the Scholars of their own rank not by the promiscuous Multitude And there was other reason why it should be so besides the nature of the Power conveyed to them For when they contrived their Philosophy by way of Mystery their Acroamaticks the Mysterious part of it were committed only to these Superiour Scholars of the greatest proficiency And therefore their Master himself and their Symmystae must needs have been taken for the most competent Judges of their ability to succeed them who they were that understood them best and who were most likely to prove faithful in the trust committed to them For the terms of a St. Luk. i. 2 Jud. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and b 1 Tim. vi 20 2 Tim. i. 14 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in deriving the succession of the Christian Doctrine seem to have been derived from the Philosophers as well as others § XXXIII AND if we may believe the modern Rabbins the Judges of the Sanhedrim themseves were they who had the Power of admitting Successors Vid. Selden Not. in Eutych de Syn. But these seem to have been Ecclesiastical Judges no otherwise than as the constitution of their Secular Government it self being Theocratical it took in Ecclesiastical affairs as a principal ingredient in it As for the administration of their Sacred Offices the Succession was a thing certain and confined to a certain Family and all that men could do in the Case was not to chuse any new one in but only to exclude those who were uncapable according to the qualifications prescribed by the Law But whatever was done was either done by God himself or the Supreme
mentioned For grant this power of perpetual presiding to the Bishops and it will then follow that the right of convening Ecclesiastical Assemblies will belong to them Therefore those Assemblies which meet without their Calling as all those must do which meet out of their Communion can be no lawful Assemblies But the acts of unlawful Assemblies though otherwise consisting of such Persons as had a real power in lawful ones are Nullities can oblige the Society to nothing much less can they dispose of a thing of so great moment to them as their power They are not only Nullities but offences of that nature as that they are so far from obliging the Societies in any equity to confirm them as that they do oblige them by the highest common interest to punish them Which plainly shews that though Presbyters had been allowed a power of Ordination yet they could not validly exercise it out of the Episcopal Communion and therefore that whatever may be said to that Question yet that cannot make it questionable whether the Orders of our present Adversaries be valid § XI THIS right of presiding in the Assemblies was a thing which the highest Asserters of the Identity of Order between Bishops and Presbyters in the modern Ages I am speaking of did undoubtedly never think the Bishops obliged to renounce Nor could any Bishop how heartily soever he believed that opinion be presumed to give the Presbyters ordeined by him a power of meeting without his leave when themselves pleased And yet undoubtedly the Bishops were actually possessed of that power by a peaceable prescription of many Centuries and by the consent of the Presbyters themselves who lived in them so that the Presbyters then ordeined could lay no claim to it without an express gift from the Bishops who ordeined them because they never had that power nor were there any remaining then who could give it them besides the Bishops And indeed the Bishops could not renounce this power without dissolving the Society by making the exercise of Government unpracticable or without changing the whole frame of Government For supposing they had renounâ—ed this right who must have had it If none had it how could the Society be secured that Assemblies should meet if none had power to call them if non had power to oblige particular Members to be present at them when called If any particular Presbyter had been intrusted with it that had only been an alteration of the Person not of the right of the Office The new intrusted Presbyter would thereby become the Bishop by what name soever they would be pleased to call him and all the change that ordinary Presbyters would find by such an act would be only of their Master not of their subjection If it had been given away indefinitely no particular Presbyter could lay a better claim to it than all his Brethren and by all it is not practicable till they be considered as convened in an Assembly If it had therefore been given to the whole Assembly either they must thenceforth have stated times allotted them for meeting or every meeting must be allowed to adjourn themselves and to appoint the time and place for meeting again If at any time no meeting were ascertained the Government would be dissolved This is indeed the way practised in Peliarchical Governments but such a resignation of the Bishop as this must therefore have altered the very frame of the Government And where can our Adversaries give any precedent either in Catholick Tradition or even in the times of the Scripture it self wherein any such thing was practised by Presbyteries Where was it ever heard that they called or adjourned themselves without the Authority of the President of their Assemblies by what name soever our Brethren will be pleased to call them § XII NOR am I concerned by my present interest how the Bishops came by their power of presiding whether by the Election of their Clergy or People or whether by a new consecration by Bishops only Let the guesses of St. Hierome the counterfeit Ambrose and Eutychius be as true as our Adversaries can wish them Let it be so that the Bishops received no new Consecration of their own Order that no men but the Presbyters were concerned in giving their power to them Our Adversaries usually think they have performed a great matter when they have produced these conjectures of these Authors And yet when they have made all they can of them they are no better than conjectures These Authors lived too far from the times they speak of to assure us of any thing Historically Nor do they pretend to any Histories we know not of that might put us in any hope that they speak what they say on better grounds than eonjecture Yet these are the only grounds of all that our Adversaries say positively in this matter But I say granting that these conjectures were true and that not only the ancient Bishops but the Bishops of the Ages we are speaking of had no new consecration nor consequently had any new power from what they were capable of receiving by the Canonical Election of their Clergy and granting therefore that all the further power they pretend to by their Consecration is no just accession of power and therefore none at all I do not see how even by this power which they may receive by their Election our Adversaries can defend the validity of their present Ordinations For what if the Bishop had received his power from the Presbyters Does it therefore follow that the Presbyteries must not depend on him when he has received it Does it follow that they must still have power as freely as formerly to assemble themselves without his leave and either to depose him or to set up another in his stead or at least to erect themselves an independent Body on any Superior Does it follow that such practices of theirs would be valid if they should attempt them § XIII NAY the very contrary has been taken hitherto for the only solid security of peace in all prudent humane establishments In all elective Kingdoms the Interreges have a power during the vacancy to dispose of the affairs of the Kingdom till a new King be elected But they as well as other Subjects would be guilty of Treason if they should attempt the same things afterwards Their Assemblies would be as illegal and their proceedings in them of as little validity as those of other Subjects So in St. Hieromes instance Ep. ad Euagr. the Army chose the Emperor and when he was so chosen he was not invested in his power by any Authority superior to that of the Army Yet that power of the Army expired as soon as he was once peaceably settled in the power received from them They could not then meet as they had done formerly If they did such meetings were thenceforwards illegal and their proceedings null Much less could they justifie a revolt from him or validly defend their
Solemnities yet if they had never Covenanted without the Solemnities and had expresly declared these Solemnities to be the only instruments by which they would oblige themselves they would not think themselves obliged so much as in equity to performance on their own part unless the Person concerned had used all possible diligence for performance on his proportionable to the benefits expected Which must let them see their own obligation to yield all things short of sin rather than fail of these Solemnities because the benefits here expected are sufficient to countervail such concessions if they would hope for any equity in this case Not now to mention the presumption of sealing Covenants to themselves when they cannot procure the seals from them who are authorized by God to seal them which is not only a Nullity to God considered as a Covenanter but a provocation highly punishable by him as a Governour and which themselves would think so if they were in his Case So far are Persons who are thus far guilty from a claim to equity even by those general rules of equity by which these illiterate Persons are guided in their worldly dealings But if these illiterate Persons should be yet too solicitous for Authorities though that be a thing which their Teachers are not too forward to recommend to them where they are not evidently swayed by interest to do so yet § L 3. THE main Principles of my Discourse are such as are already granted by our Adversaries themselves That the Gospel is transacted in way of a Covenant and that the Sacraments are the seals of that Covenant though as to the substance of the things they may have been granted by several antienter than the separation of our Brethren yet none were then so zealous for these Notions nor so accurate in the properties of speech resulting from them I am sure it was not so ordinary either in the primitive Church or in the Western Churches for many Centuries before the Reformation to write so many professed Volumns on this Subject of the Covenants or to call the Sacraments seals in ordinary discourse concerning them as it is now among the generality of our separating Brethren of whatsoever denominations I think there are very few if any among them who are at all for Sacraments but they have entertained these Notions concerning them And these are the fundamental Principles of the precedent discourse though I have also provided less doubtful Principles for those who might doubt of them What is asserted further is only in consequence to these Principles and therefore must be admitted by them who grant the Principles from whence these consequences are deduced And yet even of these consequences themselves some of the chief and of greatest importance to my design are also generally granted by those parties whom ignorant Persons have reason to regard as equal and competent guides in affairs of this nature that is by such of them as are not led by professed Principles of Enthusiasm but by sober and prudent considerations of the nature of a Church and the necessity and nature of that Government which themselves find necessary by their own experience when they come to practise it that is indeed when they find themselves obliged by their own interests to consider it soberly and impartially And it is only in such a case as that is that it can be prudent for ignorant Persons to trust them when they are considering positively what is true rather than when they are thinking only how they may avoid an Adversary § LI FROM these Notions of Gods proceeding with us in way of a Covenant and the Sacraments being the seals of that Covenant I infer the necessity of a lawful Mission for a valid administration of the Sacraments This is also admitted by the generality of those parties now mentioned Even they who say that gifted Brethren may preach yet do not so ordinarily allow that such Persons may administer the Sacraments till their gifts be at least solemnly approved by such as have at least that power of solemnly approving them And they who derive their Authority from the people yet either do so upon that general popular mistake whereby they take the power of preaching the word for more essential to the Ministry and for an exercise of the supreme Authority wherewith they are invested which supreme act of Authority infeâ—s and includes the inferior exercises and branches of it than that of administring the Sacraments Or if they derive even their Jurisdiction from their power in admitting to or excluding from the Sacraments yet the reason is because they then consider them as Ceremonies of admitting to or excluding from their Society rather than as seals of the Covenant And then the reason why they derive the power of administring them from the Multitude is from that general power which every individual of the multitude has to chuse his own company which he may give away if he pleases Or if yet further they consider them even as seals yet they rather consider them as seals on their own part what conditions they are pleased to submit to and the Minister as the common Procurator Authorized by every particular Person to promise and seal the Covenant in his name than as seals on Gods part conveying a legal right to promises on the performance of conditions And it is undoubtedly the right of every particular Person to enter into what Covenants he pleases and to delegate whom he pleases to act for him in sealing them But iâ— they had considered them as seals on Gods part there could have been no pretence of a power in the people to assign delegates for him on any Principles that I know of that are mainteined among them Very few of them if any do so much as pretend that the Multitude has a right to administer the Sacraments in their own persons Nor can they have colour on the Principles here proposed to lay claim to any such right The Spiritual benefits here conferred as pardon of sins the gift of the Holy Spirit and supernatural rewards on the performance of duty are plainly not originally at their disposal Nor can they pretend to any general conveyance of this power from any who had any right to dispose of them neither from God himself nor from the Apostles nor any of their Successors empowered by them § LII NOR indeed is it so regular according to the nature of Covenants in general that one party should be allowed the liberty of allotting delegates for the other Though the same Persons may be chosen to mediate and transact the Covenant between both parties yet it is proper that this common power be conferred on them by the distinct suffrages of the parties themselves who must first act for themselves before any third Person can be empowered to act for them This is certainly just and equal where Covenants are transacted on equal terms between equal parties But where they are mediated between Superiors and