The whole is merely a matter of human arrangement. However, Bishop Taylor dashes off the affirmation, that "bishops were ALWAYS, and the ONLY ministers of confirmation." It is humiliating to find this splendid writer frequently so reckless in assertion, and so careless of proof. Bishop Heber candidly acknowledges, in his admirable Life of Taylor, that "he was any thing rather than a critical inquirer into facts (however strange) of history or of philosophy. If such alleged facts suited his purpose, he received them without examination, and retailed them without scruple." Vol. ii, p. 179, 12mo. Now, to overturn for ever, and from the foundation, his rash affirmation, and all similar affirmations, we have only to bring before the reader the indisputable fact, that in the Greek church it never was confined to the bishops, but always was, and is to the present day, administered by presbyters and bishops promiscuously. There is no satisfactory proof, indeed, that it existed at all in the early ages of the church, after the apostles' time, in the sense and manner in which it is now used in the Church of England. As the concluding part of baptism; and as a way of confirming the baptism of heretics, it somewhat early came into the church, as may be seen in Cyprian, epist. 72 and 76, ed. Pamel.; in Suicer's Thesaurus, vol. ii, col. 1534, &c., ed. 1682; and Calderwood's Altare Damascenum, p. 257, &c., ed. 1708. "The invention," says Bishop Burnet, art. 25, "that was afterward found out, by which the bishop was held to be the only minister of confirmation, even though presbyters were suffered to confirm, was a piece of superstition without any colour from Scripture.-In the Latin church, Jerome tells us, that in his time bishops only confirmed; though he makes the reason of this to be rather for doing to them honour, than from any necessity of law. It is said by Hilary, that in Egypt the presbyters did confirm in the bishop's absence: so that custom grew to be the universal practice of the Greek church." The learned Mr. Smith, in his work on the "Present State of the Greek Church," tells us, that "the administration of confirmation is conceded to bishops and presbyters promiscuously" in the present Greek church: p. 112, ed. sec., 1678. The Church of Rome, as an ordinary rule, confines it to bishops, but has always granted that presbyters, by the permission of the church, were capable of administering confirmation; and presbyters have actually and frequently administered it in that church. So much for the truth of Bishop Taylor's rash and reckless affirmation, that "bishops were always, and the only ministers of confirmation." There is no divine authority for the thing: the present mode of administering it is full of presumption and danger. In a reformed state of the matter, presbyters might, by the will of the church, be equally as efficient administrators of it as bishops. To claim it as a divine prerogative of bishops, is like all the other assumptions of this scheme— an utterly baseless assumption. Here, then, is abundant proof of the shallowness of the pretence of some who seem to boast as though almost all the authority of the Christian church was on the side of their high Church claims for episcopal succession. The truth is, we see, that NO CHRISTIAN CHURCH EVER MAINTAINED IT; MANY have expressly NEGATIVED these claims; NONE ever AFFIRMED them. The maintaining of the true Scriptural liberty of every section of the Christian church is a matter of great importance to Christianity itself, and to the peace of the Christian world at large. While no Scriptural principles are violated, and while the morals of the church are not corrupted, each church has the sacred right of adopting what form of government it deems the best. No section of the Christian church has any authority, beyond these principles, to bind the practices of another church. Every attempt to do this is essentially Popery; it is antichrist, setting up his throne in the church above the throne of God himself. Episcopacy, if administered with humility, and in a pacific spirit, may, on these principles of Christian truth, be adopted and justified; but, if its advocates become proud and insolent to those churches who adopt it not; if they insult the ministers, and endeavour to disturb the minds of the private members of those churches by unscriptural declamation and denunciation against the validity of their ordinances; if they proudly arrogate to themselves the sole right to administer the ordinances of the gospel in such a case, they commence a spiritual usurpa* See the Canon Law, distinction 95, and Lancelot's Notes on the same. : tion and tyranny in the church of God. To overturn such a system is to defend the gospel; and its overthrow will promote the peace of the whole Christian world. SECTION IX. TO BE THE GREATEST DIVINES OF ALL AGES SHOWN Of course this point has been anticipated in the preceding sections; for while it has been shown that no church ever affirmed this order of bishops by divine right, but that all churches have substantially negatived it, the doctrine of these churches proves the opinion of the greatest divines of all ages to have been against the tenet of bishops being by divine right an order distinct from, and superior to, presbyters; having government over ministers as well as over people; and the sole power and authority of ordaining other ministers in the church of God. But besides their testimony in the voice of their different churches, many of them have spoken so expressly upon the subject, that it may be worth while to hear them deliver their own decisions. First, THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS.-We have treated this subject in a former section. We shall give the learned Stillingfleet's opinion in connection with this point. "I believe," says he, " upon the strictest inquiry, Medina's judgment will prove true, that Hieron, Austin, Ambrose, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, were all of Aerius's judgment, as to the identity of both name and order of bishops and presbyters, in the primitive church; but here lay the difference, Aerius from thence proceeded to separation from the bishops and their churches, because they were bishops."* WICKLIFFE:-"I boldly assert one thing, viz., that in the primitive church, or in the time of Paul, two orders of the clergy were sufficient, that is, a priest and a deacon. *Irenicum, p. 276, sec. ed., 1662. In like manner I affirm, that in the time of Paul, the presbyter and bishop were names of the same office. This appears from the third chapter of the First Epistle to Timothy, and in the first chapter of the Epistle to Titus. And the same is testified by that profound theologian, Jerome."* ERASMUS :—“ Anciently none were called priests but bishops and presbyters, who were the SAME, but afterward presbyters were distinguished from the priest ;"† that is, from the bishop. CRANMER :"The bishops and priests [presbyters] were at one time, and were no two things, but BOTH ONE in the beginning of Christ's religion.”‡ DR. WHITAKER, one of the greatest Protestant champions in the days of Queen Elizabeth and James I.:-" Formerly there was no difference between a presbyter and a bishop. For the placing of bishops over presbyters WAS A HUMAN ARRANGEMENT-ordo humanus fuit-devised to take away schisms, as history testifies."§ CALVIN:-"The reason why I have used the terms bishops and presbyters, and pastors and ministers, promiscuously, is, because the Scriptures do the same; for they give the title of bishops to all persons whatsoever who were ministers of the gospel."||| As BEZA:"The authority of all pastors is equal among themselves; also their office is one and the same." mighty efforts are often made to bring in the authority of Beza for these claims, we will add another passage or two from this great reformer. In his work on the Church, De Ecclesia, above quoted, he begins the thirty-second section thus:- -"At length we come to the third species of ecclesiastical offices, viz., that which pertains to spiritual jurisdiction. Now this jurisdiction was committed to presbyters PROPERLY SO CALLED; whose name implies as much as though you should call them senators or elders. The apostle, in 1 Cor. xii, 28, calls them governors or rulers. And Christ designates the college of presbyters, * Vaughan's Life of Wickliffe, vol. ii, p. 275, sec. ed. Lond., 1821. + Scholia in Epist. Hieron. ad Nepot., folio 6, vol. i, ed. 1516. Burnet's History of the Reformation. Whitakeri Opp., pp. 509, 510, fol. Genev., 1610. Il Instit., lib. 4, c. 8, sec. 8. T De Eccles., sec. 29. the church, because in them resided the SUPREME POWER in the government of the church." Here "presbyters, properly so called, have committed to them the spiritual jurisdiction of the church, and SUPREME power." How strange! to pretend that such a writer is an advocate for the supreme power of bishops by divine right. Beza, speaking of the angel of the church, mentioned Rev. ii, 1, calls him the president, "who," he says, "ought in the first place to be admonished about these matters, and then by him his other colleagues, and so the whole church. But from this to try to prove the establishment of that order of episcopacy which was afterward introduced into the church of God by human arrangements, is what neither can nor ought to be done it will not even follow from this place that the office of president should necessarily be perpetual; even as it is now at length clear by that tyrannical oligarchy" (that is, the bishops) "whose head or apex is antichrist, and who arose from this scheme with the most pernicious effect upon the whole church, and upon the world." : MELANCTHON :-" They who taught in the church, and baptized, and administered the Lord's supper, were called bishops or presbyters; and those were called deacons who distributed alms in the church. But these offices were not so separated as to make it sinful for a deacon to teach, or to baptize, or to administer the eucharist. Indeed all these things are lawful to all Christians; for the keys are given to all. Matt. xviii." 99* M. FLACIUS ILLYRICUS.-Treating of the time of the apostles, he says, "A presbyter was then the same as a bishop." Speaking of the primitive church, he says, "The bishop was the first presbyter among the presbyters of each church, and this was done for the sake of order." And, after quoting Jerome's statement, that, in the apostles' time, bishops and presbyters were not distinguished one from the other, but that this distinction, of one to preside over the rest, was made afterward, as a remedy against schism, Flacius himself remarks, "Hence it is evident that, about this time, in the end of the first or the beginning of the second century, this alteration took place, so * Loc. Com., 12mo. Basil, 1521. |