A Weapon-Salve for the Churchs Wounds, Religious treatise 1 · Part 2 · Chapter 6 (3 of 3)

A Weapon-Salve for the Churchs Wounds · Religious treatise 1 · Part 2 · Chapter 6 (3 of 3)

p. 316We proceed to the third thing to shew the incompetency§. …8. of Antiquity for deciding this Controversie, which will be from the Partiality of the Testimony brought from thence. Two things will sufficiently manifest the Partiality of the judgment of Antiquity in this Case. First their apparent p. 317judging of the practice of the first Primitive Church, according to the Customes of their own. Secondly, their stiffe and pertinacious adhering to private traditions contrary to one another, and both sides maintaining theirs as Apostolical. First, judging the practice of the Apostles by that of their own times; as is evident by Theodoret, and the rest of the Greek Commentators, assigning that as the Reason why the Presbyters spoken of in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, were not Bishops in the Sense of their age, because there could be but one Bishop in a City, whereas there are more expressed in those places, as being in the several Cities: whereas this is denyed of Apostolical times by the late pleaders for Episcopacy; and it is said of them, that they spoke according to the custome of their own time. And it is now thought there were two Bishops in Apostolical times in several Cities: the one the head of the Jewish Coetus, and the other of the Gentile. I enter not the Dispute again here, whether it were so or no, onelyonly I hence manifest, how farr those persons themselves who plead for the judgement of the Fathers as deciding this Controversie, are from thinking them impartial Judges, when as to the grounds of their Sentence they are confessed to speak onelyonly of the practice of their own time. Who can imagine any force in Chrysostomes argument, That the Presbyters who laid hands on Timothy must needs be Bishops, because none do Ordain in the Church, but Bishops, unless he makes this the medium of his argument. That whatever was the practice of the Church in his dayes, was so in Apostolical times. There is, I know not what strange influence in a received custome, if generally embraced, that doth possess men with a …ancy, it was never otherwise then it is with them; nay▪ when they imagine the necessity of such a custome at present in the Church, they presently think it could never be otherwise then it is. But of this I have spoken somewhat already. Secondly, that which makes it appear how partial the judgement of Antiquity is, in adhering to their particular Traditions, and calling them Apostolical, though contrary to one another. How can we then fix upon the Testimony of Antiquity as any thing certain or impartial in this Case? when it hath been found so p. 318evidently partial in a Case of less concernment then this is. A witness that hath once betrayed his faithfulness in the open Court, will hardly have his Evidence taken in a Case of moment, especially when the Cause must stand or fall according to his single Testimony. For my part, I see not how any man that would see Reason for what he doth, can adhere to the Church for an unquestionable Tradition received from the Apostles; when in the case of keeping Easter, whether with the Jewes on the fourteenth Moon, or only on the Lords day, there was so much unreasonable heat shewed on both sides, and such confidence, that on either side their Tradition was Apostolical. The Story of which is related by Eusebius, and Socrates, and many others. They had herein all the advantagesEccles. Hist. l. 5. c. 25. Socrat. l. …5. c. 21. imaginable in order to the knowing the certainty of the thing then in question among them. As their nearness to Apostolical times, being but one remove from them: yea the persons contending pleaded personal acquaintance with some of the Apostles themselves, as Polycarp with Iohn, and Anicetus of Rome, that he had his Tradition from Saint Peter; and yet so great were the heats, so irreconcilable the Controversie, that they proceeded to dart the Thunderbolt of excommunication in one anothers faces; as Victor with more zeal then piery, threw presently the Asiatick Churches all out of Communion, onelyonly for differing as to this Tradition. The small coals of this fire kindled a whole Aetna of contention in the Christian world, the smoak and ashes, nay the flames of which, by the help of the Prince of the Aire were blown over into the bosome of the then almost Infant Northern Churches of Brittain, where a solemn dispute was caused upon this quarrel between Colmannus on one side, and Wilfride on the other. The like contest was upon this Occasion between Augustine the Monk, and the Brittish Bishops. The Observation of this strange combustion in the Primitive Church upon the account of so vain, frivolous, unnecessary a thing as this was, drew this note from a Learned and Judicious Man, formerly quoted, in his Tract of Schism; By this we may plainly see the danger of our appeal to Antiquity, for resolution in controverted points of Faith. O how small relief are we to expect from thence! For if p. 319the discretion of the chiefest Guides and Directors of the Church did in a point so trivial, so inconsiderable, so mainly fail them, as not to see the Truth in a Subject, wherein it is the greater marvel how they could avoid the fight of it; Can we, without the imputation of great grossness and folly, think so poor-spirited persons, competent Iudges of the questions now on foot betwixt the Churches? Thus that person, as able to make the best improvement of the Fathers as any of those who profess themselves the most superstitious admirers of Antiquity. But if we must stand to the judgement of the Fathers, let us stand to it in this, that no Tradition is any further to be imbraced, then as it is founded on the Word of GOD. For which purpose those words of Cyprian are veryCyprian ep. 47. n. 13. observable; In compendio est autem apud religios as & simplices mentes, & errorem deponere, & invenire atque eruere veritatem: Nam si ad Divinae Traditionis caput & Originem revertamur, cessat error humanus. He asserts it an easie matter, for truly religious and plain-hearted men to lay aside their Errour, and to find out the Truth, which is by returning to the head and spring of Divine Tradition, viz. the Scriptures; Which he expresseth further, with an elegant similitude: Si Canalis aquam ducens, qui copiose prius & largiter profluebat, subito deficiat, nonne ad fontem pergitur ut illic Ib. n. 14.defectionis ratio noscatur, utrumne arescentibus venis, in capite unda siccaverit; an verò integra deinde & plena procurrens, in medio itinere destiterit? ut si vitio interrupti aut bibuli canalis effectum est, quò minus aqua continua perseveranter & jugiter flueret, refecto & confirmato canali ad usum atque ad potum civitatis aqua collecta eadem ubertate atque integritate repraesentaretur, qua de fonte proficiscitur. Quod & nunc facere oportet Dei sacerdotes praecepta divina servantes, ut si in aliquo mutaverit (l. nutaverit) & vacillaverit veritas, ad originem Dominicam, & Evangelicam▪ & Apostolicam Traditionem revertamur, & inde surgat actus nostri ratio, unde & ordo & origo surrexit. His meaning is; That as when a channel suddenly fails, we presently inquire where and how the breach was made, and look to the Spring and Fountain, to see the waters be fully conveyed from thence, as formerly: so upon any failure in the Tradition of the Church, our onelyonly recourse must be to p. 320the true Fountain of Tradition the Word of God, and ground the Reason of our Actions upon that which was the Foundation of our profession. And when Stephen the Bishop of Rome would tedder him to tradition, Cyprian keeps his liberty by this close question, Unde illa Traditio … utrumne de Dominica & Evangelica auctoritate descendens, an de Apostolorum mandatis atque Epistolis veniens,—Si ergo aut Evangelio praecipitur, aut in Apostolorum Epistolis, aut Actibus continetur—observetur Divina haec & Sancta traditio. We see this good man would not baulk his way on foot for the great bugbear of Tradition, unless it did bear the Character of a Divine Truth in it, and could produce the credentials of Scripture to testifie its authority to him. To the same purpose that stout Bishop of Cappadocia, Firmilian, whose unhappiness with Cyprians, was onelyonly that of Iobs Friends, that they excellently managed a bad Cause, and with far more of the Spirit of Christianity, then Stephen did, who was to be justified in nothing but the Truth he defended. Eos autem, saith Firmilian, Firmil. ep. inter ep. Cyprian. 75. …. 5.qui Roma sunt, non ea in omnibus observare quae sint ab origine tradita, & frustra Apostolorum auctoritatem pr… tendere, which he there makes out at large, viz. That the Church of Rome had gathered corruption betimes, which after broke out into an Impostume in the head of it. Where then must we find the certain way of resolving the Controversie we are upon? The Scriptures determine it not, the Fathers tell us there is no believing tradition any further then it is founded in Scripture; thus are we sent back from one to the other, till at last we conclude there is no certain way at all left to find out a decision of it. Not that we are left at such uncertainties as to matters of Faith (I would not be so mistaken) We have Archimedes his Postulatum granted us for that, a place to fix our Faith on, though the World be moved out of its place, I mean the undoubted Word of God: but as to matters of Fact not clearly revealed in Scripture, no certainty can be had of them, from the hovering light of unconstant Tradition. Neither is it onelyonly unconstant, but in many things Repugnant to its self, which was the last Consideration to be spoke to, in reference to the shewing the incompetency of Antiquity for deciding our Controversie. Well p. 321then, suppose we our selves now waiting for the final Verdict of Church-Tradition to determine our present cause; If the Iury cannot agree, we are as far from satisfaction as ever; and this is certainly the Case we are now in. The main difficulty lyes in the immediate succession to the Apostles: if that were but once cleared, we might bear with interruptions afterwards: but the main seat of the controversie lies there, whether the Apostles upon their withdrawing from the Government of Churches did substitute single persons to succeed them or no: so that u…less that be cleared, the very Deed of Gift is questioned: and if that could be made appear, all other things would speedily follow. Yes, say some, that is clear: For at Ierusalem, Antioch, and Rome, it is evident that single persons were entrusted with the Government of Churches.

In Ierusalem, say they, Iames the brother of our LORD, was made Bishop by the Apostles: But whence doth thatHist. Eccl. l. 2. cap. 22.Sir 50:2 appear? It is said from Hegesippus in Eusebius. But what if he say no such thing? his words are these foreign, which is there interpreted, Ecclesiae administrationem una cum caeteris Apostolis suscepit. And no more is thereby meant, but that this Iames who is by the Antients conceived to be onelyonly a Disciple before, is now taken into a higher charge; and invested in a power of governing the Church as the Apostles were. His power, it is plain, was of the same nature, with that of the Apostles themselves: And who will go about to degrade them so much as to reduce them to the Office of Ordinary Bishops? Iames in probability did exercise his Apostleship the most at Ierusalem, where by the Scriptures we find him Resident, and from hence the Church afterwards, because of his not travelling abroad as the other Apostles did, according to the Language of their own times, they fixed the Title of Bishop upon him. But greater difference we shall find in those who are pleaded to be successours of the Apostles. At Antioch some, as Origen and Eusebius, make Ignatius to succeed Peter. Ierome makes him the third Bishop, and placeth Evodius before him. Others therefore to solve that, make them cotemporary Bishops; the one of the Church of the Jewes, the other of the Gentiles: p. 322with what congruity to their Hypothesis of a single Bishop and Deacons placed in every City, I know not: but that Salvo hath been discussed before. Come we therefore to Rome, andV. M…gdeburg, Cent. 1. l. 2. c. 10. here the succession is as muddy as the Tiber it self; for here Tertullian, Rufinus, and several others place Clement next to Peter. Irenaeus and Eusebius set Anacletus before him: Epiphanius and Optatus both Anacletus and Cletus; Augustinus and Damasus with others, make Anacletus, Cletus, and Linus, all to precede him. What way shall we find to extrica e our selves out of this Labyrinth, so as to reconcile it with the certainty of the Form of Government in the Apostles times? Certainly, if the Line of Succession fail us here, when we most need it, we have little cause to pin our Faith upon it as to the certainty of any particular Form of Church-Government setled in the Apostles times, which can be drawn from the help of the Records of the Primitive Church: which must be first cleared of all Defectiveness, Ambiguity, Partiality, and Confusion; before the thing we inquire for, can be extracted out of them.

Having thus far shewed that we have no absolute certainty§. 19. of what Form of Government was setled by the Apostles in the several Churches of their Plantation: The next Consideration which follows to be spoken to, is, that the Apostles in probability did not observe any one fixed course of setling the Government of Churches, but setled it according to the several circumstances of places and persons which they had to deal with. This will be ex abundanti as to the thing by me designed, which would be sufficiently cleared without this: and therefore I lay it not as the Foundation of my Thesis, but onelyonly as a Doctrine of Probability, which may serve to reconcile the Controversies on foot about Church-Government. For if this be made appear, then it may be both granted that the Apostles did settle the Government in the Church in a Colledg of Presbyters, and in a Bishop and Deacons too, according to the diversity of places, and the variety of circumstances. It is easie to observe, that as to Rites and Customes in the Church, the Original of most mens mistakes, is, Concluding that to be the general Practice of the Church, which p. 323they meet with in some places: whereas that is most true which Firmiliam tells us, In plurimis Provinciis, multa pro Cypr. Ep. 75. …. 5.locorum & nominum (l. hominum) diversitate, variantur; nec tamen propter hoc ab Ecclesiae Catholicae pace at que unitate discossum est. Those Rites varied in divers places, retaining still the Unity of the Faith; so, as to matter of Government, mens mistakes do arise from an universal conclusion deduced out of particular premises; and what they think was done in one place, they conclude must be done in all: Whereas these are the grounds inducing me probably to conclude that they observed not the same course in all places. Which when an impartial Reader hath soberly considered (with what hath gone before,) I am in hopes, the Novelty of this Opinion may not prejudicate its entertainment with him. My grounds are these; First, From the different state, condition and quantity of the Churches planted by the Apostles. Secondly, From the multitude of unfixed Officers in the Church then, which acted with authority over the Church where they were resident. Thirdly, from the different customes observed in several Churches, as to their Government after the Apostles decease. I begin with the first, The different State, Condition, and Quantity of the Churches planted by the Apostles: For which we are to consider these things; First, That God did not give the Apostles alike success of their labours in all places. Secondly, That a small number of believers did not require the same number, which a great Church did, to teach and govern them. Thirdly, That the Apostles did settle Church-Officers according to the probability of increase of believers, and in order thereto, in some great places. First, That God did not give the Apostles equal success to their labours in all places. After God called them to be Fishers of men, it was not every draught which filled their Net with whole shoals of Fishes; sometimes they might toyle all Night still and catch nothing, or very little. It was not every Sermon of Peters which converted three thousand: the whole world might at that rate soon have become Christian, although there had been but few Preachers besides the Apostles. God gave them strange success at first, to encourage them the better to meet p. 324with difficulties afterwards; In …es God told them he had much people, in others we read but of few that believed. At Corinth, Paul Plants, and Apollos Waters, and God gives an abundant increase; but at Athens (where if moral dispositions had fitted men for Grace, and the improvements of Nature, we might have expected the greatest number of Converts) yet here we read of many mocking, and others delaying, and but of very few believing: Dionysius and Damaris, Act. 17. 34.Acts 17:34and some others with them. The Plantations of the Apostles were very different, not from the Nature of the soile they had to deal with, but from the different influence of the Divine Spirit upon their Endeavours in severall places. We cannot think that the Church at Cenchrea (for so it isRom. 16 2.Rom 16:2 called) was as well stockt with Believers, as that at Corinth. Nay, the Churches generally in the Apostles times were not so filled with Numbers, as men are apt to imagine them to be. I can as soon hope to find in Apostolical times Diocesan Churches as Classical and Provincial; yet this doth not much advantage the Principles of the Congregational men,Par. 1. ch 6 s. 8 p. 129. as I have already demonstrated. Yet I do not think that all Churches in the Apostles times were but one Congregation; but as there was in Cities many Synagogues, so there might be many Churches out of those Synagogues enjoying their former liberties and priviledges. And they that will shew me where five thousand Jewes and more did ordinarily meet in one of their Synagogues for publike worship, may gain something upon me, in order to believing the Church of Ierusalem to be but one Congregation, and yet not perswade me, till they have made it appear, that the Christians then had as publike solemn set meetings as the Jews had; which he that understands the state of the Churches at that time, will hardly yield to the belief of. I confess, I cannot see any rule in Scripture laid down for distributing Congregations: but this necessity would put them upon; and therefore it were needless to prescribe them; and very little, if any, reason can I see on the other side, why, where there were so much people as to make distinct Congregations, they must make distinct Churches from one another; but of that largely in the next p. 325chapter. All Churches then we see were not of an equal extent. The second premisal Reason will grant, viz. that a small Church did not require the same number of Officers to rule it, which a great one did. For the duty of Officers lying in Reference to the People, where the People was but few, one constant setled Officer with Deacons under him, might with as much ease discharge the work, as in a numerous Church, the joynt help of many Officers was necessary to carry it on. The same reason which tells us that a large flock of Sheep consisting of many thousands doth call for many Shepherds to attend them, doth likewise tell us that a small flock may be governed with the care of one single Shepherd watching continually over them. The third premisall was that in great Cities the Apostles did not onelyonly respect the present guidance of those that were converted, but established such as might be useful for the converting and bringing in of others to the Faith, who were as yet strangers to the Covenant of promise, and aliens from the foreign, society of Christians. And here I conceive a mistake of some men lies, when they think the Apostles respected onelyonly the Ruling of those which were already converted; for though this were one part of their work, yet they had an eye to the main Design then on foot, the subjecting the World to the Obedience of Faith; in order to which it was necessity in places of great resort and extent, to place not onelyonly such as might be sufficient to superintend the Affairs of the Church, but such as might lay out themselves the most in Preaching the Gospel in order to converting others. Haveing laid down these things by way of premisal, we will see what advantage we can make of them in order to our purpose. First, then I say, that in Churches consisting of a small number of Believers, where there was no great probability of a large increase afterwards: One single Pastour With Deacons under him, were onelyonly constituted by the Apostles for the ruling of those Churches. Where the work was not so great, but a Pastour and Deacons might do it, what need was there of having more? and in the great scarcity of fit Persons for setled Rulers then, and the great multitude and p. 326necessity of unfixed Officers for preaching the Gospel abroad, many persons fit for that work could not be spared to be constantly Resident upon a place. Now that in some places at first there were none placed but onelyonly a Pastour and Deacons, I shall confirm by these following Testimonies. The first is that of Clement in his Epistle, foreign.P. 54. The Apostles therefore preaching abroad through Countreys and Cities, ordained the First-fruits of such as believed, having proved them by the Spirit, to be Bishops and Deacons for them that should afterwards believe. Whether by foreign we understand Villages or Regions, is not material; for it is certain here the Author takes it as distinct from Cities; and there is nothing, I grant, expressed where the Apostles did place Bishops and Deacons exclusive of other places, i. e. whether onelyonly in Cities or Countreys; but it is evident by this, that whereever they planted Churches, they ordained Bishops and Deacons, whether those Churches were in the City or Countrey. And here we find no other Officers setled in those Churches, but Bishops and Deacons; And that there were no more in those Churches then he speaks of, appears from his Designe of paralleling the Church-Officers in the Gospel, to those under the Law: and therefore it was here necessary to enumerate all that were then in the Churches. The main controversie is, what these Bishops were; whether many in one place; or onelyonly one; and if but one, whether a Bishop in the modern Sense or no. For the first, here is nothing implying any necessity of having more then one in a place, which will further be made appear by and by, out of other Testimonies which will help to explain this. As for the other thing, we must distinguish of the Notion of a Bishop: For he is either such a one as hath none over him in the Church; or he is such a one as hath a power over Presbyters acting under him, and by authority derived from him. If we take it in the first Sense, so every Pastor of a Church having none exercising jurisdiction over him, is a Bishop; and so every such single Pastor in the Churches of the Primitive times was a Bishop in this Sense, as every Master of a Family p. 327before Societies for Government were introduced, might be called a King, because he had none above him to command him: but if we take a Bishop in the more proper Sense, for one that hath power over Presbyters and People, such a one these single Pastors were not, could not be. For it is supposed that these were onelyonly single Pastors. But then it is said that after other Presbyters were appointed, then these single Pastors were properly Bishops; but to that I answer: First, they could not be proper Bishops by vertue of their first Constitution; for then they had no power over any Presbyters, but onelyonly over the Deacons and People; and therefore it would be well worth considering how a power of jurisdiction over Presbyters can be derived, from those single Pastors of Churches that had no Presbyters joyned with them. It must be then clearly and evidently proved that it was the Apostles intention that these single Pastors should have the power over Presbyters, when the Churches necessity did require their help, which intention must be manifested and declared by some manifestation of it as a Law of Christ, or nothing can thence be deduced of perpetual concernment to the Church of Christ. Secondly, either they were Bishops before, or onelyonly after the appointment of Presbyters; if before, then a Bishop, and a Presbyter having no Bishop over him, are all one; if after onelyonly, then it was by his communicating power to Presbyters to be such, or their choice which made him their Bishop; if the first, then Presbyters quoad ordinem are onelyonly a humane institution, it being acknowledged that no Evidence can be brought from Scripture for them; and for any Act of the Apostles not recorded in Scripture for the constituting of them, it must goe among unwritten Traditions; and if that be a Law still binding the Church, then there are such which occurre not in the Word of GOD, and so that must be an imperfect coppy of Divine Lawes: If he were made Bishop by an Act of the Presbyters, then Presbyters have power to make a Bishop, and so Episcopacy is an humane institution depending upon the voluntary Act of Presbyters. But the clearest Evidence for one single Pastour with Deacons in some Churches at the beginning of Christianity, is that of Epiphanius, p. 328which though somewhat large, I shall recite, because, if I mistake not, the curtailing of this Testimony hath made it speak otherwise then ever Epiphanius meant. foreign,Epiph. c. Aerium. haeres. 75. p. 90…, &c. ed. Pe…av. &c. The Sense of Epiphanius is very intricate and obscure; we …hall endeavour to explain it: He is giving Aerius an account why Paul in his Epistle to Timothy mentions onelyonly Bishops and Deacons, and passeth over Presbyters. His account is this: first he cha…geth Aerius with ignorance of the Series of History (which he calls foreign) and the profound and ancient Records the Church, wherein it is expressed, that upon the first Preaching of the Gospel, the Apostle writ according to the present state of things. Where Bishops were not yet appointed (for so certainly it should be read foreign, not foreign, for then he must contradict himself) the Apostle writes to Bishops and Deacons; (for the Apostles could not settle all things at first) for there was a necessity of Presbyters and Deacons; for by these two Orders all Ecclesiastical Offices might be performed: for where (so I read it foreign, not foreign as the Sense, clearly carries it) there was not found any worthy of being a Bishop, the place remained without one; But where necessity required one, and there were some found fit for that Office, there some were ordained Bishops; but for want of convenient number, there could be no Presbyters found out to be Ordained, and in such places they were contented with the Bishop and Deacons; for without their Ministry the Bishop could not be. So that according to Epiphanius, there were three several states of Churches in the Apostles times; first some Churches where there were onelyonly Presbyters and Deacons p. 329without a Bishop. For, if Epiphanius speaks not at first of places where Presbyters were without a Bishop; he must be guilty of a vain and empty Tautology, for he after tells us where the necessity of the Church required it, a Bishop was made; therefore before he speaks of places only where Presbyters and Deacons were; and otherwise he would not answer Aerius about 1 Tim. 4. 14. which it is his design to do, about The laying on of the hands of the Presbyterie. He grants then that at first in some places there were only Presbyters and Deacons, as when the Apostle writes to Bishops and Deacons (where Bishops at that time of the Church were only Presbyters) of which two orders, Presbyters and Deacons, there was an absolute necessity; and the account he gives why they setled no higher order, above them is, foreign, the Apostles could not settle all things at first; which words are to be read with a Parenthesis, giving an account why sometimes only Bishops and Deacons were setled, that is, Presbyters so called. But, saith he, where necessity called for a higher order of Bishops above Presbyters, and any were found qualified for it, there such were appointed; and if by reason of the want of persons of sufficient abilities to be made Presbyters in those places, there they were contented with such a superior Bishop and Deacons assisting of him; Some Churches then according to his judgement, had a company of Presbyters to rule them being assisted with Deacons; others had only a single Bishop with Deacons; and after when the numbers were increased, and persons qualified were found, there were both Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons. For, the account which he gives of the former want of some Officers in some Churches, is this, foreign (Read foreign, as the learned Dr. well corrects it) foreign For the Church not yet having all her offices filled, things were fain to remain in that state. For nothing can be compleated at first, but in process of time every thing receives its due perfection. So that Epiphanius doth not (as it is thought by some) p. 330say, that in the first times of the Church, there were none but Bishops and Deacons in all Churches, but in some Churches there were Presbyters and Deacons, in others Bishops and Deacons, according to the state, condition and necessity of the Churches. Epiphanius then fully and clearly expresseth my opinion, in reference to the Apostles not observing any one constant course in all Churches, but setling sometimes many Presbyters with Deacons, sometimes only one Pastor (who is therefore called a Bishop) with Deacons, and so setling Officers according to the particular occasions of every Church. The next considerable testimony to our purpose, is that of Clemens Alexandrinus in Eusebius, concerning St. Iohn after his return out of the …sle of Patmos to Ephesus, upon the death of Domitian. foreign. He went abroad upon invitation into the neighbour-provinces, in some places constituting Bishops; in some setting in order whole Churches, in others choosing out one from among the rest of those who were designed by the spirit of God, whom he set over the Church. So Salmasius contendsWal…. Messal. cap. 4. p. 224. &c. it must be translated, foreign, choosing one into the Clergy; for, those who were chosen Bishops, are sald foreign, and they that choose are said, foreign. Whence Salmasius gathers out of these words the very thing I am now upon; In majoribus urbibus plures, in minoribus pauciores Presbyteros ordinari solitos, probabile est. In pagis autem aut vicis, vel pusillis oppidis, quales foreign vel foreign vocabant Graeci, unum aliquem Presbyterum per illa praecipuè tempora quibus non magnus erat numerus sidelium, suffecisse verisimile est. That the Apostles set a greater number of Presbyters in great Cities, fewer in less, and in small Villages but one, when the number of Believers was but small. We have yet one Author more who speaks fully to our purpose. It is the author of the Commentaries under Ambrose his name, who frequently asserts-this opinion I am now making good. Upon the fourth of Ephesians, he largely discourseth how things were setled at first, by the Apostles, by degrees, in the Church of God, evidently shewing p. 331that the Apostles did not at first observe any setled constant course, but acted according to present conveniency, as they saw good, in order to the promoting and advancing the Churches Interest. Post quam omnibus locis Ecclesiae sunt constitutae & officia ordinata, aliter composita res est quam coeperat. Thereby declaring his opinion, that while Churches were constituting, no certain course was observed. For, as he goes on, Primum enim omnes docebant, & omnes baptizabant, quibuscunque diebus vel temporibus fuisset occasio, &c. Ut ergo cresceret plebs & multiplicaretur, Omnibus inter initia concessum est & Evangelizare, & baptizare, & scripturas in Ecclesia explanare. At ubi omnia loca circumplexa est Ecclesia, conventicula constituta sunt, & rectores & caetera officia in Ecclesiis sunt ordinata; ut nullus de Clero auderet, qui ordinatus non esset, prasumere ossicium quod sciret non sibi creditum vel concessum; & coepit alio ordine & providentiâ gubernari Ecclesia; quia si omnes eadem possent, irrationabile esset, & vulgaris res, & vilissima videretur, &c. Ideò non per omnia conveniunt scripta Apostoli ordinationi quae nunc est in Ecclesia, quia haec inter primordia sunt scripta; Nam & Timotheum, (Presbyterum à se creatum) Episcopum vocat; quia primum Presbyteri Episcopi appellabantur, ut recedente uno sequens ei succederet, &c. At first, he saith, All Church-Offices lay open to all persons, and every one did preach and baptize upon all occasions; but afterwards, when Congregations were established and Churches setled, then none undertook that office but those that were ordained to it. Thence it is, that the Apostles Writings are not suitable to the present state of the Church, because they were penned in the time when things were not fully setled. For he calls Timothy, who was made a Presbyter by him, Bishop; for so at first the Presbyters were called, among whom this was the course of governing Churches, that as one withdrew, another took his place. This opinion of his, he takes occasion to speak of in several other places. Upon Rom. 16. Adhuc rectores Ecclesiae paucis erant in locis; Governours of Churches were as yet set up but in few places. And upon 1 Cor. 1. Propterea Ecclesiae scribit, quia adhuc singulis Ecclesiis rectores non erant instituti. And on 1 Cor. 11. Convenientibus Presbyteris, quia adh…o rectores Ecclesiis non p. 332omnibus locis erant constituti. By all which it is most evident, that this both learned and antient Author, cited with no small respect by St. Austin, doth not conceive that the Apostle, did observe any setled form in the governing of Churches, but act…d according to principles of prudence, according to the necessities and occasions of the several Churches by them planted: So that where there were small Churches, one Pastor with Deacons might suffice: in greater Churches some were governed by Presbyters acting in common Council: others, though very few at first, had Rectors placed over them, for superintending the affairs of the Church.

Secondly, In Churches consisting of a multitude of believers, or where there was a probability of great increase by preaching the Gospel; the Apostles did settle a Colledge of Presbyters, whose office was partly to govern the Church already formed, and partly to labour in the Converting more. So that in all great Cities, where either the work was already great by the number of believers, in order to the discharging of Pastoral duties to them, or where it was great in reference to the number they laboured in converting of, it seems most consonant to reason and Scripture, that the work should be carried on by the joint assistance of many associated in the same work. For, is it any ways probable that the Apostles should ordain Bishops foreign, as Clemens speaks, of such as should believe; and not ordain persons in order to the making them believe? They have either a very low opinion of the work of a Gospel-Bishop, or very little consideration of the zeal, activity and diligence which was then used in preaching, reproving, exhorting, in season, out of season, that think one single person was able to undergo it all▪ Discipline was a great deal more strict the…, Preaching more diligent, men more apprehensive of the weight of their function, than for any to undertake such a care and charge of souls, that it was impossible for them ever to know, observe, or watch over so as to give an account for them. Besides, while we suppose this one person imployed in the duties of his flock, what leisure or time could such a one have to preach to the Gentiles and unbelieving Jews in order to their p. 333Conversion? The Apostles did not certainly aym at the setting up the honour of any one person, making the Office of the Church a matter of State and Dignity more then employment, but they chose men for their activity in preaching the Gospel, and for their usefulness in labouring to add continually to the Church. Men that were imployed in the Church then, did not consult for their …ase or honour, and thought it not enough for them to sit still and b…d others work, but they were of Pauls mind, Necessity was laid upon 1 Cor. 9. 16.1 Cor 9:16them, yea, Woe was unto them if they preached not the Gospel. Publick prayers were not then looked on as the more principal end of Christian assemblies then preaching, nor consequen…ly that it was the more principal office of the Steward… of the Mysteries of God, to read the publick prayers of the Church, then to preach in season and out of season. And is it not great pitty, two such excellent and necessary duties should ever be set at variance, much less one so preferred before the other, that the one must be esteemed as Sarah, and the other almost undergo the hardship of Hagar, to be looked on as the Bond-woman of the Synagogue, and be turned out of doors? Praying and preaching are the Iackin and Boaz of the Temple, like Rachel and Leah, both which built up the house of Israel: but though Rachel be fair and beautifull, yet Leah is the more fruitful: though prayer be lovely and amiable in the sight of God, when it comes from a heart seriously affected with what it speaks, yet preaching tends more to the turning mens souls from sin unto God. Were the Apostles commissioned by Christ to go pray or preach? and what is it wherein the Ministers of the Gospel succeed the Apostles? Is it in the office of Praying, or preaching? Was Paul sent not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel? and shall we think those who succeed Paul in his office of preaching, are to look upon any thing else as more their work then that? Are Ministers in their ordination sent forth to be readers of publick Prayers, or to be Dispensers of Gods holy Word? Are they ordained wholly to this, and shall this be the lesse principal part of their work? I, but the reason is unanswerable, that praying is the more principal end of Christian-assemblies then preaching; For, the one p. 334is the End, and the other the Means. If by End, be meant the ultimate end of all Christian duties, that cannot be Prayer: for that is a means it self in order to that; but the chief end is the fitting souls for eternal prayses; if then this unanswerable reason hold good, the principal end of Christian assemblies must be only prayses of God, and not prayers: If by the End, be meant the immediate end of preaching as that it referrs to, that cannot be; for the immediate end of preaching, if the Apostle may be judge, is instruction and edification in the faith; Rather preaching is the end of praying, in as much as the blessings conveyed by preaching, are the things which men pray for. But this is but one of those unhappy consequences which follows mens judging of the service of▪ God, rather by the practices of the Church, when it came to enjoy ease and plenty, than by the wayes and practices of the first and purest Apostolical times: when the Apostles who were best able to judge of their own duty, looked upon themselves as most concerned in the preaching of the Gospel. But to this it is commonly said, that there was great reason for it then, because the world was to be converted to Christianity, and therefore preaching was the more necessary work at that time; but when a Nation is converted to the faith, that necessity ceaseth. It is granted, that the preaching of the Gospel in regard of its universal extent was more necessary then, which was the foundation of Christs instituting the Apostolical Office with an unlimited commission; but if we take Preaching as referring to particular Congregations, there is the same necessity now that there was then. People need as much instruction as ever, and so much the more in that they are apt to think now the name of Christians will carry them to Heaven. It is a too common and very dangerous deceit of men, to look upon Religion more as a profession, then matter of Life, more as a Notion then an inward temper. Men must be beat off from more things which they are apt to trust to for salvation now, than in those times: Men could not think so much then, that diligence in publike assemblies, and attendance at publick prayers, was the main Religion. Few would profess Christianity in those times, but such as were resolved before hand rather to let go their p. 335lives then their profession: but the more profess it now, without understanding the terms of salvation by it; the greater necessity of preaching to instruct men in it. But I think more need not be said of this to those that know it is another thing to be a Christian, then to be called so. But however it is granted, that in the Apostles times preaching was the great Work; and if so, how can we think one single person in a great City was sufficient, both to preach to, and rule the Church, and to preach abroad in order to the conversion of more from their Gentilisme to Christianity? Especially if the Church of every City was so large as some would make it, viz. to comprehend all the Believers under the civil jurisd…ction of the City, and so both City and Countrey the only charge of one single Bishop. I think the vastness of the work, and the impossibility of a right discharge of it by one single person, may be argument enough to make us interpret the places of Scripture which may be understood in that sense, as of more then one Pastour in every City; as when the Apostles are said to ordain Elders in every City, and Pauls calling for the Elders from Ephesus, and his writing to the Bishops and Deacons of the Church of Philippi; this consideration, I say, granting that the Texts may be otherwise understood, will be enough to incline men to think that in greater Cities there was a society of Presbyters acting together for the carrying on the work of the Gospel in converting some to, and building up of others in the faith of Christ. And it seems not in the least manner probable to me, that the care of those great Churches should at first be intrusted in the hands of one single Pastour and Deacon, and afterwards a new order of Presbyters erected under them, without any order or rule laid down in Scripture for it, or any mention in Ecclesiastical Writers of any such after institution. But instead of that in the most populous Churches, we have many remaining footsteps of such a Colledge of Presbyters there established in Apostolical times. Thence Ignatius says,Ep. ad Tral. The Presbyters are foreign,C. cel sum. l. 6. c. 3. p. 1…9. the Sanhedrin of the Church appointed by God; and the Bench of Apostles sitting together for ruling the affairs of the Church. And Origen calls it; foreign, a Colledge p. 336in every City of Gods appointing; and Victor Bishop of Rome; Colligium nostrum, and Collegium fratrum; Pius, Pauperem Pius▪ ep. ad Just. Vien. Apol. c. 39. Cypri. ep. 55. s. 19. s. 21. Hi…ronym. in Is. l. 2. c. 3. Ep. ad Evag in 1 Tim. 5.Isa 50:21 Tim 5Senatum Christi apud Romam constitutum. Tertullian, Probatos seniores; Cyprian, Cleri nostri sacrum venerandumque Concessum; and to Cornelius Bishop of Rome, and his Clergy, Florentissimo Clero tecum praesidenti. Ierome, Senatum nostrum, coetum Presbyterorum, & commune Concilium Presbyterorum quo Ecclesiae gubernabantur. Hilary, Seniores sin… quorum consilio nihil agebatur in Ecclesia; the author de 7 Ordinibus ad Rusti…um; calls the Presbyt…s negotiorum judices. En…ychius tells us there were twelve Presbyters at Alexandria to govern the Church; and the author of the I…inerary of Peter▪ of as many constituted at Caesaria, who though counterfeit, must be allowed to speak, though not ver…, yet verisimilia; though not true, yet likely things. Is i… possible all these authors should thus speak of their several places, of a Colledge of Presbyters acting in power with the Bishop, if at first Churches were governed only by a single Bishop, and afterwards by subject Presbyters that had nothing to do in the rule of the Church, but were only deputed to some particular offices under him, which they were impowered to do only by his authority? But the joint-rule of Bishop and Presbyters in the Churches will be more largely deduced afterwards. Thus we see a Company of Presbyters setled in great Churches; now we are not to imagine that all these did equally attend to one part of their wo…k; but all of them according to their several abilities laid out themselves; some in …verseeing and guiding the Church; but yet so as upon occasion to discharge all pastoral acts belonging to their function; others betook themselves chiefly to the conversion of others to the faith, either in the Cities or the adjacent countryes. By which we come to a full, clear, and easie understanding of that so much controverted place, 1 Tim. 5. 17. foreign, The Elders that rule well are counted worthy of double honour; especially they that labour in the Word and Doctrine. Not as though it implyed a dist…ct sort of Elders from the Pastors of Churches, but among those Elders that were ordained in the great Churches, some attended p. 337most to ruling the flock already converted, others laboured most in converting others to the Faith by preaching; though both these being entred into this peculiar function of laying themselves forth for the benefit of the Church, did deserve both respect and maintenance, yet especially those who imployed themselves in converting others, in as much as their burden was greater, their labours more abundant, their sufferings more; and their very Office coming the nearest to the Apostolical function. So Chrysostome resolves it upon theChrysost. in 4. Eph. hom. 11. fourth of the Ephesians, that those who were foreign, as Theodoret expresseth it, the foreign ▪ the fixed Officers of particular Churches were inferiour to those who went abroad preaching the Gospel; foreign saith he foreign. An evident argument that the Apostle doth not intend any sort of Elders dictinct from these ordained Presbyters of the Cities, is from that very argument which the greatest friends to Lay-Elders draw out of this Epistle, which is from the promiscuous acception of the words foreign and foreign in this very Epistle to Timothy: The argument runs thus: The Presbyters spoken of by Paul in his Epistle to Timothy, are Scripture-Bishops; but Lay-Elders are not Scripture-Bishops; therefore these cannot here be meant. The major is their own, from 1 Tim. 3. 1. compared with 4. 14. Those which are called Presbyters in one place, are Bishops in another; and the main force of the argument lies in the promiscuous use of Bishop and Presbyter; now then if Lay-Elders be not such Bishops, then they are not Pauls Presbyters; now Pauls Bishops must be foreign fit to teach, and therefore no Lay-Elders. Again, we may consider where Timothy now was, viz at Ephesus, and therefore if such Lay-Elders anywhere they should be there; Let us see then whether any such were here It is earnestly pleaded by all who are for Lay-Elders, that the Elders spoken of Acts 20. 17. were the particular Elders of the Church of Ephesus, to whom Paul spoke, v. 28. where we may find their Office at large described Take heed therefore unto your selves, and all the flock over which God hath made you foreign Bishops or Overseers. Here we see both the names Elders and Bishops confounded again, p. 338so that he that was an Elder was a Bishop too, and the Office of such Elders described to be a Pastoral charge over a flock, which is inconsistent with the notion of a Lay-Elder▪ Paul sent indefinitely for the Elders of the Church to come to him; If any such then at Ephesus, they must come at this summons, all the Elders that came, were such as were Pastors of Churches: therefore there could be no Lay Elders there▪ I insist not on the argument for maintenance implyed in double Honour, which Chrysostome explains by foreign a supply of necessaries to be given to them, as appears by ver. 18. which argument Blondel saw such strength in, that it brought him quite off from Lay-Elders in that placeDe …ure pleb…s in regim. Eccles. p. 79. &c. of Timothy. And he that will remove the Controversie from the Scriptures, to the Primitive Church, (as we have no reason to think, that if such were appointed, they should be so soon laid aside) will find it the greatest d…fficulty to trace the foot-steps of a Lay-Elder, through the Records of antiquity for the three first centuries especially. The Writers of the Church speak of no Presbyters, but such as preached, as appears by Origen, Cyprian, and Clement of!O…ig hom. 1. in Psal. 37.Ps 37 Alexandria; Origen saith, Omnes Episcopi atque omn…s Presbyteri vel Diaconi …rudiunt nos, & erudientes adhibent correptionem, & verbis austerioribus increpant. We see all Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons w…re in his time Preachers. So Cyprian, Et cre…ideram quidem Presbyteros & Diaconos Cyprian. l. 1. ep. 11.qui illic praesentes sunt, monere vos & instruere plenissimè circa Evangelii Legem, sicut semper ab antecessoribus nostris factum est▪ and in another Epistle about making Numidicus a Presbyter, he thus expresseth it, ut ascribatur Presbyterorum Ep. 35.Carthaginensium numero, & nobiscum sedeat in Clero; where to sit as one of the Clergy, and to be a Presbyter, are all one. Again, had there been any such Elders, it would have belonged to them to lay hands on those that were reconciled to the Church after Censures; now hands were onelyonly laid onEp. 12. ab Episcopo & Clero, as the same Cyprian tells us. Clemens Alexandrinus describing the Office of a Presbyter, hath theseStrom. l. 6. p. 667. ed. Heins. words, foreign &c. foreign, where Teaching is looked on as his proper work: And elsewhere, more fully and expresly discoursing p. 339of the service of God, and distinguishing it according to the twofold service of men, foreign, he applies these to the Churches, foreign.Strom. l. 7. p. 700. The former he explains afterwards, foreign. A Presbyter is one that is ordained or appointed for the instruction of others in order to their amendment, implying thereby the Office of a Presbyter to be wholly conversant about teaching others, to whom on that account the art of making others better doth properly belong. So much may suffice for those first times of the Church, that there were no Presbyters then, but such as had the Office of Teaching. And for the times afterwards of the Church, let it suffice at present to produce the Testimony of a Council held in the beginning of the seventh Century, who absolutely Decree against all Lay-persons medling in Church-affairs; Nova actione didicimus, quosdam Concil. Hispal. 2. decret. 9.ex nostro Collegio contra mores Ecclesiasticos, laicos habere in rebus Divinis constitutos Oeconomos. Proinde pariter tractantes eligimus, ut unusquisque nostrûm secundum Chalcedonensium Patrum decreta, ex proprio Clero Oeconomum sibi constituat. Indecorum est enim Laicum esse vicarium Episcopi, & saculares in Ecclesia judicare; i… uno enim eodemque Offici… non debet esse dispar professio. A Canon directly leveld against all Lay-Chancellours in Bishops Courts, and such Officials: But doth with the same force take away all Lay-Elders, as implying it to be wholly against the rule of the Church to have secular persons to judge in the Church. But although I suppose this may be sufficient to manifest the no Divine right of Lay-Elders; yet I do not therefore absolutely condemn all use of some persons chosen by the people to be as their representatives, for managing their interest in the affairs of the Church. For, now the voice of the people (which was used in the Primitive times) is grown out of use: such a constitution, whereby two or more of the peoples choice might be present at Church debates, might be very useful, so they be looked on onelyonly as a prudential humane constitution, and not as any thing founded on Divine right. So much may serve for the first Ground of the probability of the Apostles not p. 340observing one setled Form of Church-Government, which was from the different state, quantity and condition of the Churches by them planted. The second was from the multitude of unfixed Officers residing in some places, who managed the Affairs of the Church in chief, during their Residence. Such were the Apostles and Evangelists, and all persons almost of note in Scripture. They were but very sew, and those in probability not the ablest, who were left at home to take care of the spoil; the strongest and ablest, like Commanders in an Army, were not setled in any Troop, but went up and down from this company to that, to order them and draw them forth: and while they were, they had the chief authority among them; but as Commandets of the Army, and not as Officers of the Troop. Such were Evangelists who were sent sometimes into this Countrey to put the Churches in order there, sometimes into another; but where ever they were, they acted as Evangelists and not as fixed Officers. And s…c… were Timothy and Titus, notwithstanding all the Opposition made against it, as will appear to any that will take an impartial Survey of the arguments on both sides. Now where there were in some places Evangelists, in others not, and in many Churches it may be no other Officers but these, it will appear, that the Apostles did not observe one constant Form, but were with the Evangelists travelling abroad to the Churches, and ordering things in them as they saw cause. But as to this I have anticipated my self already. The last ground was from the different custome observed in the Churches, after the Apostles times. For no other rational account can be given of the different opinions of Epiphanius, Ierome, and Hilary, but this, that one speak… of the Custome of some Churches, and the other of others. In some as at Alexandria, the Presbyters might choose their Bishop; in other places it might be, as Hilary saith, that when the first withdrew, another succeeded him. Not by a monethly or Annual rotation of Presidents, as some have imagined, but by a Presidency for life of one, upon whose death another succeeded in his room. For the former Opinion hath not any Evidence at all for it in Scripture or Antiquity; or in the place brought to prove it. For, according to this Opinion, Timothy must have but his course in p. 341the rotation of Elders at Ephesus, which seems very incongruous to the Office of Timothy. I conclude th…n that in all probability the Apostles tyed not themselves up to one certain course, but in some Churches setled more or fewer Officers as they saw cause, and in others governed themselves during life; and that at their death they did not determine any form, is probably argued from the different customes of several Churches afterwards.

The third Consideration touching Apostolical practice, is§. 20. concerning the Obligatory force of it in reference to us; which I lay down in these terms, That a meer Apostolical practice being supposed, is not sufficient of its self for the founding an unalterable and perpetual right, for that Form of Government in the Church, which is supposed to be founded on that practice. This is a Proposition I am sure, will not be yielded without proving it; and therefore I shall endeavour to doe it by a fourfold argument. First, because many things were done by the Apostles without any intention of obliging any who succeeded them afterwards to do the same. As for instance, the twelve Apostles going abroad so unprovided as they did when Christ sent them forth at first, which would argue no great wisedome or reason in that man, that should draw that practice into consequence now. Of the like nature was Pauls preaching foreign to some Churches, receiving no maintenance at all from some Churches, as that at Corinth. Which instance is a manifest evidence of the monstrous weakness of Discourse in those who would make that example of Paul Obligatory to all Ministers of the Gospel now. And while they would by this argument take away their Lands and Tythes, instead of them, they give them Plaustra convitiorum, whole loads of the most reproachful Speeches that ever were given to any, but Christ and his Apostles. For my part, I think the Ministers of the Gospel would want one of the Badges of Honour belonging to their Office, were they not thus reproachfully used▪ It is part of the State which belongs to the true Ministers of the Gospel to be followed by such blackmouthed Lacqueyes, who by their virulent Speeches are so farre their Friends, as to keep them from that Curse which our Saviour pronounceth; Wo be unto you p. 342when all men speak well of you. But let us see how much wooll there is after all this cry▪ too little to cloath the backs of Ministers, if such persons might be their Tythe-men; but it is well they are so little befriended, yea so much opposed by the great Apostle, in that singular practice of his. For doth he say, It was unlawful for him to receive a maintenance from the Churches he preached to? Nay doth he not set himself to prove not onelyonly the lawfulness of Ministers taking it, but the duty of peoples giving it, 1 Cor. 9. from the seventh to the f…teenth verse, giving many pregnant arguments to that purpose? Doth he not say that all the Apostles besides him1 Cor. 9. 6.1 Cor 9:6 and Barnabas, did forbear working, and consequen…ly had all their necessities supplyed by the Churches? Nay do…h not Paul himself say that he robbed other Churches, taking wages 2 Cor. 11. 8.2 Cor 11:8of them to do service to them? What Paul turned hireling? and in the plainest terms take Wages of Churches? Yet so it is, and his forbearing it at Corinth, was apt to be interpreted as an argument that he did not love them, 2 Cor. 11. 11. So far were they from looking upon Paul as a hireling in doing it. Paul is strong and earnest in asserting his right: he might have done it at Corinth as well as elsewhere: But from some prudent considerations of his own, mentioned 2 Cor. 11. 12. he forbo…e the exercise of his right among them, although at the same time he received maintenance from other places. As for any Divine right of a particular2 Cor. 11. 9.2 Cor 11:9 way of maintenance, I am of the same Opinion as to that which I am in reference to particular Forms of Church-Government: and those that are of another Opinion. I would not wish them so much injury, as to want their maintenance till they prove it. But then I say, these things are clear in themselves, and I think sufficient grounds for conscience, as to the duty of paying on the one side, and the lawfulness of receiving it on the other▪ First that a maintenance in general be given to Gospel Ministers, is of Divine right: else the Labourer were not worthy of his hire; nor could that be true which Paul saith, that our Lord hath ordained; 1 Cor. 9. 14.1 Cor 9:14that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel. Secondly, A maintenance in general being due, Lawful authority may determine the particular way of raising it; the p. 343equity of which way may be best derived from what was the most ancient pract…ce of the World in dedicating things to God, and was approved by God himself among his own people, the Jews: So that the way of maintenance by Tythes is the most just and equitable way. Thirdly, It being in the Magistrates power to determine the way of maintenance, what is so determined, doth bind the Consciences of all subject to that power, to an obedience to it for conscience sake: In as much as all men are bound thus to obey the Magistrate in all things established by him as Laws; and the very same reasons any can plead for disobedience as to this, may equally serve for disobedience to any other Lawes made by the Supreme Magistrate. This I suppose is the clearest Resolution of that other more vexed then intricate Controversie about the right of Tythes; which I have here spoken of by occasion of the mention of the Apostles practice; and because it is resolved upon the same principles with the subject I am upon. Meer Apostolical practice we see doth not bind, because the Apostles did many things without intention of binding others. Secondly, the Apostles did many things upon particular Occasions, Emergencies, and circumstances, which things so done, cannot bind by vertue of their doing them any further then a parity of reason doth conclude the same things to be done in the same circumstances. Thus Pauls Coelibate is far from binding the Church, it being no universal practice of the Apostles by a Law, but onelyonly a thing taken up by him upon some particular grounds, not of perpetual1 Cor. 9. 5.1 Cor 9:5 and universal concernment. So community of goods was used at first by the Church o… Ierusalem as most sutable to the present state of that Church; but as far as we can find, did neither perpetually hold in that Church, nor universally obtain among other Churches; as is most clear in the Church at Corinth by their Law-sui…, by the different offerings of the1 Cor. 6. 2. 11. 21, 22. …6▪ …1 Cor 6:21 Cor 6:111 Cor 6:211 Cor 6:221 Cor 6:6 rich and poor at the Lords Supper, and by their personal contributions. So the Apostles Preaching from house to house, was, for want of conveniency then of more publick places, as free onelyonly for Christians; although that practice binds now as far as the Reason doth; viz. in its tendency p. 344the promoting the work of Salvation of mens Souls Laying on hands for conferring the gifts of the Holy Ghost can never certainly bind where the Reason of it is ceased, but may still continue …s a rite of solemn Prayer, and not by vertue of that practice. Observing the Apostolical Decrees of abstaining from blood, and things strangled and offered to Idols, did hold as long as the ground of making them did, which was condescension to the Jews, although it must be withall acknowledgedExercit. Theol n. 26. Curcellaeus de esu sanguinis, &c. Grotius in Act. 15. 29.Acts 15:29 that the Primitive Christians of the second and third Centuries did generally observe them; and the Greek Church to this day; and some men of note and learning have pleaded for the necessary observation of them still, as Christ. Beckman, Steph. Curcellaeus in a Diatriba lately published to this purpose, to which Grotius is likewise very inclinable. The arguments are too large here to examine, although I see1 Cor. 10. 25.1 Cor 10:25 not how possibly that place of Paul can be avoided, Whatever is set in the shambles eat, making no scruple for conscience sak….

I conclude this with what I laid down at the entrance ofPart. 1. chap. 1. s. 6. this Treatise, that where any Act or Law is founded upon a particular reason or occasion as the ground of it, it doth no further oblige then the reason or occasion of it doth continue. Therefore before an acknowledged Apostolical practice be looked on as Obligatory, it must be made appear that what they did, was not according as they saw reason and cause for the doing it, depending upon the several circumstances of Time, Place, and Persons; but that they did it from some unalterable Law of Chr…ist, or from some such indispensable reasons, as will equally hold in all Times, Places, and Persons. And so the Obligation is taken off from Apostolical practice, and laid upon that Law and Reason which was the ground of it. Thirdly, Offices that were of Apostolical appointment, are grown wholly out of use in the Church, without mens looking upon themselvs as bound now to observe them. As the Widdows of the Churches afterwards from their Office called Deaconnesses of the Church, of which number1 Tim. 5. 9.1 Tim 5:9 Phoebe was one, whom Paul calls the Deaconness of the Church at Cenchrea: so both Origen and Chrysostome understandRom. 16. 1.Rom 16:1 p. 345it. Of them and their continuance in the Church forPlin. ep. …. …0. ep. 97. Th…od l. 3. cap. 14. Sozom. l. …. cap. 24. Codex Theod leg. 27. tit. de Epis. Co…c. Chalc. cap. 14. Co…c. No… m…t. c. 73. Epi…h. har. 79. V. Iust…ll. No… …n Can. u…ivers. Eccles. p. 154. &c. Vossium i… Pli…. ep. 97. l. 10. Salmas. in Aparat. p 176. some Centuries of years, much is spoken by several Writers, and resolved by several Councils; and yet we see these are laid aside by the p…etenders to hold close to Apostolical practice: if that binds, certainly it doth in its plain institutions; if it doth not bind in them▪ how can it in that which is only gathered but by uncertain conjectures to have been ever their practice; So that in the issue, those who plead so much for the obligatory nature of Apostolical practice, do not think it obligatory; for if they did, how comes this office of Widdows and Deaconesses to be neglected? If it be answered, that these are not usefull now; then we must say, that we look upon Apostolical practice to be binding no further then we judge it useful, or the reason of it holds; which is as much as to say, of its self it binds not. Fourthly, Rites and customs Apostolical are altered; therefore men do not think that Apostolical practice doth bind. For if it did, there could be no alteration of things agreeable thereunto. Now let any one consider but these few particulars, and judge how far the pleaders for a divine Right of Apostolical practice, do look upon themselves as bound now to observe them: as Dipping in baptism, the use of Love▪Feasts, community of goods, the Holy kiss, by **De Orat.Tertullian called Signa…ulum orationis: yet none look upon themselves as bound to observe them now, and yet all acknowledge them to have been the practice of the Apostles: and therefore certainly though when it may serve for their purpose, men will make Apostolical practice to found a divine Right: yet when they are gone off from the matter in hand, they change their opinion with the matter, and can then think themselves free as to the observation of things by themselves acknowledged to be Apostolical. Thus we are at last come to the end of this chapter, which we have been the longer upon, because the main hinge of this controversie did ly… in the practice of the Apostles, which I suppose now so far cleared as not to hinder our progress towards what remains; which we hope will admit of a quicker dispatch. We come therefore from the Apostles to the Primitive Church, to see whether by the practice of that we can find any thing whereby they looked on themselves as obliged by an unalterable Law to observe any one particular form of Church-Government.