The Samaritan showing that many and unnecessary impositions are not the oil that must…The Samaritan shewing that many and unnecessary impositions are not the oyl that must…

And why now these Tolerated Churches should not be accounted true Churches, and Parts of the National-Church, whereof the King is the Head, I do not imagine. In my Apprehension, they look very like the Churches we read of in the New Testament, which (no Man doubts) were of Divine Appointment. For although I do not know, but that some particular Persons from among the Clergy, fittest for it, (As St. Paul chiefly employed himself in Preaching the Gospel, and meddled but little with Baptism) may be lawfully and prudently chosen, and employed chiefly in the Government of several Congregations, even as many as they can personally know, and be acquainted withal; and if they be called Bishops, and have a peculiar Consecration, and nothing be done in Ordination, Censures, and Absolutions, but with their Knowledge, Direction, and Approbation, I would have no Controversy with them about it: Yet I do professedly avow, that I can find no such thing in the Scripture, nor in the Practice of the Church for 200 Years. I know 'tis said, That the Apostles were Diocesans, and that they governed all or most of the Christian Churches whilst they lived; but I see no Proof of it, and there's one Argument against it, which I cannot tell how to answer, and 'tis this. If the Christian Churches, in the Apostles days, had no Governors but themselves, 'tis certain, that for the most part they had none at all, for they never fixed in any place, but having ⟨p. 98⟩preached the Gospel, planted Churches, and settled Officers amongst them, they left them, and went to other Places and Countries. 'Tis true, they did sometimes return, and visit the Churches that they planted; but who Governed them in the intermediate Periods of Time? Or were there no Ordinations, Censures, or Absolutions performed in them, or none but by their Direction and Command? That some Acts of Discipline were performed by their Direction and Command, I do acknowledge; but that all were so, and that none ought to be performed without it, I see no reason to believe.

And why now these Tolerated Churches should not be accounted true Churches, and Parts of the National-Church, whereof the King is the Head, I do not imagine. In my Apprehension, they look very like the Churches we read of in the New Testament, which (no Man doubts) were of Divine Appointment. For although I do not know, but that some particular Persons from among the Clergy, fittest for it, (As St. Paul chiefly imployed himself in Preaching the Gospel, and meddled but little with Baptism) may be lawfully and prudently chosen, and employed chiefly in the Government of several Congregations, even as many as they can personally know, and be acquainted withal; and if they be called Bishops, and have a peculiar Consecration, and nothing be done in Ordination, Censures, and Absolutions, but with their Knowledge, Direction, and Approbation, I would have no Controversie with them about it: Yet I do professedly avow, that I can find no such thing in the Scripture, nor in the Practice of the Church for 200 Years. I know 'tis said, That the Apostles were Diocesans, and that they governed all or most of the Christian Churches whil'st they lived; but I see no Proof of it, and there's one Argument against it, which I cannot tell how to answer, and 'tis this. If the Christian Churches, in the Apostles days, had no Governours but themselves, 'tis certain, that for the most part they had none at all, for they never fixed in any place, but having