names and titles of office shews want of candor, and displays more of the art of the disputant, than of the ingenuity of the fair inquirer. Names are not worth contesting; the powers implied by those names are the proper object of our attention and, that the same names of office, in different ages, or used under different circumstances, may imply different powers, will not, I presume, be disputed. The word imperator, emperor, had a very different meaning at Rome while their government was republican, from what it had after the government became an absolute monarchy: In the first case, it was only a title of honour given by the army to their general, on account of some signal advantage gained over the enemy; in the latter, it denoted as absolute a monarch, as the world ever saw. Under the Roman republic, too, the word consul was the style of the first officer of the state; what it means now needs no explanation. St. Peter calls himself an elder; so doth St. John.* Were they, therefore, on a level with the elders of Ephesus? Christ also is called the bishop of our souls † I mention these instances to shew that the same name of office implies different powers, according as it is applied. We ought, therefore, and the fair inquirer will, attend to the meaning of words, and not be led away merely by the sound.

Where certainty cannot be had, a prudent man will follow the highest probability. And, I hope, I may mention what I take to be so in this case, without offence to any one. I suppose, that while the original apostles lived, and for some time after their death, they who were advanced to the apostolical office were called apostles. By this style, Epaphroditus is mentioned by St. Paul, in his epistle to the Philippians. For though our translators have used the word messenger in our bible, the Greek word is apostle. And in his epistle to the Romans,§ Andronicus and Junias have the same appellation. In the second epistle to the Corinthians, there is this passage: 'Our brethren, the messengers of the churches, the glory

* 1 Peter v. 1, 2 John i. and 3 John i. † 1 Peter ii. 25. $ Chap. xvi. 7. Called Junia in our bible.

+ Ch. ii. 25.

of Christ.' In the Greek, it is the apostles of the churches. But when the original apostles were dead, their successors gradually appropriated that name to them, by way of eminence; and contented themselves with the name of bishops, that is, overseers; which had before denoted the same order with presbyters. For, that there were three orders of clergy at Ephesus, cannot be denied: Timothy, their apostle; the bishops, presbyters, or elders; and the deacons. Nor can any reason be given, why we should suppose this church to have been constituted on a different plan from others.

It is true, that in most of St. Paul's epistles, the apostles of the churches to whom he writes are not mentioned; and probably, at the time of writing those epistles, there were none appointed. For, it is reasonable to suppose, that the original apostles kept the superintendency of the churches which they planted in their own hands, till the decline of life, or distance of place, rendered them unable to continue it; or, till the churches had come to such maturity and stability in the faith, that they might safely be trusted to a successor, though he had not those eminent gifts and qualifications which the first apostles possessed. But, in several of his epistles, there is express mention of the superior minister of the church, then called the apostle of that church, and now distinguished by the style of bishop, in whose hands the powers of ordination and government were lodged. Of Timothy at Ephe. sus, and Titus in Crete, there can be no doubt. Epaphroditus is mentioned as the apostle of the Philippians, I have already observed; and there is a ready and plain reason why that epistle was written to the church of Philippi, and not to him their apostle; namely, that he was with St. Paul, at Rome, at the time of writing it, and was the bearer of it to the church over which he presided. This is evident from the afore cited verse of this epistle, which runs thus: Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother and companion in labour, and fellow-soldier, but your apostle; or, as. we should now express it, your bishop. That he was

That

the bearer of the epistle, I have no other proof to give than the note at the end of it; which, though it be not canonical scripture, will, I trust, have its due weight: It was written to the Philippians from Rome, by Epaphroditus.'

From comparing dates, it will appear that it was written by St. Paul while he was a prisoner at Rome. He ar rived in Rome, in the year of our Lord sixty-three. We know he continued a prisoner two years; and this epistle was written in sixty-four.t Probably Epaphroditus went to visit him, on this occasion; to comfort him in his confinement; and to relieve his necessity. For St. Paul speaks of him as one who hadministered to his wants.'

Should I say that Archippus is mentioned in the epistle to the Colossians, as the governor or superior minister of the church of Laodicea, I do not apprehend that the assertion would be thought extravagant. I will bring the circumstances together, and submit them to the candor of the reader. Towards the close of the epistle, St. Paul gives this direction: Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house. And when this epistle is read amongst you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea. And say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.'s Why such an admonition should be sent to Archippus more than to the other ministers, unless the supreme government was in his hands, a more satisfactory reason may possibly be given by others, than at present occurs to me. It could not be that St. Paul had greater apprehensions for him, than for the other ministers; for, in another epistle, he mentions him with great respect; if not as his beloved, at least as his fellow-soldier.||

The remarks which I shall make, will be only three ; and they shall be short.

* Acts xxviii. 30. * Philtp. ii. 25.

† According to the chronology of our bible.
Philemon ver. 2.

$ Coloss. iv. 15, 16, 17.

1. That from the conduct of the apostles, and particu larly of St. Paul, whose conduct is the most minutely related, it is impossible they should have supposed, that their commission was a temporary one; and to expire with their lives. For, in fact, they did appoint persons to succeed them, in the superintendency and government of the churches which they planted. As Christ sent them, as his Father had sent him; so they sent others, as Christ had sent them. And consequently, this mode of perpetual succession of ministers in the church, with the apostolical powers of ordination and government, is, by the authority of the holy apostles, settled according to the will of Christ, the all-glorious head of the church : and, in this succession, the promise of Christ to his apostles, Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world,' has hitherto been literally fulfilled; and, we trust in his Almighty power and goodness, will continue to be so, till the consummation of all things.

2. That since Timothy at Ephesus, and Titus in Crete, had under them a number of elders, presbyters, or bishops, it is evident that Timothy and Titus were not parochial bishops; unless by parish, we understand what is now meant by diocese. Nor could they, who were under them, be parochial bishops; because, being under others, they were only subordinate ministers, and therefore without the powers of ordination and government, which must of necessity go together: consequently, the modern-invented scheme of parochial bishops is unsupported and

idle.

3. That since the holy apostles did, in obedience to Christ, and under the direction of the Holy Ghost, transmit to others the powers they received from him, constituting bishops, presbyters and deacons, as three orders of ministers in his church; it is the duty of all christians to submit to that government which they, the apostles, have instituted; and not to run after the new-fangled scheme of parochial episcopacy, of which the bible knows nothing; and of which the christian church knew nothing, till a little more than two centuries ago.

44

DISCOURSE III.

OF BAPTISM.

MATT. xxviii. 19, 20.

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.

BEFORE I enter on the consideration of this text, I have to observe, that the marginal translation in our bible is more agreeable to the Greek testament: Go ye therefore and make disciples, or christians of all nations:' the Greek word signifying not only to teach, but also admit as a scholar; and it is different from the word rendered teaching, in the middle of the text, which properly signifies, to teach, or instruct.

He

The same commission is, in different words, recorded by St. Mark. And, as the two passages throw mutual light on each other, I will here recite it: Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. that believeth and is baptised, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned'-left in that state of condemnation, to which all men are by nature subject. The meaning of the text may therefore be thus expressed : In virtue of that supremacy of power which the Father