(61) Apoflles°Intentions ? If not, then are they Infallible as well as the M Apoflles, which is not true. They might fin in going from the Inflitutìon : And their finwill notprove that the Apoflles in- tended it fhóuld .be fo de jure becaufe their followers didfo de faFto. Ifthey fay that k is not likely that all the Churches flgould fee fuddenly beignorant ofthe Apoflles Intention, I anfwer, i . We mull notbuild our faith and practice on Conjectures. Such a faying as this is no proofofApoflolical intentions, to warrant us to fwerve from the foie praetifedGovernment in Scripture-times. 2. There is nogreat likelihood that I can difcern that this firft'" praftifed.Government was alteredbythofe that knew the Apo, files, andupon fuppofition that thefe which are pretended were their intents. 3. Ifit were fo,yet is it not impoffible, nor very improbable , that-through humane frailty they might be drawn toconjeure that that was the Apofiles,intents which Peened" rightin thiereyes; and fuited their prefent judgementsand inter: relts. 4, Sure weare that the Scripture is the perfe& Law and Rule to the Church for the Eflablifhing ofall neceffhry Offices and Ordinances : and therefore iftherebe noEach` intentions or Inftitutionsof the Apoftlesmentioned in theScripture, we may' not let upuniverfally fuch Officesand Ordinances,' on any luche' fupnofed intents. Defallowe feemagreed;that'the Apoflles' fettled One Po or over one Congregationhaving no`Presbyters under bis Rule and that therewereno other in Scripture time but 1hortl x after when'' Chriflians were multiplied, and the moll of the Ciries'where the-- = Churches were planned, were converted to the faith , together with the Country roundabout then there were many Congree gazions, and many Paflors and the Pallorofthe firft Church in theCity -did take all the other Churches and Parlors to be 'un- der his Government calling themPresbyters only,and himfelf eminentlyor only the `,ifhop.Now' the Qeeleftion between azs is,' whether this was well done or not? 0Whethertheft PafáorsA9Uld nor rather havegathered Churches as free as their own?&whether for Chriftiansthat wereafterward converted Jbòuld not have co>rra barredfor holy Communion themfelves inparticular difliní t"hz r cheì, and have had their own Paffors fit over them, as the firfl Churches kitheApgllles had ? They thatdeny it and Juftife I 3 , their ,;
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=