THE FIRST PART. .

POSTULATA.

SECT. 1.

THE FIRST GROUND, OR POSTULATE:

That Government, whose Foundation is laid by Christ, and whose Fabric is raised by the Apostles, is of Divine Institution.

THE first whereof shall be this: That government, whose ground, being laid by our Saviour himself, was afterwards raised by the hands of his Apostles, cannot be denied to be of Divine Institution. A proposition so clear, that it were an injury to go about to prove it.

He cannot be a Christian, who will not grant, that, as in Christ, the Son of God, the Deity dwelt bodily: so, in his servants also and agents under him the Apostles, the Spirit of the same God dwelt ; so as all their actions were God's, by them. Like as it is the same spring-water that is derived to us by the conduit-pipes; and the same sun-beams, which pass to us through our windows.

Some things they did, as men; actions natural, civil, moral: these things were their own: yet they, even in them, no doubt, were assisted with an excellent measure of grace. But those things, which they did, as Messengers from God (so their names signify), these were not theirs, but his, that sent them.

An ambassador dispatcheth his domestical affairs, as a private man; but, when he treats or concludes matters of State, in his prince's name, his tongue is not his own, but his master's. Much more is it so in this case; wherein, besides the interest, the agents are freed from error. The carefullest ambassador may, perhaps, swerve from his message: these, which was one of the privileges of the Apostles, were, through the guidance of God's Spirit, in the acts of their function, inerrable.

So, then, if the foundation were laid by Christ, and the walls built up by his Apostles, the fabric can be no less than divine.

SECT. 2.

THE SECOND GROUND:

The Practice and Recommendation of the Apostles, is sufficient Warrant for an Apostolical Institution.

SECONDLY, it must also be granted, That not only the government, which was directly commanded and enacted; but that, which was practised and recommended by the Apostles to the Church, is justly to be held for an Apostolical Institution.

In eminent and authorized persons, even examples are rules: much more, in so sacred.

Neither did the Spirit of God confine itself to words, but expressed itself also in the holy actions of his inspired servants. As Chrysostom, therefore, truly said, that our Saviour did not only speak, but work parables: so may we say here, that the Apostles, did not only enact, but even act laws for his Holy Church.

And this is learned Calvin's determination about Imposition of Hands. "Although," saith he *, "there is no certain precept concerning Imposition of Hands; yet, because we see it was in perpetual use with the Apostles, their so accurate observation of it ought to be unto us instead of a command:" and therefore, soon after, he, affirms plainly, That this ceremony proceeded from the Holy Ghost, himself. And, in the foregoing chapter, speaking of the distribution of Pastors to their several charges, he saith, Nec humanum est inventum &c: "It is no human device, but the institution of God himself: for we read, that Paul and Barnabas ordained Presbyters in all the Churches of Lystra, Antioch, Iconium." And that direction, which the great Apostle of the Gentiles gave to Timothy, was, as Calvin truly, Mandati nomine, "in the name and nature of a command."

And what else, I beseech you, would the rigid exactors of the over-severe and Judaical observation of the Lord's Day, as an Evangelical Sabbath, seem to plead for their warrant, were they able to make it good any way, but the guise and practice of the Apostles? Precept, certainly, there is none, either given or pretended.

Thus the bitter Tileno-mastix can say †, "There was a double dis cipline of the Apostles, Docens and Utens: in the first, they gave precepts to the Church and her Governors: in the second, their practice prescribes her government; although," as he adds without book, "not without the Church's own consultation and consent:" which, if it be granted, makes the more for us; who, ever since we were a Church, have consented to the Apostles' practice, and constantly used the same.

* Licèt autem nullum extat præceptum de manuum impositione, &c. Calv. 1. iv. Instit. c. 3: s. 16.

Paracles. I. i. c. 4.

What do I stand upon this? They are the words of Cartwright himself: autos EQ. The example of the Apostles, and general αὐτος ἔφη. practice of the Churches under their government, draweth a necessity.

SECT. 3.

THE THIRD GROUND:

The Forms, ordained for the Church's Administration by the Apos tles, were for Universal and Perpetual Use.

THIRDLY, it is no less evident, that the Form, which the Apostles set and ordained for the governing of the Church, was not intended by them for that present time or place only; but for continuance and succession for ever.

For no man, I suppose, can be so weak, as to think that the rules of the Apostles were personal, local, temporary; as some dials or almanacs, that are made for some special meridians: but, as their office and charge, so their rules were universal to the whole world; as far, and as long, as the world lasteth *. For, what reason is there, that Crete or Ephesus should be otherwise provided for, than all the world besides? Or what possibility, to think that those first planters of the Gospel should leave all the rest of Christ's Church, as the ostrich doth her eggs, in the dust without any farther care?

The extent and duration of any rule will best be measured, as by the intention of the author, so by the nature and use of it,

St. Paul's intention is clearly expressed, for a continuance until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ; 1 Tim. vi. 14,

As for the nature of the several directions, they carry perpetuity and universality of use in the face of them; there being the same reason of their observation, by all persons concerned, and in all times and places. Why should not every Bishop be as unreprovable, as a Cretian, or an Ephesiar? Why should an accusation be received against an Elder upon more slender evidence in one place, than another? Why should there not be the same courses taken for Ordination and Censure in all ages and Churches, since the same things must of necessity be done every where, in all ages and Churches?

But why should I strive for a granted truth? for it is plain, that the isle of Crete and Ephesus were but the patterns of other Churches, and Timothy and Titus of other faithful Overseers.

If, therefore, it shall appear, that Episcopacy, so stated as we have expressed, was, in these persons and Churches, ordered and settled by Apostolical direction, it must necessarily be yielded to be of Apostolic, and therefore Divine Institution."

* Præcepta ipsa disciplinæ omnibus in futurum Ecclesiis, dictante Sp. Saneto, tradiderunt. Sco. Wy. Paracles. I. i. c. 4.

SECT. 4.

THE FOURTH GROUND:

The Universal Practice of the Church immediately succeeding the Apostolic Times, is a sure Commentary upon the Practice of the Apostles, and our best Direction.-The Two Famous Rules of Tertullian and St. Augustin, to this purpose, asserted.

FOURTHLY, I must challenge it for a no less undoubted truth, That the universal practice of the Church immediately succeeding the Apostles, is the best commentary upon the practice of the Apostles; and, withal, that the universal practice of God's Church in all ages and places, is, next unto God's Word, the best guide and direction for our carriages and forms of Administration.

The copartners and immediate successors of those blessed men could best tell what they next before them did: for, who can better tell a man's way or pace, than he, that follows him close at the heels? And, if particular men or Churches may mistake; yet, that the whole Church of Christian men should at once mistake that which was in their eye, it is far more than utterly improbable. A truth, which it is a wonder any sober Christian should boggle at, Yet such there are, to our grief, and to the shame of this late giddy age; even the great guides of their faction.

Our mis-learned countryman Parker, the second Ignis Fatuus of our poor mis-led brethren, and some seconds of his, stand peremptorily and highly upon the denial. "It is false," saith he *, "that the universal practice of the Church is sufficient to prove any thing to be of Apostolic original." And, jeeringly, soon after, Universa Ecclesia praxis, et consensus Patrum, unica Hierarchicorum Helena est: "The universal practice of the Church, and consent of Fathers," saith he, "is the only darling of the abettors of the Hierarchy. But the practice of the Church immediately after the Apostles is no evidence."

Hear now, I beseech you, my Dear Brethren, all ye, who would pretend to any Christian ingenuity; and consider, whether you have not reason to distrust such a leader, as would persuade you to slight and reject the testimony and practice of the whole Church of God upon earth, from the first plantation of it to this present age, and to cast yourselves upon the private opinions of himself, and some few other men of yesterday. Surely, in very matter of doctrine, this could be no other than deeply suspicious, than foully odious. If no man, before Luther and Calvin, had excepted against those points wherein we differ from Rome, I should have hated to follow them how much more must this needs hold, in matter of fact! Judge what a shame it is, to hear a Christian Divine carelessly

shaking off all arguments drawn from Antiquity, Continuance, Perpetual Succession in and from Apostolic Churches, Unanimous Consent, Universal Practice of the Church, Immediate Practice of all the Churches succeeding the Apostles, as either Popish or nothing: and all these are acknowledged for our grounds, and are not Popish! For me, I profess, I could not, without blushing and astonishment, read such stuff: as confounded in myself, to see that any son of the Church should be not only so rebelliously unnatural to his holy mother, as to broach so putrid a doctrine, to her utter disparagement; but so contumelious also to the Spirit of God, in his Providence for the dear Spouse of his Saviour here upon earth!

Holy Irenæus, I am sure, was of another mind. Agnitio vera, saith he "The true acknowledgment is the doctrine of the Apos tles; et antiquus Ecclesiæ status, and the ancient state of the Church in the whole world by the Succession of Bishops, to whom the Apostles delivered the Church which is in every place." And, then, while we have both these; the doctrine of the Apostles, seconded by the ancient state of the Church; who can out-face us?

What means, then, this wilful and peevish stupidity? Nihil pro Apostolico habendum: "Nothing," saith Parker t, "is to be held for Apostolic, but that, which is found recorded in the writings of the Apostles." Nothing? Was all registered by themselves, which we must believe, they did or enacted? For doctrine necessary for salvation, we are for him: but, surely, for evidence of fact or ritual observation, this is no better than absurd rigour, than unchristian incredulity. Where is there express charge for the Lord's Day? where, for Pædobaptism? where, for public Churches? where, for texts to be handled in Sermons? where, for public prayers of the Church, before and after them; and many such like, which yet we think deducible from those sacred authorities?

That is true of Jerome‡: Quæ, absque authoritate, &c: "Those things, which men either find or feign, as delivered by Apostolic Tradition, without the authority and testimonies of Scripture, are smitten by the sword of God's Spirit." But what is this to us, who find this, which we challenge for Apostolical, recorded in the written Word of God? Or, with what conscience is this alleged against us, which is directly bent against the heretical doctrines and traditions of the Marcionites, either utterly without, or expressly against the Scripture?

I may not balk two pregnant testimonies of the Fathers, wherewith this great Anthierarchist and his northern ɛpain's is as much and justly troubled, as our cause is advantaged: not so much because they are the sentences of Ancient Fathers, which they have learned to turn off at pleasure with scorn enough; as for that they carry in them such clearness and strength of reason, as will not admit of any probable contradiction.

The former, is that of Tertullian §: Constabit id esse ab Apostolis

*Iren. 1. iv. contr. Hæres.
Hieron. Tom. 6. in Agge. 1.

+ Polit. Eccles. 1. ii. c. 7.

Tertull. contr. Marcion. c. 4.