interests of men, imposed on them from the circumstances of the ages wherein they lived. Yet is it not to be denied, but that much light into the nature of apostolical institutions may be received from the declared principles and practices of the first churches for the space of two hundred years, or thereabouts. But that after this the churches did insensibly depart in various degrees from the state, rule, and order of the apostolical churches, must I suppose be acknowledged by all those who groan under the final issue of that gradual degeneracy in the papal antichristian tyranny. For Rome was not built in a day, nor was this change introduced at once, or in one age; nor were the lesser alterations which began this declension, so prejudicial unto the being, order, and purity of the churches, as they proved afterward, through a continual additional increase in succeeding ages.

Having affirmed something of this nature in my brief vindication of the nonconformists from the guilt of schism, the reverend Dr. Stillingfleet in his late treatise, entitled, The Unreasonableness of Separation, doth not only deny it, but reflects with some severity upon the mention of it; part. ii. sect. 3. pp. 225, 226, &c. I shall therefore on this occasion reassume the consideration of it, although it will be spoken unto also afterward.

6

The words he opposeth are these: It is possible that an impartial account may, ere long, be given of the state and ways of the first churches, after the decease of the apostles, wherein it will be made to appear how they did insensibly deviate in many things from the rule of their first institution; so as that though their mistakes were of small moment, and not prejudicial unto their faith and order, yet occasion was administered unto succeeding ages to increase those deviations, until they issued in a fatal apostacy.' I yet suppose these words inoffensive, and agreeable unto the sentiments of the generality of Protestants. For,

1. Unto the first churches after the apostles, I ascribe nothing but such small mistakes as did no way prejudice their faith or order. And that they did preserve the latter as well as the former, as unto all the substantial parts of it, shall be afterward declared. Nor do I reflect any more upon them, than did Hegesippus in Eusebius, who confines

the virgin purity of the church unto the days of the apostles; lib. 3. cap. 29. The greater deviations which I intend, began not until after the end of the second century. But,

2. To evince the improbability of any alteration in church rule and order, upon my own principles, he intimates both here and afterward, that my judgment is that the government of the church was democratical, and the power of it in the people in distinction from its officers;' which is a great mistake; I never thought, I never wrote, any such thing. I do believe that the authoritative rule or government of the church was, is, and ought to be, in the elders and rulers of it, being an act of the office-power committed unto them by Christ himself. Howbeit my judgment is, that they ought not to rule the church with force, tyranny, and corporal penalties, or without their own consent, whereof we shall treat afterward. There are also other mistakes in the same discourse, which I shall not insist upon.

3. This therefore is that which he opposeth, namely, that there was a deviation in various degrees, and falling off from the original institution, order, and rule of the church, until it issued in a fatal apostacy. This is that which on the present occasion must be farther spoken unto. For if this be not true, I confess there is an end of this contest, and we must all acquiesce in the state, rule, and order, that was in the church of Rome before the reformation. But we may observe something yet farther in the vindication and confirmation of this truth, which I acknowledge to be the foundation of all that we plead for in point of church reformation. As,

1. That the reasons and arguings of the doctor in this matter, the necessity of his cause compelling him thereunto, are the same with those of the Papists about the apostacy of their church, in faith, order, and worship, wherewith they are charged; namely, when, where, how was this alteration made? who made opposition unto it? and the like. When these inquiries are multiplied by the Papists, as unto the whole causes between them and us, he knows well enough how to give satisfactory answers unto them, and so might do in this particular unto himself also; but I shall endeavour to ease him of that trouble at present. Only I

must say that it is fallen out somewhat unexpectedly, that the ruins of the principal bulwark of the papacy, which hath been effectually demolished by the writings of Protestants of all sorts, should be endeavoured to be repaired by a person, justly made eminent by his defence of the Protestant religion against those of the church of Rome.

2. But it may be pleaded, that although the churches following the first ages did insensibly degenerate from the purity and simplicity of gospel faith and worship, yet they neither did nor could do so from an adherence unto, and abiding in, their original constitution; or from the due observation of church-order, rule, and discipline, least of all could this happen in the case of diocesan episcopacy. I

answer,

1. That as unto the original of any thing that looks like diocesan episcopacy, or the pastoral relation of one person of a distinct order from presbyters unto many particular complete churches with officers of their own, with power and jurisdiction in them and over them, unto the abridgment of the exercise of that right and power unto their own edification, which every true church is intrusted withal by Jesus Christ, it is very uncertain, and was introduced by insensible degrees, according unto the effectual working of the mystery of iniquity. Some say that there were two distinct orders, namely, those of bishops and presbyters, instituted at first in all churches planted by the apostles; but as the contrary may be evidently proved, so a supposition of it would no way promote the cause of diocesan episcopacy, until those who plead for it have demonstrated the stateof the churches wherein they were placed to be of the same nature with those now called diocesan. Wherefore this hypothesis begins generally to be deserted, as it seems to be by this author. Others suppose that immediately upon, or at, or after the decease of the apostles, this new order of bishops was appointed to succeed the apostles in the government of the churches that were then gathered or planted. But how, when, or by whom, by what authority, apostolical and divine, or ecclesiastical only and human, none can declare; seeing there is not the least footstep of any such thing either in the Scripture or in the records that remain of the primitive churches. Others

think this new order of officers took its occasional rise from the practice of the presbyters of the church at Alexandria, who chose out one among themselves constantly to preside in the rule of the church, and in all matters of order, unto whom they ascribed some kind of pre-eminence and dignity, peculiarly appropriating unto him the name of bishop. And if this be true as unto matter of fact, I reckon it unto the beginnings of those less harmful deviations from their original constitution, which I assigned unto primitive churches; but many additions must be made hereunto, before it will help the cause of diocesan episcopacy. What other occasions hereof were given or taken, what advantages were made use of to promote this alteration, shall be touched upon afterward.

2. Why may not the churches be supposed to have departed from their original constitution, order, and rule, as well as from their first faith and worship, which they did gradually in many successive ages, until both were utterly corrupted. The causes, occasions, and temptations leading unto the former, are to the full as pregnant as those leading unto the latter. For,

1. There was no vicious corrupt disposition of mind that began more early to work in church officers, nor did more grow and thrive in the minds of many, than ambition, with desire of pre-eminence, dignity, and rule. It is not to be supposed that Diotrephes was alone in his desire of preeminence, nor in the irregular actings of his unduly assumed authority. However we have one signal instance in him of the deviation that was in the church with him, from the rule of its original constitution. For he prevailed so far therein, as by his own single episcopal power to reject the authority of the apostles, and to cast them out of the church who complied not with his humour. How effectually the same ambition wrought afterward, in many others possessing the same place in their churches with Diotrephes, is sufficiently evident in all ecclesiastical histories. It is far from being the only instance of the corruption of churchorder and rule, by the influence of this ambition, yet it is one that is pregnant, which is given us by Ambrose, for saith he, Ecclesia ut synagoga, seniores habuit, quorum sine, consilio nihil agebatur in ecclesia; quod qua negli

gentia obsoleverit nescio, nisi forte doctorum desidia, aut magis superbia, dum soli volunt aliquid videri.' In 1 ad Timoth. cap. 5. It seems there was some alteration in church-rule and order in his time, whose beginning and progress he could not well, discover and trace, but knew well enough, that so it was then come to pass. And if he who lived so near the times wherein such alterations were made, could not yet discover their first insinuation, nor their subtle progress, it is unreasonable to exact a strict account of us in things of the same nature, who live so many ages after their first introduction. But this he judgeth, that it was the pride or ambition of the doctors of the church, which introduced that alteration in its order. Whereas, therefore, we see in the event, that all deviations from the original constitution of churches, all alterations in their rule and order, did issue in a compliance with the ambition of church-rulers, as it did in the papal church; and this ambition was signally noted as one of the first depraved inclinations of mind that wrought in ecclesiastical rulers, and which in the fourth and fifth centuries openly proclaimed itself unto the scandal of Christian religion, there was a greater disposition in them unto a deviation from the original institution, rule, and order of the church, no way suited unto the satisfaction of that ambition, than unto a defection from the purity of faith and worship, which yet also followed.

2. As the inclination of many lay towards such a deviation, so their interests lead them unto it, and their temptations cast them upon it. For to acknowledge the truth unto our author and others, the rule and conduct of the church, the preservation of its order and discipline according unto its first institution, and the directions given in the Scripture about it, are, according unto our apprehension of these things, a matter so weighty in itself, so dangerous as unto its issue, attended with so many difficulties, trials, and temptations, laid under such severe interdictions of lordly power, or seeking either of wealth or dignity, that no wise men will ever undertake it, but merely out of a sense of a. call from Christ unto it, and in compliance with that duty which he owes unto him. It is no pleasant thing unto flesh and blood, to be engaged in the conduct and oversight of