this was at length wrested from the hands of those to whom Christ had intrusted it. But it was long till this was effected. Even after the priesthood had usurped much, even after they had succeeded in wresting many things from the hands of lawful authority, and in inspiring the people, high and low, with a superstitious veneration for themselves, even long after this, election by the members of the church was retained. Hear a few sentences.

"Clemens Romanus is the best interpreter of the apostle's sentiments, and the earliest witness that can be obtained on this subject. This writer informs us that the apostles appointed and ordained the first ministers (versteher) of the church, and then gave direction how, when they should die, other chosen and approved men, didoμμiva avogss, should succeed to their ministry. Wherefore we cannot think those may justly be thrown out of their ministry who were either appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, συνευδοκησάσης τῆς ἐκκλησίας πάσης. Those persons who received, in this manner, the concurring suffrages of the church, were to be men of tried characters, and of good report with all, μagrugnμívous Ti πολλοῖς χρόνοις ὑπὸ πάντων. This concurrence of the whole church, based upon their previous acquaintance with the candidates, evinces clearly the co-operation of the church in the appointment of its ministers; and that this intervention of the church was not merely a power of negativing an appointment made by some other authority.

"The fullest evidence that bishops and presbyters were chosen by the people is also derived from Cyprian. It was, according to his authority, a rule of divine appointment that a minister should be chosen in the presence of the people, and should be publicly acknowledged and approved as worthy of the office-plebe præsente sub omnium oculis deligatur, et dignus atque idoneus publico judicio ac testimonio comprobetur. He further says, that the act of ordination should in no instance be solemnized without the knowledge and assistance of the people, so that the crimes of the bad may be detected and the merits of the good made known. In this manner the ordination becomes regular and valid, justa et legitima. Such, he observes, was the example of the apostles, not only in the appointment of bishops and ministers, but also of deacons. And all this was done to prevent the intrusion of unworthy men into the sacred office. He further says of Cornelius, that he was made bishop agreeably to the will of God and of Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, and the suffrage of the people then present.

"With reference to this influence in appointing them, the bishops elect were wont to style their constituents, the people, fathers. 'Ye,' (says St Ambrose,) 'ye are my fathers, who chose me to be bishop: ye, I say, are both my children and fathers; children individually, fathers collectively; which intimates that he owed his appointment to the choice of the people. And this is still farther confirmed by the testimony even of profane writers. Alexander Severus, who reigned from A.D. 222 to 235, whenever he was about to appoint any governors of provinces or receivers of the public revenue, first publicly proposed their names, desiring the people to make evidence against them if any one could prove them guilty of any crime; but assuring them that if they accused them falsely it should be at the peril of their lives; for he said it was unreasonable that when the Christians and Jews did this in propounding those whom they ordained their priests and ministers, the same should not be done in the appointment of governors of provinces, in whose hands the lives and fortunes of men were entrusted.'

"It may perhaps be said that all this is only proof of a negative or testimonial choice on the part of the people, and that this propounding of the can

didates presupposes a previous appointment, of which the people were only invited to express their approbation. It is true, indeed, that the clergy or the presbytery, or the bishop, or presbyter, on resigning his office, took the lead in these elections by proposing or nominating the candidate; but then followed the vote of the people, which was not a mere testimonial suffrage, but really a decisive and elective vote.

"Besides, there are not wanting instances when the people made choice of some one as bishop or presbyter, without any preliminary nomination or propounding of the candidate. Ambrose was thus appointed bishop of Milan by joint acclamation of all. Martin of Tours was appointed by the people against his own will, and that of the bishops. And the same is true of Eustathius at Antioch, Chrysostom at Constantinople, Eradius at Hippo, and Meletius at Antioch, &c.

"The evidence indeed is full, that the people co-operated in the election of presbyters, and numerous instances of such co-operation occur in ecclesiastical history." Pp. 62, 63.

Take another paragraph regarding infant baptism, which may assist some of our readers in the Baptist controversy. Not a few German scholars have set their whole learning to work, in order to discover some probabilities that infant baptism was not practised from the beginning. The utmost, however, they have reached is not proven.' They have not, with all their learning and ingenuity, been able to prove that it was not practised. In opposition to their statements take the following summary of authorities from our author:

"We will begin with Augustine, born A.D. 354, at which time the general prevalence of infant baptism is conceded by all. Passages without number might be cited from this Father to show that the observance of this ordinance was an established usage of the church. The rite itself he declares to be an apostolical tradition, and by no means to be lightly esteemed. The custom of our mother-church, in baptising little children, is by no means to be disregarded, nor accounted as in any measure superfluous. Neither, indeed, is it to be regarded as any other than an apostolical tradition.' This he also declares to be the practice of the whole church, not instituted by councils, but always observed, quod universa tenet ecclesia nec conciliis institutum, sed semper

retentum.'

Omitting other authorities, we go back into the third century. In the time of Cyprian there arose in Africa a question, whether a child might be baptised before the eighth day, or not. Fidus, a country bishop, referred the inquiry to a council of sixty-six bishops, convened under Cyprian, A.D. 253, for their opinion. To this inquiry they reply at length, delivering it as their unanimous opinion that baptism may, with propriety, be administered at any time previous to the eighth day. No question was raised on the point whether children ought to be baptised at all or not. In this they were unanimously agreed. This passage is quoted by Rheinwald, to show that the church in Africa, in the third century, maintained the absolute necessity of infant baptism.

"The authority of Origen brings us still nearer to the age of the apostles. This eminent Father was born in Egypt, of Christian parents, A.D. 185, and was himself baptised at an early age, if not in childhood or in infancy, as many suppose. He resided in Alexandria, in Cappadocia, and in Palestine. He travelled in Italy, Greece, and Arabia, and must have been in correspondence with the churches in every country. He is equally distinguished for his great learning, his piety, and his love of truth. He is therefore an unexceptionable

and competent witness in this matter. What is his testimony? It is, that little children are baptised agreeably to the usage of the church; that the church received it as a tradition from the apostles that baptism should be administered to children.' Origen lived within a century of the apostolic age, and, according to Eusebius, (lib. xvi. c. 19,) received this tradition from his own pious ancestry, who, of the second or third generation from him, must have been contemporary with the apostles themselves. This explicit testimony of Origen, in connection with that of Augustine, of the universal practice of the church, is, in the opinion of the Pædobaptists, strong evidence that infant baptism is an ordinance established by the authority of the apostles.

"We come next to Tertullian. He objects strongly to the hasty administration of baptism to children, and inveighs against the superstition of the age in this respect in such a manner as to show, beyond dispute, the prevalence of the custom in his days. According to the condition, disposition, and age of each, the delay of baptism is peculiarly advantageous, especially in the case of little children." Pp. 117, 118.

Then, with regard to the Popish and Anglican rite of confirmation, we have a chapter of a single page, in which is condensedall that is known concerning the history of this unscriptural ceremony. It would seem that not only is this rite altogether unscriptural, but that even in the early ages of the church it was unknown. It is only by catching at a few stray expressions of the Fathers, and mystifying some plain statements of scripture, that any proof at all in favour of this can be adduced. It has no foundation in the Word of God, it rests solely on man's authority, its origin was superstition, and its only defence is tradition, and even that not the earliest nor purest. In its present form, as separated from baptism, it seems not to have been known in the early centuries at all. When practised then, it was in connection with baptism, and immediately succeeding it, not, as now, separated by an interval of years.

"The permanent separation of the rites of confirmation from those of baptism cannot probably be assigned to an earlier date than the thirteenth century." "No authentic reference to confirmation is recorded in the earliest ecclesiastical writers." P. 130.

In reading the chapter on the Lord's supper, one is struck with the wide departure of the church from the simplicity of its first institution. Even in the early ages this commenced, till, as corruption went on, the true nature of the ordinance was altogether lost, a mere pageant or mummery of superstition succeeded, and at last the mass, with all its fooleries and blasphemies, supplanted altogether the Supper of the Lord, as the altars of Baal were substituted for that of the God of Israel. Into this, however, we do not enter. One thing, however, is remarkable, that in proportion as superstition advanced, in that same degree was the frequency of its administration lessened. At first it was very frequently dispensed, every Lord's day,-as part of the regular worship, but, in order to make it less familiar, and thereby clothe it with a

superstitious majesty and mystery, it was administered only at long intervals, and then with all manner of pomp and show. The infrequency of its celebration was part of Satan's craft, by which antichrist was established. No wonder then that our Reformers wished to restore it to something of its primitive frequency, as well as its primitive simplicity. Hear our author.

"In the primitive church it was an universal custom to administer this ordinance on Thursday in Easter week, that being the day of its original institution. In commemoration of this, some contended that the ordinance ought to be restricted to an annual celebration on this day; but the prevailing sentiment of the church was in favour of frequent communion, as a means of quickening them in the Christian life; and in conformity with what they believed to be the injunction of St Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 26.

"Whatever theories may exist respecting the original institution of the Christian sabbath, it is an established historical truth that it was observed very early in the second century; and that the sacrament was usually celebrated on that day. This was doubtless the status dies, the fixed, appointed day of Pliny. It is distinctly mentioned in the epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, p. 57. The genuineness of the passage has indeed been called in question, and the controversy is still unsettled. The observance of the day may be clearly shown from Tertullian. Justin Martyr says, 'We all meet together on Sunday; and the reason assigned is, that this is the first day of the week, when in the beginning light was created, and when also our Lord Jesus Christ arose from the dead. It was called also dies panis-the day of bread, with evident allusion to the celebration of the sacrament on that day. The weekly celebration of the sacrament was strongly recommended at the Reformation, but no positive enactment was made to that effect.

"But we must not suppose that the celebration of this ordinance in the ancient church was restricted to any particular or appointed season. On the contrary, it was observed to a considerable extent daily in the primitive church, and probably by the apostles themselves, Acts ii. 42, 46. Irenæus says, 'It is the will of the Lord that we should make our offering at his altar frequently, and without intermission sic et ideo nos quoque offerre Dominus vult munus ad altare frequenter sine intermissione.' Express testimonies to this effect, of a date somewhat later, are cited in the index." P. 136.

On another point, connected with these sacramental antiquities, we add the following extract. It is upon the vessels or utensils used in the dispensation of the supper, and though, perhaps, there is more of what is curious than what is directly profitable in it, still it is not without interest :

"Our Lord, at the institution of the sacrament, without doubt used the cup which was in common use among the Jews on festive occasions-simple and plain, like the rude vessels of those days. A large silver goblet was in use at Jerusalem in the seventh century, which was said to be the identical cup that our Lord used on that occasion. At a period still later, the inhabitants of Valencia, in Spain, also claimed, with equal probability, to be in possession of the identical cup which was presented by Christ to his disciples at that time. "The cup which was used by the primitive church was of no prescribed form, nor of any uniform material. It was made of wood, horn, glass, or marble, according to circumstances. But at a very early period it began to be wrought with great care, and to be made of the most costly materials, such as

silver and gold, set with precious stones. In the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, the use of vessels made of horn, wood, glass, lead, tin, &c., was forbidden, and each church was required to have at least one cup and plate of silver.

"Two cups were generally used, one exclusively by the clergy; the other, of larger dimensions, by the laity. These had handles attached to their sides. The sacramental cup of the Armenian Church is said to contain two separate apartments, in one of which the wine is contained, and in the other the bread. And similar vessels seem to have been in use in the Christian Church previous to the eighth century. They then began to be made with a pipe attached to them, like the spout of a tea-pot, and the wine was received from the vessel by suction. The spouts were called, fistulæ, eucharistiæ, pagilares, arundines, canna, canales, pipa. These pipes were used to prevent the waste of any drop of the consecrated wine in the distribution of it. Such cups are still in use in some Lutheran churches.

"The cup was at an early period ornamented with inscriptions and pictorial representations.

The platter for the distribution of the bread was at first a basket made of osier. Like the cup, it has from time to time been made of glass, marble, silver, and gold, varying in form, size, and style of execution corresponding with that of the cup.

"The pomp and superstition of catholic worship have added many other articles to the sacramental vessels, which are enumerated by Siegel, from whom the above is extracted." Pp. 145, 146.

The next chapter is upon the discipline of the ancient church. It contains much that is interesting, much that is curious, much that is superstitious, and yet something that is profitable also. Almost all churches, both before and since the Reformation, saving the Church of England, have had at least the form of discipline, and laws for regulating its administration. In the early churches of the first centuries the discipline was faithful and strict,-sometimes stern beyond measure, and without mercy. In the Popish Church the form is still preserved; and according to their fashion, the laws of discipline are rigid. In the Church of England it is the lament of the godly among both ministers and people, that there is no discipline at all. It seems to have been part of her reformation to strip her even of that authority, and deprive her of those laws for administering it which she had formerly possessed ere she was reformed. In all the other Protestant Churches there is still the form; and in not a few of them, the power as well as the form. In our own Church there was, for two centuries after the Reformation, more of real scriptural discipline, than perhaps in any other church from the early centuries. With none of the superstitious mercilessness of the third and fourth centuries, there was the same strictness and fidelity. But the moderation of the last century cut the cords of all discipline, and with it of all morality. Condemning the gospel as leading to licentiousness, and preaching heathen morality in its stead, the ministers of that system soon began to trample on the morality which they themselves preached, and on