among the Gentiles are turned unto God: and this sentence of his determines the controversy, and puts a final end to all farther debate; which plainly argues his great authority and preeminence in that place. Again, Acts xxi. 17, 18. we are told, that when St. Paul and his company were come to Jerusalem, the brethren received him gladly; and that the next day following Paul went in with them unto James, and all the elders were present. Now for what other reason should Paul go in to James more especially, or upon what other account should all the elders be present with James, but that he was a person of the greatest note and figure in the church of Jerusalem; and for the same reason, in all probability, St. Paul mentions James before Peter and John, discoursing of a meeting he had with them at Jerusalem, Gal. ii. 9. because though Peter and John were two of the principal of the twelve apostles, and St. James was not so much as one of that number, yet in the church of Jerusalem he had the priority of them both. Now considering that St. James is called an apostle, and considering the preference he had in all these instances above the other apostles at Jerusalem, it is at least highly probable that he was peculiarly the apostle of the church of Jerusalem. But if to all this evidence we add the most early testimonies of Christian antiquity, we shall advance the probability to a demonstration; for by the unanimous consent of all ecclesiastical writers, St. James was the first bishop of Jerusalem: for so Hegesippus, who lived very near the times of the apostles, tells us, that James the brother of our Lord, called by all men the Just, received the church of Jerusalem from the apostles, (vid. Euseb. lib. ii. cap. 23.) So also St.

Clement, as he is quoted by the same author, 1. ii. c. 1. tells us, that Peter, James, and John, after the assumption of Christ, as being the men that were most in favour with him, did not contend for the honour, but chose James the Just to be bishop of Jerusalem. And in the Apostolical Constitutions that pass under the name of St. Clement, (which though not so ancient as is pretended, yet are doubtless of very early antiquity,) the apostles are brought in thus speaking; "Concerning those that were ordained by us "bishops in our lifetime, we signify to you that they 66 were these: James the brother of our Lord was or"dained by us bishop of Jerusalem," &c. So also St. Jerom, de Script. Eccles. tells us, that St. James, immediately after the passion of our Lord, was ordained bishop of Jerusalem by the apostles. And St. Cyril, who was afterwards bishop of that church, and therefore a most authentic witness of the records of it, calls St. James "the first bishop of that diocese," Catech. 16. To all which we have the concurrent testimonies of St. Austin, St. Chrysostom, Epiphanius, St. Ambrose, and a great many others: and St. Ignatius himself, who was an immediate disciple of the apostles, makes St. Stephen to be the deacon of St. James, Ep. ad Trall. and therefore, since Stephen was a deacon of the church of Jerusalem, St. James, whose deacon he was, must necessarily be the bishop of it.

Upon this account therefore St. James is called an apostle in scripture; because, by being ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem, he had the apostolic power and authority conferred on him: for since it is apparent he was none of the twelve, to whom the apostleship was at first confined, he could no

otherwise become an apostle, than by deriving the apostleship from some of the twelve: and therefore since that apostleship which he derived from the twelve was only episcopal superiority over the church of Jerusalem, it hence necessarily follows, that the episcopacy was the apostleship derived and communicated from the primitive apostles.

The second instance of the apostles communicating their apostolic superiority to others is Epaphroditus, who, in Phil. ii. 25. is styled the apostle of the Philippians; but I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and companion in labour, and fellow-soldier, iμãv dè åñóσтoλov, but your apostle for so St. Jerom, Com. Gal. i. 19. Paulatim, tempore præcedente, et alii ab his quos Dominus elegerat ordinati sunt apostoli, sicut ille ad Philippenses sermo declarat, dicens, Necessarium existimavi Epaphroditum, &c. i. e. By degrees, in process of time, others were ordained apostles, by those whom our Lord had chosen, as that passage to the Philippians shews, I thought it necessary to send unto you Epaphroditus your apostle. And Theodoret upon the place gives this reason why he is here called the apostle of the Philippians; Tv, Éπlσκοπικὴν οἰκονομίαν ἐπεπίστευτο, ἔχων ἐπισκόπου προσηγορίαν, i. e. He was intrusted with episcopal government, as being their bishop. So that here you see Epaphroditus is made an apostle by the apostles, and his apostleship consists in being made bishop of Philippi.

A third instance is that of Titus, and some others with him, 2 Cor. viii. 23. Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellowhelper concerning you: or our brethren be inquired of, they are ἀπόστολοι ἐκκλησίων, the apostles of the churches,

and the glory of Christ; where it is plain, they are not called the apostles of the churches, merely as they were the messengers of the liberality of the churches of Macedonia; for it was not those churches, but St. Paul that sent them, ver. 22. and therefore, since they were not apostles in relation to those churches whose liberality they carried, it must be in relation to some particular churches over which they had apostolical authority. And that Titus had this authority over the church of Crete is evident both from St. Paul's Epistle to him and from primitive antiquity. As for St. Paul's Epistle, there are sundry passages in it, which plainly speak him to be vested with apostolical superiority over that church; so chap. i. ver. 5. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set things in order that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee. For in the first place St. Paul here gives him the supreme judgment of things that were wanting, with an absolute power to reform and correct them; which is a plain demonstration of his superiority in that church. Secondly, He authorizes him to ordain elders in every city; and whether these elders were bishops or presbyters is of very little consequence as to the present debate: for, first, it is of undoubted certainty, that there were presbyters in the church of Crete before Titus was left there by the apostle; and, secondly, it is as evident, that those presbyters had no power to ordain elders in every city, as Titus had; for if they had, what need St. Paul to have left Titus there for that purpose? What need he have left Titus there with a new power to do that which the presbyters before him had sufficient power to do? For if the presby

ters had before the power of ordination in them, this new power of Titus's would have been not only in vain, but mischievous; it would have looked like an invasion of the power of the presbyters, for St. Paul to restrain ordination to Titus, if before him it had been common to the whole presbytery; and upon that account have rather proved an occasion of strife and contention, than an expedient of peace and good order. From hence therefore it is evident, that Titus had a power in the church of Crete which the presbyters there before him had not; and this power of his extended not only to the establishment of good order and the ordaining of elders, but also to rebuking with all authority, i. e. correcting obstinate offenders with the spiritual rod of excommunication, chap. ii. ver. 15. and taking cognizance of heretical pravity, so as first to admonish heretics, and in case of pertinacy to reject them from the communion of the church, chap. iii. ver. 10. From all which it is evident, that this apostolate of Titus consisted in his ecclesiastical superiority, which was the very same in the church of Crete that the first apostles themselves had in the several churches that were planted by them. And accordingly he is declared, by the concurrent testimony of all antiquity, to be the first bishop of that church. So Euseb. lib. iii. cap. 4. affirms him, τῶν ἐπὶ Κρήτης ἐκκλησιῶν ἐπισκοπὴν εἰληχέναι, to have received episcopal authority over the churches of Crete. So also Theodoret, in Argum. Ep. ad Tit. tells us, that he was ordained by St. Paul bishop of Crete; and so also St. Chrysostom, St. Jerom, and St. Ambrose, and several others of the fathers and ecclesiastical writers. This episcopal authority therefore which St. Paul gave Titus over the church of