not affect such powers, if they had not the clearest warrant of holy scripture to support them. Let us then proceed to investigate this subject.

Considerable stress is laid upon Matthew xxviii. 19, 20: "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing 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 always, even unto the end of the world.” Now, in the name of common sense, what does this text say about bishops, ordination, or the subjection of the Spirit to the will of man? The words contain a precept, to teach all nations, as well as a promise of the divine presence; and it is only in the discharge of the duty, that the privilege can be enjoyed.

Our Lord does not engage to be with them if they stay at home, and live in ease and luxury. Our bishops do not go and teach all nations; they do not even teach our own nation, but leave this work to others; they have therefore nothing to do with the promise.

There is a promise to the full as strong as this, made to every christian, in Hebrews xiii. 5: "He hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee." Does this gracious declaration authorise every pious man, or woman, to ordain ministers for the church, and inspire them with the Holy Ghost?

Another text is John xiv. 16, 17: "I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth." This promise is prefaced with a condition:

66

Keep my commandments, and I will pray," etc. Wicked priests have, therefore, no interest in this passage; it concerns those only who move in the path of obedience. But, further, it is not said that this heavenly Comforter is given by bishops, but by God. This promise is extended in the following verses to all christians generally: "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me, shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. If a man love

L

me, he will keep my words; and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." Private christians are as much interested in these promises as priests, and either both, or neither, of the parties are authorised by them, to impart the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Some have supposed that the promise of Christ, to be with the apostles "always, even to the end of the world," was not made to the men, who all died soon after, but to the apostolic office, which was to continue to the end of time. For the same reason the other promise (John xiv. 16, 17) must be interpreted in the same manner. Here is a difficulty, how an office can be a recipient of promises; and, particularly, how an office can be comforted! By parity of reason, the general promises of divine support and consolation are not made to christians, but to the profession of christianity; the profession is to be strengthened, and the profession is to be comforted! By uniting the divine presence to the office instead of the man, an objection to the validity of the ministrations of wicked priests is answered. Christ is in the office, and, therefore, the service is efficacious, though the devil be in the officer!* With equal propriety it may be affirmed,

* Some persons, not much read in church divinity, will suspect, if no authority be produced, that the author is speaking here withcut book. Bishop Beveridge, in his sermon on Matt. xxviii. 18, 19, applies the promise to the apostolic office; and, on that ground, apologises for the ministrations of wicked priests. But to give a modern instance: The Rev. Henry Phillpots, rector of Gateshead, vicar of Bishop-Middleham, and domestic chaplain to the bishop of Durham, in a sermon preached before the bishop of St. David's, at the consecration of a new church at Wall's-end, in the year 1809, avows these sentiments: "It was to the office apostolical, that this great promise was made. This then is the office, to which the promise of our Lord was made, that,' He would be with it always, even unto the end of the world;' with it, that is, not so as peculiarly to favour the persons of those that are invested with it, but so as to make the office itself effectual to the great purposes for which it was constituted. For them, [the ministers,] it is very possible, that they may be themselves cast-aways, and yet that they may be humble instruments in God's hand, to communicate the saving

that the profession of christianity, as being the subject of christian promises, will be saved, though the professors, as being destitute of personal virtue, will be damned!

No scripture is of private interpretation. Jehovah said to Moses, "My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest." (Exod. xxxiii. 14.) This promise was not limited to Moses, or to an order of prophets like unto himself; the whole of the Israelites enjoyed the divine presence, as well as their leader. The reason is, Moses was the representative of the Jewish church, and therefore the promises which belonged to the whole congregation were made to him. The same remark applies to the apostles. They were the representatives of the christian church, and therefore the promises of the presence of Christ, and the comforts of his Spirit, for ever, though made to the apostles, belong to all believers in all ages.

The strength of the cause rests upon John xx. 22: "He breathed on them, and said unto them, receive ye the holy Ghost." This could not be an ordination to the apostleship, for they had been in office upwards of three years. Our Lord did not give the Holy Ghost to the apostles by imposition of hands, but by breathing upon them; and he does not say a word about their being empowered to confer this heavenly gift upon others. This text, therefore, affords no

knowledge of his truth to thousands. It is not personal holiness, it is not even zeal for God's honour, and for the salvation of men, (how much soever it may be the bounden duty of ministers to pray and labour after those graces; and how tremendous soever may be the danger to ourselves, if we miss obtaining them.) yet it is not that holiness, nor that zeal, which, of themselves, can make any ministerial service of the slightest avail." If this be true, only put the devil into office, and he will make as good a parson as the very best of you! The inhabitants of Wall's-end would understand the reason of this apology; but strangers will think it ill-timed: Their reverences were met together to make the building holy, and the ground around it holy; at such a time the people might naturally expect to hear something about a holy priesthood! but with some churchmen, places must be sacred, and priests may be profane.

support to the practice of modern prelates, unless they take it for granted, that they are authorised to do everything which Jesus Christ did; and in that case, they have power to open the eyes of the blind, and to raise the dead.

Let us next inquire, whether the apostles ever pretended to impart the Holy Ghost to others. Two texts (Acts viii. 15-17; xix. 6) are usually referred to. In the first we find that Peter and John visited the converts at Samaria, and "prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Ghost. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." The circumstance of the apostles praying to God to give the divine Spirit, is positive evidence that he was not at their disposal. There would have been just as much propriety in supplicating the supreme Being to lay on hands, as to give the Holy Ghost, if they themselves were to do both. The other text is nothing to the purpose: "When Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them.” But it is not so much as hinted that Paul either gave or pretended to give this valuable gift. This was not

an ordination to the ministry, because it was not a select number, but the whole church, which received the imposition of hands, and the gift of the Spirit. In both these cases, the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit were communicated: "Simon saw that, through laying on of the apostle's hands, the Holy Ghost was given to the Samaritans, which he could not have done had the ordinary gifts only been imparted; and it is said of the Ephesians, that "they spake with tongues and prophesied." But these are gifts which our bishops do not possess, and, therefore, cannot transfer. There was no ordination to the ministry in either case, (and it is to none but ministers, that bishops pretend to give the Holy Ghost,) as these christians had only been recently baptized; and even churchmen quote these texts in support of confirmation.

Thus we have seen that there is neither precept nor example in the whole of the New Testament, to coun

tenance the practice of one christian minister pretending to give the Spirit of God to another. Does it follow from the nature of things, that the Holy Ghost, like worldly goods, may be transferred from one to another at pleasure? If so, a private christian may give the Holy Ghost just as well as a bishop. The apostle Peter informed the three thousand who were pricked to the heart on the day of Pentecost, that on their repenting and submitting to christian baptism, they should receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. He goes on to comment upon this promise thus: "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." (Acts ii. 38, 39.) When our Lord breathed on the apostles, and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost," he was silent concerning their successors; but the promise of the apostle to private christians, extends to their children, and runs on in a descending series to the latest period of the church. Private christians have, therefore, a better right to lay hands on their children, and say, "Receive ye the

Holy Ghost," than bishops have to act the same farce over priests. Had our Lord added, in his address to the apostles, "For the gift is to you, and your children, or immediate successors, and to all future generations of episcopally ordained ministers, even as many as the Lord our God shall call to the priesthood," we should be stunned to death with the clamour of priests, about the divine Spirit being subjected to their power. It would be deemed impious and blasphemous in a parent, who should affect to communicate the Holy Ghost through the laying on of his hands on the heads of his children; and it must be as bad, or worse, in a minister of religion, who ought to know better, to assume any such authority over the Holy One of Israel.

None but the heart-searching God can know who are proper to receive the Spirit for the work of the ministry. A bishop who has no means of ascertaining the motives which influence a candidate for holy