Secondly, where any work is by divine appointment

*

to be performed, the persons, who perform the work, must, ordinarily and regularly, derive their power for so doing from God himself. For, who but he, that has authority to appoint the work to be done, can give a sufficient power to any one to take it in hand? Ordinarily and regularly, I say; for, as for cases of extraordinary necessity, how far, in them a man may presume upon God's approbation of an action, for the doing of which he has not, in a regular way, received any power, is a point that does not come under our present consideration. In the ordinary and regular method therefore of things, Whosoever takes upon him to be a public teacher or preacher of the Gospel, to administer Baptism or the Lord's Supper, or to exercise ecclesiastical discipline in the church of Christ, must originally derive his power for so doing from none other but God himself.

Thirdly, that the power of performing all these offices was, at the first foundation of the Christian church, given by our blessed Saviour to the Twelve Apostles, by them to be communicated to other proper persons, is what I am sure you will not deny: from whence it will follow, that in whatsoever frame or method the Apostles did settle the polity of the church, in order to the constant and continual performance of all the said offices, the same ought to be preserved intire (as far as possibly can be) in all succeeding ages. Or in other terms; however lawful and necessary it may be, to regulate the undetermined circumstances even of a divine institution,

according to the rules of prudence, and the present exigence of things; yet, wherever it appears that any thing has been established by the Apostles themselves, (who are allowed to have had their mission and commission immediately from Christ;) no manner of change, by any human authority, ought ever to be made in any substantial part of such an establishment: whatever in cases of extraordinary necessity (of which I am not now speaking) may perhaps sometimes innocently be submitted to, or complied with.

Fourthly, (to speak in the words of the learned Mr. Chillingworth) if we abstract from Episcopal Government all accidentals, and consider only what is essential and necessary to it, we shall find in it no more but this: an appointment of one man of eminent sanctity and sufficiency, to have the care of all the churches within a certain precinct or diocese, and furnishing him with authority (not absolute or arbitrary,' but regulated and bounded by laws, and moderated by joining to him a convenient number of assistants) to the intent that all the churches under him may be provided of good and able pastors: and that, both of pastors and people, conformity to laws, and performance of their duties may be required, under penalties, not left to discretion, but by law appointed. Apost. Instit. of Episc. Demonstr. Sect. ii.

Fifthly, that this government was received universally in the church, either in the Apostles' time, or presently after, is so evident and unquestionable,

that the most learned adversaries of this government do themselves confess it. As you may find by the testimonies quoted, Ibid. Sect. iii.

From whence, sixthly, I cannot but conclude with the same learned author, Sect. vi. that seeing episcopal government is confessedly so ancient and so Catholiek, it cannot with reason be denied to be Apostolick. No possible account being to be given, how a change from that frame of church polity, which the Apostles had laid, should immediately after their time (if not while some of them were alive) come to be universally received throughout the Christian world: and that not only without the least opposition, but even any manner of notice taken, by any writer, of that time or since, that any such change there was. As he most convincingly argues in the remaining part of that short discourse, which I earnestly recommend to your reading.

The designed brevity of this letter will not permit me more largely to insist on this point: only this I will add, that if we allow the universal practice of the primitive church to be a good comment upon those passages of Holy Scripture that relate to this matter, no impartial man, I think, can deny that episcopal government (as I have but now stated it in the words of Mr. Chillingworth) is of Apostolick institution: which if once we grant, it will follow, lastly, from the third proposition that I have laid down, that it ought to be preserved entire in the church in all the ages of it.

And thus I have freely given you my thoughts,

(and I believe they are much the same in every true churchman) touching the necessity of episcopal government in the church. I come now to the consequences of this doctrine of which you desire to be informed. And, in my opinion, a true churchman, from what has been said concerning the necessity of episcopacy, in conjunction with his other principles, will draw these following inferences.

First, that wherever episcopal government is settled and established, it ought by no means to be abolished. If any bishop do assume more power to himself than what justly belongs to him, he may and ought to be restrained by proper authority: but wholly to abolish an order or office so early settled and universally received throughout the Christian church, a true churchman cannot but look upon as a dangerous encroachment upon the authority of the Apostles, or rather of Christ himself, from whom they received their commission.

Secondly, where episcopacy, as above stated, is the government of an established church, against whose communion no just or sufficient objection can be made; all Christians ought to own the communion of that church as lawful; and they who live within the precincts, where she is so established, are bound in conscience to join in communion with her and that notwithstanding that in their opinion she may labour under some defects. For where a church is established in which we may fully enjoy all the ordinances of God that are necessary to salvation, and are compelled to do nothing that is contrary to

the law of God; no supposed defect can justify separation from such a church.

Thirdly, if two societies of Christians, in any place or country, do enjoy the freedom of their religion, both in all other respects equally orthodox; but the government of the one being episcopal, and the other not so: a true churchman will think himself obliged to hold communion with such an episcopal church wherever he finds it, rather than with those who have rejected that Apostolick form of government. Nor is it to him material, in this case, to say that the non-episcopal church is established by law, and the episcopal only tolerated or connived at. For wherever he has the opportunity of enjoying any ordinance of God, he thinks that no human law ought to debar him from it: and whatever he finds or judges to have been appointed by the Apostles throughout the universal church; and that in pursuance of that very command and commission which they had received for the preaching of the Gospel, and the performance of those other things which confessedly are of divine institution, and ordinarily necessary to salvation (which he takes to be plainly the case of episcopacy), he looks upon as the ordinance of God himself. But if this same episcopal church shall wilfully neglect to pray for that civil government, which by the Providence of God, and the laws of the place, is justly set over them, he will openly protest against this defect in their worship; it being, beyond all dispute, an Apostolick constitution, that supplications, prayers,