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

stituted it for perpetuity, yet till he declares the contrary, it must bind for perpetuity; especially if the reason of the institution of it be not apparently altered, which cannot be pretended in the case under debate, there being the very same reasons for a superiority and subordination between ecclesiastic officers now, as there was when our Saviour first appointed and instituted it. Until therefore they can shew either that the reason of the institution is ceased, or that the institution itself is repealed by some other law, (neither of which was ever yet pretended,) they may as reasonably dispense with most of the precepts of the gospel, (which are no more declared perpetual than this,) as with this of superiority and subjection among the ecclesiastical orders, which is the proper form of the episcopal government.

II. That the true government of the church is episcopal is evident also from the practice of the holy apostles, who, pursuant to the institution of our Saviour, did not only exercise that superiority in their own persons which their office gave them over their inferior clergy, but also derived it down with their office to their successors, which is a plain argument that they looked upon our Saviour's institution of this superior office of the apostolate, not as a temporary expedient, but as a standing form of ecclesiastical government, to be handed down to all succeeding generations. For though during our Saviour's abode upon earth, and some time after his ascension into heaven, the number of the apostles was confined to twelve, yet when afterwards, through their ministry, the church was spread and dilated, not only through Judea, but into the Gentile nations, they added to their number several other apostles, to

whom they communicated the same office and degree of superiority over the other clergy that our blessed Saviour had communicated to them: for so Eusebius, lib. i. cap. 11. Es аρà тоÚтOUS καтà μíμησιν τῶν δώδεκα πλείστων ὅσων ὑπαρξάντων ἀποστόλων, i. e. Besides the twelve, there were many other apostles in that age, after the similitude of the twelve. And of the truth of this I shall give three or four in

stances.

The first is that of St. James of Jerusalem, the brother of Jesus, who though he was none of the twelve, (for in that number there were but two James's, viz. the son of Alpheus and the son of Zebedee, neither of which was he whom St. Paul calls the Lord's brother, and St. Paul, reckons him apart from the twelve, 1 Cor. xv. 5, 6, 7.) is yet styled an apostle by St. Paul, Gal. i. 19. but other apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. And St. Jerom, in his comment on Isaiah, styles James the thirteenth apostle; that is, the first that was made an apostle after the twelve: and that he was not merely a nominal apostle, but actually endowed with apostolical power and superiority, is evident both from scripture and the unanimous consent of ecclesiastical history. From scripture it is evident, that this James was a man of great preeminence in the church of Jerusalem; for in the first council that was held there, we find him giving a decisive sentence in the matter of circumcision, Acts xv. For after there had been much disputing, ver. 7. and St. Peter, and St. Paul, and St. Barnabas had declared their judgment in the case, ver. 7-13. St. James, after a short preface, thus delivers himself; Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them which from