to take the charge of a particular flock. The terms of their commission are, "Go and teach all nations." Again; "Go "ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every crea "ture." "No doubt they may be styled bishops or overseers, but in a sense very different from that in which it is applied to the inspector over the inhabitants of a particular district. They were universal bishops; the whole church, or rather, the whole earth was their charge, and they were all colleagues one of another. Or to give the same sentiment, in the words of Chrysostom, Εισιν ύπο θες χειροτονηθέντες αποστολοι αρχονίες, και εθνό και πολεις διαφορές λαμβανονίες, άλλα πανίες κοινη την οικεμένην εμπιςευθενίες. "The apostles were constituted of God, rulers, not each over 66 a separate nation or city, but all were intrusted with the world in common.' If so, to have limited themselves to any thing less, would have been disobedience to the express command they had received from their Master, to go into all nations, and to preach the Gospel to every creature. If, in the latter part of the lives of any of them, they were, through age and infirmities, confined to one place, that place would naturally fall under the immediate inspection of such. And this, if even so much as this, is all that has given rise to the tradition, (for there is nothing like historical evidence in the case) that any of them were bishops or pastors of particular churches. Nay, in some instances, it is plain, that the tradi tion has originated from this single circumstance, that the first pastors, in such a church, were appointed by such an apostle. Hence it has arisen, that the bishops of different churches have claimed (and, probably, with equal truth) to be the suc cessours of the same apostle.

Fourthly and lastly, as a full proof that the matter was thus universally understood, both in their own age, and in the times immediately succeeding, no one, on the death of an apostle, was ever substituted in his room, and when that original sacred college was extinct, the title became extinct with it. The election of Matthias by the apostles, in the room of Judas, is no exception, as it was previous to their entering on their charge. They knew it was their Master's intention, that twelve missionaries, from among those who had attended his ministry on the earth, should be employed as ocular witnesses to attest his resurrection, on which the divinity of his religion depended. The words of Peter, on this occasion, are an ample confirmation of all that has been said, both in regard to the end of the office, and the qualifications requisite in the person who fills it, at the same time that they afford a demonstration of the absurdity as well as arrogance of modern pretenders. "Wherefore of these men which have companied

"with us all the time. that the Lord Jesus went in and out "among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that "same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordain"ed to be a witness with us of his resurrection." But afterwards, when the apostle James, the brother of John, was put to death by Herod, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, we find no mention made of a successour. Nor did the subsequent admission of Paul and Barnabas to the apostleship form any exception from what has been advanced; for they came not as successours to any one, but were specially called by the Holy Spirit as apostles, particularly to the Gentiles; and in them also were found the qualifications requisite for the testimony which, as apostles, they were to give.

It is a similar subterfuge to recur to any of the other extraordinary ministers who were at that time in the church. It holds true of them all alike, that their office was temporary, and the charge they had was universal: it extended to the whole church. Of this kind evidently was the office of evangelist, a title which, like apostle, fell with those who first enjoyed it. Such was Philip, such was Timothy, and such certainly was also Titus. The last mentioned, I own is no where expressly called so. But from a proper attention to what we learn concerning him and Timothy, both in the Acts of the Apostles, and in Paul's epistles, we find their situations, services, and trusts, so perfectly to correspond, that we cannot hesitate a moment in affirming that their functions were the same, and that they both served as assistants to the apostle Paul. Such, also, probably, were Mark and Luke. I do not here allude to the right they acquired to this title from the gospels which they wrote, but as due to them from having assisted some of the apostles in that capacity. Luke was long the companion of Paul; Mark is said to have attended Peter. And if he was a different person from this evangelist (about which some have doubted) John, surnamed Mark, ought also to be included, who for some time attended the apostles Paul and Barnabas, and after their separation, Barnabas.

The work of an evangelist appears to have been to attend the apostles in their journeys for the promulgation of the gospel, to assist them in the office of preaching, especially in places which the gospel had not reached before. This conveys the true distinction between the Greek words κηρύσσειν and ευαγγελίζειν, from which last the name evangelist is taken. The former signifies to preach in general, or proclaim the reign of the Messiah; the latter, though frequently rendered in the same way, denotes, properly, to declare the good news, that is, the gospel, to those who had before known nothing of the matter.

The evangelists assisted also in settling the churches, always acting under the direction of the apostles, and bearing messages from them to those congregations which the apostles could not then personally visit, serving to supply their places in re forming abuses, and settling order. But the whole history ma nifestly proves, that their superintendency, in particular places, was not stationary, and for life, but occasional and ambula tory. The words of Paul to Titus clearly show thus much. "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldst set in "order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I appointed thee." This is not the language of one who had assigned him this as his fixed station, but of one who had intrusted him with the execution of a special purpose, which the apostle could not then execute himself; and which, when Titus had executed, the sole intention of his presence there was accomplished. But that they remained still in their extraordinary character of evangelists, and were still under the direction of those apostles whom they assisted in that capacity, appears also from this, that Paul enjoins Timothy to make dispatch, in regard to the matters he was charged with in Asia, that he might be with him in Rome before the winter. As to Titus, he orders him to meet him at Nicopolis, in Ma cedonia, where he intended to pass the winter; and afterwards, he writes to Timothy, (for the second epistle to Timothy was posterior to the epistle to Titus) that Titus was gone to Dalmatia.

As to the dates or postscripts subjoined to the epistles in the common bibles, it is universally agreed, among the learned, that they are of no authority. They are not found in some of our best and most ancient manuscripts: they are not the same in all copies, and some of them are evidently false. The time in which they have been annexed, is not thought to have been earlier than the fifth century. We know how far at that time a species of vanity carried people, to trace the line of their pas tors upwards, through a very dark period, to apostles and evangelists, supplying, by their guesses, the imperfections of tradition. Certain it is, that in the three first centuries, neither Timothy nor Titus is styled bishop by any writer. It also deserves to be remarked, that in the island of Crete, of which Titus is said, in the postscript of Paul's epistle to him, to have been ordained the first bishop, there were no fewer, according to the earliest accounts and catalogues extant, than eleven bishops. Hence it is that Titus has been called by some of the later fathers an archbishop; though few of the warmest friends of episcopacy pretend to give the archiepiscopal order so early a date. Yet it is not without some colour of reason

that they have named him so; since he was appointed to or dain elders in every city, and had therefore a superintendency for the time over the whole island. Whereas it is well known, that in the earliest times of episcopacy, every city wherein there was a church, that is, wherein there were christian converts enow, had its own bishop. Now if such was the case with Titus, he enjoyed an office there in which he had no succession; since in all the ancient history of the church, after the death of the extraordinary ministers, till the rise of the metropolitical jurisdiction, which was near two centuries afterwards, the bishop of a single congregation was the highest order known in the church. But our adversaries in this question do not reflect, that by making him a metropolitan, they deprive themselves of the only plausible account that has been given on their side, why he got no directions concerning the consecration of bishops, namely, that he himself was the bishop. For being in that island, by their hypothesis archbishop, he had several suffragans of the episcopal order, in whose ordination alone he was immediately concerned. The ordaining of presbyters and deacons was properly their work, and not his. Paul, on that supposition, omitted to give him instructions on the only point in which he had a concern. This holds still more evidently in regard to Timothy, whom the same persons have made primate, or rather patriarch, of the proconsular Asia, wherein there were many bishops. What excuse will their ingenuity invent for this repeated oversight of the apostle, in mentioning only two orders instead of three? Indeed, so little can the instructions, given by Paul to Timothy and Titus, be made to quadrate with any ordinary ministry that ever obtained in the church, that we are forced to conclude with the learned Dr. Whitby, (see his preface to the epistle to Titus) that theirs was extraordinary as well as temporary, and that they were not succeeded in it by any that came after them. But if we must have successours to those extraordinary missionaries, why do we not retain both their titles and their offices? And why have we not successours to them all? Why have we not still our apostles, and evangelists, and prophets, and governments, and tongues, and interpreters, and miracles, and discerners of spirits, as well as they? This would be no more than the native consequence of that principle, that we must have something corresponding and successive to offices which were then, by the wisdom of God, judged necessary for the subversion of idolatry, and the first publication of the faith.

It is of as little weight to urge, that committing the charge of ordaining presbyters and deacons to those extraordinary ministers, Timothy and Titus, was an evidence that there was.

no such power in the pressbyters or bishops, as they are also, called, who had been ordained in those places before. But how does it appear, that there had been any ordained in the churches to which their charge then extended? The congre gations, as was hinted already, for some time left under the tutelage of those extraordinary ministers, the prophets and wise men who happened to be among them. The first men-, tion that is made of the ordination, or settlement of elders in every city, is in the fourteenth chapter of the Acts, whereas many thousands had been converted to christianity in dif ferent places long before. And that some of the churches to which Paul's epistles were directed, had no fixed ministry, is evident from the tenour of the epistles themselves, particularly from those written to the Corinthians. Now the directions given to both Timothy and Titus clearly show, that they relate to the planting of churches, by supplying for the first time, with stated pastors, those converts who had, none before. This must have been done by the extraordinary ministers, if it was ever to be done at all. But when that was once effected, no other than ordinary means, to which the pastors to be ordained were equal, were requi site for the supply of occasional vacancies, and for preserving an order once established. Accordingly, the execution of the charge which Paul gave to Timothy, whereof the planting of churches, by supplying them with pastors, was a principal part, he denominates doing the work, not of a bishop, but of an evangelist, and fulfilling that ministry. Aaron, the first high priest under the former dispensation, and after him Eleazar his son, were solemnly consecrated by Moses, who was an extraordinary minister, inasmuch as he was the steward and sole superintendent over the house of God.

was this ever understood to imply, that no succeeding priest, and especially no succeeding high priest, could be legally consecrated by any who was inferiour in office to Moses? Had that been the case, the priesthood must have expired with that generation. Moses, in his exalted station, had no successor. And till the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, it might be justly said, "There arose not a prophet since in "Israel, like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face." It was necessary indeed that he should lay the foundation of the Israelitish church, but that he should raise the superstructure was not necessary. To effect this was left to meaner hands. And the priesthood, once established, was suffi cient of itself for filling up the voids that might be made by death, and other accidents. And it is reasonable to think, that the case, in this respect, would not be similar with the

L