commission and authority, 1 Thess. v. 12. and as such they are commanded to rule with diligence, Rom. xii. 8. From all which it is abundantly evident, that the church of Christ is a formed society subsisting of itself, distinct from all other societies, under a distinct rule and government. But this I shall make yet more fully appear, when I come to treat of the several ministries which the governors of the church of Christ are obliged to render him.

I proceed therefore at present to the second thing proposed, which was, to inquire into the nature of this government, in what hands Christ hath placed it. Now the two main rival forms of church-government pretending to divine institution are the presbyterial and episcopal. The presbyterial is that which is seated in an equality or parity of church-officers; the episcopal is that which is placed in a superior order of church-officers, called bishops; to whom the other orders of presbyters and deacons are subject and subordinate: the latter of which, I shall endeavour to prove, is the true form of government instituted by our Saviour, and that,

First, From the institution of our Saviour.

Secondly, From the practice of the holy apostles. Thirdly, From the punctual conformity of the primitive church to both.

Fourthly, From our Saviour's declared allowance and approbation of the primitive practice in this

matter.

I. That the government of the church of Christ is episcopal, is evident from the institution of our Saviour, who in his lifetime instituted two distinct orders of ecclesiastical ministers, the one superior to the other, viz. that of the twelve apostles, and that

of the seventy or seventy-two disciples: for that these two were of distinct orders is evident from their being always distinguished from one another, and mentioned apart by different names and in different ranks and classes. For to what purpose should the scripture mention the twelve and the seventy so distinctly as it every where doth, if there were not some distinction in their office and employment; for in Luke vi. 13. we are told, that Christ called unto him his disciples, and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles: and Mark iii. 13, 14. it is said that he called unto him whom he would, that is of his disciples, and ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach. And what less can this imply, than that the twelve were separated by this call and ordination of Christ to some distinct office and employment from the rest of his disciples? And that the office of the twelve was superior to that of the seventy is evident, not only from their being still placed first in the catalogues of ecclesiastical officers, see Eph. iv. 11. 1 Cor. xii. 28. in the latter of which we are told that God constituted in the church first apostles, wherein the primary is attributed to the apostolical office; and not only from the particular care which Christ took of these twelve above the rest of his disciples both in praying for and instructing them, of which there are a great many notorious instances in the Gospels; but also from hence, that their immediate successors were for the most part chosen out of the seventy: for so Simeon the son of Cleophas succeeded St. James at Jerusalem; Philip, St. Paul at Cæsarea; Clement, St. Peter at Rome; and divers others of the seventy, according

to Dorotheus, Eusebius, and others of the fathers, succeeded the apostles after their death in the government of their several churches; and Matthias, who, as Eusebius, Epiphanius, and St. Jerom affirm, was one of the seventy that was chosen and ordained by the other apostles to succeed Judas in the apostolate, Acts i. 26. From whence it is evident, that the apostles were superior to the seventy, otherwise it would have been no advancement to the seventy to succeed them: for all that superiority which they acquired by their succession must necessarily be inherent in the apostles before they succeeded them; else how can they be said to succeed them in it? And if we suppose them to be equal with the apostles in office before they succeeded them, it is nonsense to say they succeeded them: for how can'a man be said to succeed another in any office, who is actually vested with the same office before he succeeds him? If therefore the seventy received no more power after the apostles, than they had under them, they were as much apostles before they succeeded them, as after: but if they did receive more power, then the apostles, to whom they succeeded, had more power than they before they received it, and consequently were their superiors; because a man can receive no more power by succeeding another in any office, than he to whom he succeeds had before, by virtue of the same office. By all which it is most evident, that by the institution of our Saviour the apostles were superior to the seventy; and yet it is as evident that the seventy were ecclesiastical ministers, as well as they; for in Luke x. 1. we are told, that after these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two be

fore his face, that is, to preach his gospel. And that by this mission of his they were authorized to be the ministers of religion is evident from what he tells them, verse 16. He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. From whence it is plain that they were his authorized ministers, even as he was God's: because as the despising of him was a despising of God, by whom he was sent; so the despising of them was a despising of Christ, by whom they were sent and accordingly, by virtue of this mission, we find them acting as authorized ministers of the gospel; for so Ananias, who was one of them, baptized Saul, Acts ix. 18. and Philip, who was another, preached and baptized at Samaria, Acts viii. 5.

So that here are plainly two sorts of ecclesiastical officers, the one superior to the other, of our Saviour's own institution and appointment; and therefore, if his institution be still valid, there must still be a superiority and subordination between the officers and ministers of his church, and consequently the government thereof must still be episcopal, i. e. by some superior officers presiding and superintending over other inferior ones. I know it is objected, that this superiority of the apostles over the seventy was only in office, but not in power or jurisdiction. But since it is the office that is the immediate subject of the power belonging to it, I would fain know, whether superiority of office must not necessarily include superiority in power; for office without power is an empty name that signifies nothing; and every degree of superiority of office must be accompanied with power to exert itself in acts of superiority, other

wise it will be utterly in vain and to no purpose. So that either the superiority of the apostolic office over other church-offices must be void and insignificant, or it must have a proportionable superiority of power over them, inseparably inherent in it. But it is farther objected, that supposing the apostolate to be superior to the other ecclesiastical orders in power and office, yet it was but temporary, it being instituted by our Saviour in subservience to the present exigence and necessity of things, without any intention of deriving it down to the church in a continued succession. To which I answer in short, that this is said without so much as a plausible colour of reason; for they allow both that our Saviour instituted this office, and that in his institution he never gave the least intimation to the world that he intended it only for a certain season. Now if men will presume to declare Christ's institutions of Christianity, and even the least intimation of his will that he so designed them, they may with the same warrant repeal all the institutions of Christianity; and even the two sacraments will lie as much at their mercy as the institution of the apostolic order, which, unless they can prove it repealed by the same authority which established it, will be sufficient to prescribe to all ages and nations; for the obligations of divine commands are dissolvable only by divine countermands; and for men to declare any divine institution void before God hath so declared it, is to overrule the will of God by their own arrogant presumptions. For though the matter of the institution be mutable in itself, yet the form and obligation of it is mutable only by the authority which made it; and therefore, though God hath not declared that he in