Koppe, Gill, Adam Clarke,** Scott, ‡† Beza,‡* and Camerarius, are all of this opinion.§§ Whitby, too, with all his prelatical prejudice and bias, is very strong. "Not," says he,* "that all who had been baptized might receive it; for it was never so in any church; no, not at Jerusalem; there being only some among them full of the Holy Ghost, (Acts 6. 3,) and therefore it seems reasonable to say, with Dr. Lightfoot, here, that they were such as the Holy Ghost had pointed out to be ordained ministers, or for the receiving of the prophetical gifts which enabled them (Xeɩtovpyew) to do sacred offices in the assemblies, where they were." And then he adds, after dwelling on this point, "As for the other opinion, that these hands were laid on to confirm them; if hands were not laid on all that there were baptized, this makes nothing for confirmation; if they were, then Simon Magus must be confirmed, and receive the Holy Ghost. And both these opinions seem dangerous on this account, that the Holy Ghost was never thus conferred but by the hands of an apostle; and consequently, if confirmation and ordination be laid on this foundation, they may be said to cease with the apostles."

Diodati, the "learned professor of Theology" with whom Milton held daily conference at Geneva, confirms the opinions expressed above. Henry takes the same view. Such also is the view taken by Clarius,*** Grotius,++* Benson,‡‡* Piscator,§§* Poole, *+ and Planck.*‡

There is nothing, therefore, in the case before us analagous to confirmation, but every thing contrary to it. The ministers, in this case, were extraordinary, and are not now represented by any officers in the church, in that apostolic and supernatual character in which they acted. The gifts imparted were also extraordinary, and are not now found in the church, whereas the object of confirmation, says Bishop Hobart, is to secure

† Novum Testament, vol. iii. p. 99.

$Exposition, vol. viii. p. 222, who is of opinion that these persons, with the miraculous gifts, were ordained to the ministry.

**Commentarius in loco. He is also of the opinion expressed by Dr. Gill. Commentary in loco.

*Novum Testamentum.

Cant., 1642, folio, p. 320, on v. 15. He also refers them to the miraculous gifts given as qualifications for presiding over the church.

§§Commentarius in Novum Fœdus, Cantabrigiæ, 1642, fol., p. 103, on Acts

8. 13.

*Commentary, on Acts 8. 15.

Annotations upon the Whole Bible, Lond., 1651, on Acts 8. 15, and Milton's Works, vol. i. p. 82.

Commentary upon Acts 8. 15.

***Critici Sacri. Amstel., tom. viii. p. 160.

++*Ib. p. 178.

*See History of the First Planting of Christianity, vol. .. c. i. sect. iii. p. 138, &c., and p. 66, &c.

$$*See in Poole's Synopsis, on Acts 8, 15.

*Annotations upon the Bible, Lond., 1685, tom. ii., on Acts 8, 15.

*See in Coleman's Primitive Church, p. 297.

"the ordinary grace of the Holy Spirit." And these gifts were imparted in answer to prayer, (see v. 15,) and conferred by the Holy Spirit, and not by any imposition of hands, which was merely an outward symbol of authority and power, which the apostles had special commandment to use. And since therefore the authority, the gifts, and the office have all ceased, there remains neither institution nor commandment to employ imposition of hands, in the order of confirmation.

We are willing to bring this matter to the test of a principle which is laid down by one of the greatest advocates for the divine right and fundamental character of confirmation. I mean Bishop Jeremy Taylor. Speaking of extreme unction he says, "When the miraculous healing ceased, then they were not Catholics, but heretics that did transfer it to the use of dying persons." Now by this rule let those be judged who still enforce the necessity of imposition of hands by pretended successors of the apostles,-who can neither show the calling, the qualifications and the gifts of an apostle, nor in any way impart the miraculous gifts which in their case accompanied the imposition of hands, and may we not say of them what their great defender has said in an exactly parallel case, that since the miraculous effects of apostolic imposition of hands have ceased, then "they are not Catholics, but heretics, who now transfer that empty sign to the use of young persons, and thus delude their minds by the belief that, with it, they have received divine and heavenly grace."

I would dismiss the consideration of these cases, then, by proposing the following dilemma: Either the Holy Ghost and all his gifts and graces are conferred by confirmation, or they are not. If they are, why is it that they are not now as visible and manifest as they were in apostolic days? Why do their recipients give no evidence of their possession, either in their speech, their powers, or even in their lives? Why is it that, even, according to Dr. Pusey, the instances of those who have been faithful to this grace are "EXCEEDINGLY rare.' So that "there is A FEARFUL AND ALL BUT UNIVERSAL DEFECTION AMONG THEM"? And why is it that while the inhabitants of Roman Catholic countries have universally received both the grace of baptism and the grace of confirmation, they are nevertheless distinguished above all others for their gracelessness, and for their abuse of divine grace to licentiousness, profanity, Sabbath-breaking, fornication, adultery, and open infidelity,§ so +See Willett's Synopsis, p. 812, 813. Such also was the opinion of the Master of the Sentences, as quoted by him at p. 817.

See his Present Crisis, p. 14.

§The testimony of Palmer, author of the Treatise on the Church, will be regarded as about as impartial as could well be given. See vol. i. pp. 344-349. 289, 300. See also Blanco White's evidence against Catholicism, who was himself a Spanish priest.

that whether you travel in Ireland or in Switzerland, you can trace the limits of Romanism and Protestantism by the presence or the absence of morality, industry, intelligence, and piety?

On the other hand, if, as is thus manifest, confirmation does not confer the Holy Ghost or his gifts and graces, why then, in the name of common honesty, does any church now attempt to go through a ceremony for which there is no countenance or support in the word of God; no command; no sign; no promise; and no precedent capable of imitation? Why, like Simon Magus, make gain for the prelatic grace and dignity and asserted supremacy of a priesthood, by enforcing the belief in gifts and graces which can never be SEEN, FELT, or PROVED? And how can a ceremony which thus deludes multitudes with the hope of salvation and security-when God and their own consciences tell them that for them there is no peace, and that they are yet in their sins-be freed from the serious charge of open impiety and guilt?

SECTION V.

Acts 14. 22, examined.

Another passage which is supposed to teach the apostolic appointment of the rite of confirmation is Acts 14. 22, where it is said that Paul and Barnabus went "to Lystra, and to Iconium, and to Antioch, confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith." So also in Acts 15. 41, they are reported as "confirming the churches." And so also Judas and Silas, "being prophets themselves," "exhorted the brethren with many words and confirmed them." Acts 15.

Here indeed we find the word "confirmed," and this with many is proof positive of the thing, since they are led not by the sense but by the sound. So we have seen it is with the word bishop, which is to many an ample demonstration of the scriptural institution of the prelatical order of bishops; whereas it really means throughout the New Testament the order of presbyters or pastors. Now it is to be remembered that the reference of the word "confirm" to the ecclesiastical rite is of modern origin, and very remote from the true and proper meaning of the term, which signifies "to put past doubt by new evidence, and thus to establish;" and hence the application of the word to the ecclesiastical rite is given by Dr. Johnson as the eighth and last signification of the word.

The Greek word used in these passages is analogous to confirmation, in its original meaning, signifying "to place firmly upon a foundation," and thus to establish or build up. Hence Tyndale, in 1534, renders the word by the term "strengthen,"

which rendering is followed by Archbishop Cranmer in "the great Bible," published by authority in A. D. 1539.* The restoration, therefore, of the word "confirm" by the translators of the authorized version, A. D. 1611, must be regarded-like the use of the word "easter" for passover, "elder" for presbyter, "overseers" for the term bishops, where the connexion would prove that this office and its duties belong to presbyters, as intended by these men, who were all prelatists, and who were required to retain "old ecclesiastical words," and in any case they thought doubtful "to keep that signification most commonly retained by the most eminent fathers," as much as possible to favor prelacy and put down Presbyterianism. For not only were all the translators chosen from the prelacy, although the petition for the new version came from the Presbyterians, and was at first opposed by Archbishop Bancroft; but their version was subsequently "reviewed by the bishops," including Bancroft, who introduced several alterations, and by Bilson, who had written a work against the Presbyterians; and last of all, was submitted to the privy council and to King James, who had abjured his own repeated oath in favor of Presbytery, and had now of course become its most deadly enemy. Indeed in the preface to the reader, the Translators

*See in the English Hexapla on the passages.

†See Acts 20. 28, see v. 17. So in 1 Peter, v. 2, "the bishopric," or "the office of a bishop," is rendered "oversight," because v. 1 shows that it belonged to "presbyters," who are therefore called "elders," more effectually to blind the reader.

See Jameson's History of the Culdees, p. 330. Johnson's Hist. of English Translations of Bible in Watson's Tracts, and Hist. Acct. prefixed to the English Hexapla, London, 1841; pp. 149, 151-159. See also any history of the times. As to King James's perjury take the following proof. In 1590, (McCrie's Life of Melville, vol. i. p. 385, 386,) at a meeting of the General Assembly, "He praised God that he was born in such a time, as in the time of the light of the gospel, and in such a place, as to be king in such a kirk, the purest kirk in the world." "The kirk of Geneva (continued his Majesty) keepeth Pasch and Yule. What have they for them? They have no institution. As for our own neighbor kirk in England, their service is AN EVIL-SAID MASS in English; they want nothing of the mass but the liftings. I charge you, my good people, ministers, doctors, elders, nobles, gentlemen, and barons, to stand to your purity; and I, forsooth, so long as I brook my life and crown, shall maintain the same against all deadly." (Cald. iv. 198, 204.)

When Bancroft represented that James had dissembled in giving his testimony, the learned king "took an opportunity (Life of Melville, i. 392) of contradicting the insinuation of Bancroft, that he dissembled in the concessions which he had lately made in favor of presbytery.'

In 1598, in an apologetical preface to his Doron, James, in speaking of the ministers of Scotland, says (Life of Melville, vol. ii. p. 163, 164), "There is presently a sufficient number of good men of them in this kingdom; and yet are they ALL known to be against the form of the English Church?" And again, speaking of the charge of Puritanism, he ays: "I protest upon mine honour that I mean it not generally of all preachers, or others, that like better of the single form of policy in our church, than of the many ceremonies of the Church of England, that are persuaded that their bishops smell of a papal supremacy, that the surplice, cornered cap, and such like, ar the outward badges of popish errors. No, I am so far from being contentious in these things (which for my own part I ever esteemed

candidly avow that they sought to steer a course between popery and puritanism.

We are not, therefore, to be carried away by the mere wind of empty sound, from the plain and palpable meaning of these passages, which manifestly refer to that inward and spiritual comfort and edification which were imparted by the miraculous gifts to these infant and persecuted churches. Who ever heard of prelatical confirmation without imposition of hands? and who, by any effort of ingenuity, can find any allusion to imposition of hands here? Or can any other than a prelate confirm? and yet we here find Judas and Silas, two simple presbyters, confirming the brethren.§ On the whole, then, we must conclude, with Archbishop Whately,** that while it is true that "some who would be ashamed to employ such an argument for confirmation themselves, might yet be tempted to leave it uncontradicted, from a doubt of being able to substitute a sound one, which should be, to that individual, equally satisfactory.'

This he justly enumerates among the pious frauds by which even Protestant jesuitism and sectarian zeal will advance a weak and defenceless cause. For, he adds, "Let us imagine a case of some one desirous to receive, and induce others to receive, the rite of confirmation, from supposing it alluded to and enjoined, in the passage of Scripture which describes an apostle as going through a certain region "confirming the churches;" should we venture to attempt removing his conviction from this false basis, and replacing it on a sound one?" "Our separation, therefore," he further adds, "from the Church of Rome does not place us (nor can we ever be placed in this life) in a situation which exempts us from all danger of falling into corruptions-among the rest, the justification of pious frauds-substantially similar to those with which that church indifferent), as I do equally love and honour the learned and grave men of either of these opinions. It can no ways become me to pronounce so lightly a sentence in so old a controversy.'

In the same year, 1598, at the Assembly, James solemnly and repeatedly (Life of Melville, vol. ii. 132,) protested (with what truth it is now unnecessary to say,) that he had no intention to introduce either popish or Anglican bishops, but that his sole object was that some of the best and wisest of the ministry, chosen by the General Assembly, should have a place in the privy council and parliament, to sit in judgment on their own affairs, and not to stand, as they had too long stood, at the door, like poor suppliants, disregarded and despised." Such were the avowed declarations of James; and yet, as if to demonstrate the truth of Scripture, when it shows the folly of putting confidence in princes, and when it declares that "men of high degree are a lie," he was at this time privately circulating in his Doron the most opposite sentiments (Melville, p. 162), and was willing afterwards to proclaim to the world his own base perjury and shameless deceit (see his Premonition to the Apol. for the Death of Allegiance, ibid. p. 164). In Bancroft, however, he found a fitting counsellor.

§Ananias, who was but a disciple, laid hands also on Paul, Acts, 9. 11. Lord Barrington's Wks. vol. i. p. 127.

**Origin of Romish Errors, p. 161, ch. iii., Eng. ed.