such a Separation as denies not only Actual Obedience but the Lawful Jurisdiction of Superiors and withdrawes Subjects from the proper Legal Coercions of such a Society especially if continued in the same Districts where Separation from Government is not intelligible without opposition to it must needs be Schismatical For where there are two Governments not Subordinate there must needs be two Bodies Politick and therefore that Separation which interrupts this Subordination and erects an Independent Government must consequently dissolve this Political Vnity and be Schismatical This therefore being the true ground of this Notion of Schism must be the principal thing requisite to be proved against our Adversaries And whether it be proved directly that the Church is such a Body Politick and it be thence inferred that such a Separation as that I have been speaking of is properly Schismatical or whether the Separation be first proved Schismatical and this Political Vnity of the Church be thence deduced both ways of proceeding will come to the same event § XLII ESPECIALLY considering 2. that though indeed we can by Reason prove it very convinient and avaylable for the Salvation of particular Persons that they be thus confederated into Political Societies yet we cannot prove it so necessary as that Antecedently to all Positive Revelation we might have been able to conclude that God must have thus confederated them For besides the great Presumption and Vncertainty of this way of Arguing what God must have done from what we esteem fit and convenient acknowledged by all Equal Persons in Instances whereof they may be presumed Equal Judges that is when this Argument is produced in favour of Adversaries the Argument is then more especially Weak and Imprudent when the conveniences are no greater than still to leave many things to the determination of Humane Prudence and such they are here and when we can have securer ways of Arguing as none will doubt but that it is much more secure to Enquire what God has actually done from actual Revelation than from our own fallible Conjectures what was fit to have been done by him especially in things so Indifferent and Arbitrary as these are concerning which I am at present discoursing If therefore it may appear that God has actually made the Church a Body Politick it will follow that resistance to Ecclesiastical Governors must be actually comdemned by God as Shismatical and on the contrary if it appear that God has actually condemned Resistance to Ecclesiastical Officers as Schismatical it will also follow that he has made the Church a Body Politick there being no other difference betwixt these two ways of Arguing but that one of them is a priori the other a posteriori but in both of them the Connexion is equally certain from its own rational Evidence § XLIII 3. THEREFORE As this actual Constitution of the Church is most proper to be proved from Scripture so the most satisfactory way of proving it thence will be not only to prove thence the Duty of Obedience to be required from Subjects to their Ecclesiastical Superiors but also to discover from thence the mischief likely to befall Subjects upon their Disobedience For 1. it is in vain to constitute a Government or a Body Politick properly so called without a Coercive Power over its particular refractory Members And therefore if in the Constitution of the Church as established in the Scriptures there appeared nothing Coercive over its particular Members to force them to the performance of their Duty under pain of a greater Prejudice to be incurred by them in case of refusal than that of barely acting irrationally and indecorously this very Omission would make it suspicious that the Duty exacted from them were no more than that Reverential respect which we commonly conceive due to Persons of excellent accomplishments or from whom we have received particular Obligations though they have no Right of Jurisdiction over us but not that Obedience which is properly due to Governours of Societies by virtue of their Offices without any regard to their Personal accomplishments and our Obligations to them So that this real Prejudice which is likely to be incurred by the Subject in Case of Disobedience is very necessary to be discovered from the nature of the Constitution of the Church as it is expressed in the Scripture even in order to the clearing the Nature of the Duty and the extent of the obligation of this Authority § XLIV AND 2. the Church being on this Supposal an External Body Politick its Coercive Power must also be External And therefore though the validity of her Censures be derived from Gods seconding them that is from his remitting or binding in Heaven what she remits or binds on Earth yet this power will indeed be very little Coercive if Gods confirmation be thought easily separable from the Churches Act. For seeing that a Society of this nature cannot imply any External Coercion of the External Act all the Coercion she can pretend to can be no other than a Deprivation of those Priviledges which are enjoyed and may be pretended to by virtue of her visible Membership and an exposing the Person so deprived to all the Calamities consequent to such a Deprivation But if the Confirmation of these censures by God be wholly resolved into the merit of the Cause for which they were inflicted they can never be feared nor consequently prove Coercive to their Subjects who are not convinced of the merit of the Cause it self Which in the event will make them never properly Coercive at all especially in regard of a Government which is acknowledged Fallible as the Church is generally by Protestants For it is to be presumed that all who stand out so obstinately against the Churches Authority as to provoke her Censures either are not or pretend not to be satisfied with the Justice of her Decrees and therefore if their own Judgments may be taken as all the Coerciveness of such Censures as these are which are not Externally Coercive must be derived from the Judgments of the Persons lying under them concerning their validity there can be no hopes of reclaiming them by Censures who are not already such as may be presumed satisfied concerning the Justice of the Cause for which they were inflicted and yet such alone are the proper Objects of Coercive Power § XLV BESIDES those Censures which are supposed only Declarative not Operative are not properly the Acts of Authorized but Skillful Persons for it is Skill not Authority that is a Prudent Presumption that any thing is such as it is Declared and therefore the Opinions of Learned Doctors though but private Persons would in this way of Proceeding be much more formidable than the Peremptory Sentences of Ecclesiastical Governours as they are considered only under that Relation I cannot see how this can be denied by those who conceive the Declaration to be purely-Speculative and to be of no further force for obliging particular Persons than as upon
concerning it from other Scriptures I said that the great use of this fleshly Vnion with Christ was principally to secure us of the Resurrection of our Bodies Accordingly he frequently mentions the Resurrection here Joh. vi 39 40 44 v.58 and that as a particular benefit of this eating the Eucharistical Bread So he tells them This is the Bread which descended from Heaven not as your Fathers did eat the Manna and are dead he that eateth this Bread shall live for ever Where by living for ever must certainly be meant the life of the Body when it is opposed to that bodily death which befel their Fathers after their eating the Manna in the Wilderness I said that our title to the Resurrection of our Bodies was immediately grounded on our partaking of his flesh This is also our Saviours doctrine in this place Ver. 54. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last day And to this purpose he calls his flesh meat indeed and his blood drink indeed Ver. 55. because it does perform the office of meat and drink to more effectual purpose than any worldly meat and drink does The office of meat and drink is to preserve Life which the worldly meat and drink do only for a time but these for ever I said that this partaking of his flesh united us to him And so says also our Saviour himself He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood Ver. 56. abides in me and I in him This mutual abiding in each other are the terms whereby this Apostle usually explains their being one with each other and that in the Person of our Saviour himself And I have given them the glory which thou gavest me Joh. xvii 22 23. that they may be One as we are One I in them and thou in me that they may be made perfect in One. I said that by this participation of Bread we partake also of his flesh Joh. vi 51 So also says our Saviour The Bread which I will give is my flesh which I will give for the Life of the world And it is very observable that when he speaks of the Bread which himself was to give he still speaks in the future which will make it much more likely that he should mean it of the Sacrament which he had not as yet instituted than of his Doctrine which he was delivering to them at that present § IV BESIDES his giving them this Bread is plainly spoken of in this whole Chapter with allusion to the Manna given by Moses For when our Saviour had told them that this was the work of God Ver. 29. that they should believe on him whom he had sent the Jews answer him again What sign dost thou that we may see it and believe thee What dost thou do For thus it had been the custom of Prophets Exod. iv 1.8 9. to confirm their Mission by some extraordinary sign So Moses had two signs given him to convince the Israelites that God had indeed appeared to him So the Prophet who cryed against the Altar of Jeroboam 1 King xiii 3 5. gave a sign the same day saying This is the sign which the Lord hath spoken Behold the Altar shall be rent and the ashes that are upon it shall be poured out So in the contests between Jeremiah and the false Prophets that were his rivals Jer. xx 6.xxviii.15 16 17 xxix.21 22 31 32. he confirms the truth of his own Mission and the falshood of theirs by predictions of judgments which should befall the false Prophets and by the course prescribed for knowing a false Prophet by the events not answering his Prediction Deut. xviii 21 22 xiii.1 2 3. or however that he should not be believed though it should have proved answerable if he endeavoured to seduce them to Idolatry it plainly appears both that signs were the usual means for distinguishing true Prophets from false ones and that these signs were generally predictions by which it will be easie to understand the reason of that which has puzzled so many Expositors why the Jews when they had seen so many miracles performed by our Saviour should yet demand a sign from him because no miracles were counted signs but such as were done purposely in proof of his Mission and vouched by him for such before their performance and which afterwards in the events punctually answered their Predictions § V NOW the signs themselves alledged in proof of Moses's Mission was that of his foretelling the descent of the Manna Joh. vi 31 Exod. xvi 4 15. which is called Bread from Heaven and Bread which God had given them And therefore our Saviour immediately lays hold on this very instance for proof of his own Mission and accordingly promises that he also would give them Bread and such Bread as had descended from Heaven as the Manna had done But with this advantage Joh. vi 32 33. that the Bread which he would give them de future else it had not been a Prediction and consequently not a sign at least not like that of Moses who foretold the descent of the Manna before it came to pass should be his own flesh which he would give for the life of the World Exod. xvi 4 Joh. vi 51 St. Matt. xxvi 26 Mark xiv 22 Luk. xxii 19 1 Cor. xi 23 24. And where can we find this Prediction so probably fulfilled as it is in the Eucharist where there is also Bread given us which is called his Body and that Body which was broken for us And what reason is there so likely why this Apostle should speak so little of this Sacrament afterwards in the place which had been so proper for it at the time of its institution as because he had discoursed so largely concerning it here § VI I DARE not say that our Saviour did herein allude to the Israelites murmuring after flesh after they had their wills in the Manna So they complained then Numb xi 6 And now our Soul is dryed away there is nothing at all besides this Manna before our eyes So that our Saviours allusion might be that the Bread which he would give them should be by so much more satisfactory than Manna by how much it should prevent their murmuring for flesh which Manna did not that is that it should serve for flesh as well as Bread I rather think that his design was to shew how it should come to pass that the Bread which he would give them should come by that advantage above Manna that the Life maintained by it should be immortal not mortal only as that was which was maintained by the Manna that is that by this Bread our Bodies should become his and consequently that it should be as impossible that our Bodies should be detained by the chains of Death Act. ii 24 as St. Peter tells us that it was impossible that the Body
of our Saviour could be so detained And when he therefore calls this Bread the true Bread from Heaven in opposition to the Bread of Moses I am apt to think that it was meant according to the usual meaning of this Mystical way of arguing It is sufficiently clear from Philo that the Platonical Ideas were received by the Hellenistical Jews 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 3 4 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 169. Philo. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 5. ex Numino Didymo Philone Clemente Alexandrino Euseb. Pr. Eu. xi 22 23 24 25. especially by those of them who were for expounding the Scripture Mystically and that these Ideas were by them as well as the Platonists placed in Heaven and particularly in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that those Ideas were the only Truth and that all other resemblances of them were only * Vid. Viger not ad Euseb. Praep. p. 528. D. 845. D. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 derived from them only as impressions from the Seal and therefore were not the true things themselves but only the appearances of them § VII HENCE it came to be the design of the Primitive Christians in the great use they made of Mystical Judaism for their purpose to shew that all the externals of the Law were only Ectypal resemblances of those original Archetypal Ideas which were reserved in Christ as being that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in whom the Platonists and the Mysticizing Jews themselves placed their Ideas and that they were reserved with him in Heaven before his descent on earth So the Priests of the Law are said to have served 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. viii 5 to the example and shadow of heavenly things Which is proved from that same place from whence Philo also proves these Heavenly Exemplars and from whence Justin Martyr supposes Plato himself to have borrowed them Justin. Paraenet p. 28 29. Exod. xxv 40 Heb. ix 1 Ver. 9. Heb. ix 23 24. For see that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed thee in the mount So the worldly Sanctuary in opposition to the heavenly which was only a figure for the time present So the holy places made with hands are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the patterns of things in the Heavens and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the figures of the true to which are opposed the heavenly things and Heaven it self So the Law is said to have had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Heb. x. 1 a shadow of good things to come but not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not the very image of the things Heb. viii 2 So in opposition to the earthly Tabernacle there is the heavenly which is called the true Tabernacle And Christ as he is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so he is said to be the truth very frequently Joh. xiv 1 especially by St John who of all the New Testament Writers seems to have been most punctually observant of this Mystical style and whoever would know the Truth indeed must know it as it is in Jesus Eph. iv 21 § VIII THIS therefore being supposed there will also be reason to suppose that Manna must also have been understood Mystically and the rather so Psal. lxxviii 26 because the Psalmist calls it the Bread of Angels who could not according to the Hellenistical Hypothesis of Philosophy then received be supposed capable of partaking of material Bread And accordingly our Saviour when he would prove himself to be no Spirit he does it by eating S. Luk. xxiv 41 42 43. and the Apostles who were witnesses of his Resurrection when they would urge their own Testimony more unexceptionably in that matter this is the most convictive evidence on which they insist that even after his Resurrection they had eaten and drunk with him Act. x. 41 a plain sign that they took it for a Principle granted them by those against whom they reasoned that Spirits could not eat and drink And this is the reason why Philo who takes up Mystical sences many times upon less considerable exceptions against the Letter than this is does grant a * Philo 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 176. E. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And else where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he speaks concerning the Manna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 470. And elsewhere he again makes it come from Heaven p. 449. Mystical Manna and places it in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which comes exactly home to our Saviours reasoning and shews the prudence and cogency of it at least as to this part of his Discourse that he was the true Bread of which the Corporal Manna which had been eaten by their Fathers in the Wilderness was only a Type and resemblance For supposing the Adversaries with whom he had then to deal to have been of Philo's mind as plainly Philo in most of his Allegories does not pretend himself to be an inventer but a deliverer of the Traditions of those who had studied Allegories and whoever compares his not only with Clemens and Origen who succeeded him in the School of Alexandria and in the way of Allegorizing but also with the Scripture it self will find that they did not take that liberty that some may conceive but kept constant to one way of Allegory though I confess they sometimes give several Allegorical Expositions of the same Scriptures I say supposing that they granted that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was the Archetypal Manna he had nothing more to convince them of in order to the proving that he was the true Bread but only that he was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which was to appear from those many Credentials which he afterwards produced of his being so § IX THIS was very apposite to our Saviours purpose and might very probably have been part of his design but I cannot think that it was the whole of it For the benefit here spoken of is plainly corporal and not such as could agree to the Angels viz. the intitling their Bodies to a Resurrection unto bliss as I have already observed If it had been otherwise the reason given by him why this Bread should make their Bodies immortal had been very improper For what relation had flesh to the food of Angels How could they receive nourishment from it or be made immortal by it Nay indeed what need was there of proving that the Archetypal Manna should make its receivers immortal seeing that by the Hypothesis then received all Archetypal â—eings were supposed to be immortal Or if he would be pleased needlessly to put himself to that trouble yet why should he make use of so unlikely an Argument for proving it They know not of any flesh that was to be immortal At least they were much better assured that all Archetypal Beings were immortal than that any flesh was so And therefore how could the immortality of his own flesh pass with them for an Argument of the immortality of this Archetypal Bread