cision, but in such sort that they were not to exclude all others from being their associates and fellow-workers, with the same power as themselves. St. James was the Apostle of the Jews residing in Jerusalem and Judæa: St. Peter of the Jews dispersed among the Gentiles; whilst St. Paul limited his sphere of labour to the Greeks of Asia and Europe, leaving the other parts of the world to the other Apostles. If the Bishop of Rome had contented himself with his own province, no one would have ever accused him of unhallowed usurpation and tyranny. I remark furthermore, that, since the Apostolical traditions concerning the government of the Church and its externals were drawn, first by our Saviour Himself, and afterwards by his Apostles, from the Old Testament, with such modifications as difference of time and place required, no fault can be found with the Fathers if they should appear to have taken certain regulations from the same source. Hence St. Jerome writes thus to Evagrius; " and, that we may know the Apostolical traditions

to have been borrowed from the Old Testament, what Aaron, his sons, and the Levites were in the temple, that do Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons claim to be in the Church."

I assert therefore, that the ordination of one Bishop over each of the dioceses or parishes, which together formed as it were but one state, was right, and that the appointment, in like manner, of one Patriarch, or Archbishop, or Primate, or Metropolitan, (call him which you will,) over the whole people and state, was an institution of the Councils and Ancients, agreeable to the Divine will.

To conclude. From what has now been said concerning the Gospel Ministry as instituted by our Lord, left to the Churches by the Apostles, confirmed by the unanimous consent of the Fathers and Councils and the practice of the universal Church, any one may perceive, that the form of regimen, according to which Presbyters are subject to Bishops as their superiors, and

Bishops to their Patriarchs and Metropolitans, is not a human device, but divine, and instituted by God, under the new as well as under the old covenant.

CHAP. XXV.

CONCERNING THE TITLES OF PATRIARCH,
ARCHBISHOP, AND METROPOLITAN.

HAVING now stated my reasons for dissenting in this from men for whom I entertain in other matters great respect, it remains for me to reply to the evil speeches of certain persons, who, disregarding the moderation of the most learned writers of our times, indulge in invectives against the titles and offices of Bishops, Archbishops, Metropolitans, and Patriarchs, reviling them as being vain, proud, antichristian, and unholy inventions. These railers argue, that no mention is made of Patriarchs or Archbishops by St. Paul in the fourth chapter of the Epistle

to the Ephesians, where he enumerates the Orders of Gospel Ministers. But to this it is to be replied, that these offices are there denoted by the titles of Apostles and Evangelists; in the Epistle to the Romans", by the word προϊσταμένους, and in the Epistle to the Corinthians, by zußigvýσus governments, terms signifying Pastors of the highest order. That the offices of Apostles and Evangelists were to be perpetual, has been sufficiently shewn in the former part of this treatise, and is very evident from what immediately follows St. Paul's enumeration of Gospel Ministers, when he adds the purpose for which our Saviour gave to the Church " some Apostles, and some Evangelists," namely, " for the work of the Ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." So long as there shall be the Church to edify, the offices there mentioned must continue to exist; if the Church could have been edified without them, they would not have been instituted. As to the notion, a Rom. xii. 8.

b 1 Cor. xii. 28.