she, "I have never been confirmed: and it is on my mind always that if I should not live to be confirmed, I should not be able to receive the holy communion: and then how should I be able to pass through the fire, if I have not part in my blessed Saviour?" Her female spiritual instructor does not appear able to answer her question, only by telling her that her pastor did not know that she was at home, else he would have called to see her. And he, when he did come, does not appear to direct her to the Saviour, but merely to "keep God's holy will and commandments, and walk in them the remainder of her life," and to encourage her that she might yet live to be "visibly admitted to all the privileges of a child of God, and be sealed by his Holy Spirit in the view of the visible church." What is here meant will be better understood when the reader is told that as the day approached when the bishop was to perform the rite of Confirmation, poor Susan feared that "she might not live to feel the pressure of the hands of God's Great Shepherd which was to seal to her the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and render her body meet to partake of the body and blood of Him through whose death alone she had hope of life." Now, in contradistinction to all this, the Presbyterian church affirms and teaches that there is no other confirmation than that almighty work of the Divine Spirit by which he strengthens, comforts, and establishes believers in faith and obedience,‡ and which he worketh when, and where, and how, he will. They believe, however, to use the words of Calvin,§ in the propriety of "the custom which was practised among the ancients before this abortive image of a sacrament made its appearance. For it was not such a confirmation as the Romanists pretend, which cannot be mentioned without injury to baptism; but a catechetical exercise, in which children or youths used to deliver an account of their faith, in the presence of the church. Now it would be the best mode of catechetical instruction, if a formu 1 Pet. 5. 10. 1 Cor. 1. 8. §Instit. b. iv. ch. xix. § xviii., vol. 2, p. 542. Eng. ed. In proof of the fact that the practice here alluded to was approved of by Calvin and the reformed churches generally, and that it is grounded on Scripture example and teaching, and is in many ways eminently useful and necessary, I have offered proof in my volume of Tracts on Presbyterianism, No. 3. "A Form of Public Christian Profession Scriptural," &c., p. 47; and which, as it has never been confuted, I hold to be sufficient to authorize the adoption of it where it is now neglected. It was practised by all branches of the reformed churches; by Calvin, by the Genevan, and the French churches, and in some substantial form by the Presbyterian church in England, Ireland, and Scotland, and especially by the Seceders. The very fact, too, that the decree of the Council of Trent condemns such a practice, shows that it was then common. Further examination, too, only makes me more strong in the opinion that no pastor or session can admit members without such a form, without usurping a power never given, robbing the people of a power never abandoned, and depriving the church of a benefit which is of great advantage and profit.-See Boyse's Account of the Ancient Episcopacy, p. 220. lary were written for this purpose, containing and stating, in a familiar manner, all the articles of our religion, in which the universal church of the faithful ought to agree, without any controversy: a boy of ten years of age might present himself to make a confession of his faith; he might be questioned on all the articles, and might give suitable answers: if he were ignorant of any, or did not fully understand them, he should be taught. Thus the church would witness his profession of the only true and pure faith, in which all the people of the faithful unanimously worship the one God. If this discipline were observed in the present day, it would certainly sharpen the inactivity of some parents, who carelessly neglect the instruction of their children, as a thing in which they have no concern, but which in that case they could not omit without public disgrace: there would be more harmony of faith among Christian people, nor would many betray such great ignorance and want of information; some would not be so easily carried away with novel and strange tenets; in short, all would have a regular acquaintance with Christian doctrine.' SECTION III. Confirmation implies the truth of the doctrine of Apostolical Succession, and is therefore unscriptural. What, then, I now ask, is implied in this Romish and prelatical doctrine of confirmation? It implies first, the prelatical doctrine of apostolical succession, for it is to be administered only by prelates; and the grace believed to be conferred by it can only be imparted by the hands of one who has received the plenitude of episcopal grace through the mysterious channel of an uninterrupted personal descent from the apostles, and a divine communication of their authority and office. This is no caricature of mine. On the contrary, "it is needful," says the Catechism of the Council of Trent,** "to teach who are the true and lawful ministers thereof, that the faithful may have the very sacrament and grace of confirmation. The Holy Scriptures therefore show that THE BISHOP ONLY has the ordinary power of making this sacrament." To teach or affirm contrary to this, is to draw down upon us anathema and excommunication, and therefore damnation.†† Wheatley, on behalf of the prelacy, confirms this opinion, by declaring that "the minister of confirmation MUST be a bishop," "for which reason the honor of dispensing this holy ordinance **Page 187. ††See the decree above. was ALWAYS reserved to the ministry of THE BISHOPS."‡‡ Archbishop Potter affirms the same thing, and assures those who are willing to take his word for it, that "the Scriptures describe confirmation not as a temporary institution, but one which is FUNDAMENTAL TO CHRISTIANITY, AND CONSEQUENTLY LASTING AND PERPETUAL."SS Now this doctrine of apostolical succession, as I have endeavored to prove in my volume on that subject, is a pure fabrication of the hierarchy after it had corrupted the church; usurped the rights of the true clergy, who were declared to be "inferior" (!) and entirely dependent on the prelate for their being and authority; and when it had trampled on the ecclesiastical rights of the laity, and utterly expelled them from their freeborn inheritance, and their spiritual citizenship. Of this doctrine I have declared, and am prepared to maintain against all opposers, first, that it is not even pretended that it can be found in Scripture. It is granted by its advocates that it is not clearly revealed in the word of God; but that it depends upon tradition, and the authority of the fathers.* The doctrine, on the contrary, is actually denounced by Christ; and is opposed to Scripture declarations, warnings, and precepts; to its promises and prophecies; to its facts and decisions, and to the one and only remaining commission of the ministry. Secondly, that this personal succession cannot be shown to have existed in a valid and unbroken chain. For in order to do this, it must be proved that the ordination of every prelate in this entire succession was valid, first, as to the form of ordination; secondly, as to the subject of ordination; and thirdly, as to the ministers of ordination; which is altogether an impossibility. Thirdly, that this personal succession cannot be proved as a historical fact. It cannot be proved that the apostle Peter, the first link in this chain, was ever at Rome at all, or that he was ever bishop of Rome, or that he ever appointed a successor to himself, as such. Neither can it be decided whether there were one or two bishops originally at Rome, nor who were the first successors in that church; while it is certain that many invalidities have occurred in the progress of this succession, both in its Romish, Anglican, and American branches, and also in all the other prelatic churches; and that it has been broken in numerous instances, and in innumerable ways.§ Fourthly, I have shown that prelates are not in any proper On the Common Prayer, p. 394. §§On Church Government, p. 246-249. See full proof of this position in author's Lectures, pp. 73, 83, 87, 99, 103, 133, 134, 136. † See ibid, lect. vi. and vii. See author's Lectures, lect. v. § See ibid, lect. viii. and ix. sense successors of the apostles. Prelates are not successors to the apostles in fact. They are not apostles, in the true sense of this title, which was limited to the twelve; nor in their call, which was immediately from Christ; nor in their endowments for their office, which were supernatural; nor in their office itself, which was the oversight and instruction of the whole world; nor in their duties, which involved the indoctrination, care, and government of ALL the churches.* Fifthly, this doctrine cannot be sustainel on the ground of reason. It is in truth most unreasonable, inasmuch as it substitutes the theory of man for the word of God; the visible organization and ministry of the church, for spiritual Christianity; ordinances, rites, and forms, for doctrines and inward graces; the authority of the church, for the supremacy and headship of Christ; and the means of attaining salvation, by giving efficacy to the truth, for that salvation itself.† Sixthly, this doctrine necessarily leads to popery, because it invests the church with all authority; because it subjugates the laity and the ministry to prelates; because it consigns to these prelates the interpretation of the word of God; because it has ever formed the basis upon which the system of popery rests its exclusive assumptions; because, wherever it has been carried out, it has led to the introduction of the corrupt doctrines and practices of the Romish church; and because it is now leading extensively to the same results. Seventhly, this doctrine leads to intolerance in spirit and in practice, as is proved from its history in all past ages; from the character and doings of many ancient and modern prelates; from its necessary tendency to exclude the laity from all ecclesiastical jurisdiction; to consolidate a spiritual despotism; and to claim absolute authority over the persons, conduct, and opinions of its adherents; from its bitter, sectarian, and uncharitable spirit towards all other denominations; and from its clear opposition to civil and religious liberty.§ Eighthly, I have objected to this doctrine because it necessarily implies that the church of Rome is truly catholic, apostolical, and indefectible in doctrine and practice, and that all other churches, being excommunicated by it, are cut off from the church of Christ; and because it is schismatical, leading its abettors, like the ancient heretics, to cut themselves off from all other Christians; to assert that they alone constitute THE catholic church of Christ, and to deny to all other branches of the church either a valid ministry or efficacious ordiances; and *See author's Lectures, lect. x. See ibid, lect. xiv. See anthor's Lectures, lect. xi. and xii. § See ibid, lect. xiii. because it is thus contradictory to the charity, to the spirituality, and to the divine character of the gospel.** Nor is this doctrine rejected by us because such claims might be advanced only by prelatists. On the contrary, Presbyterians might far more reasonably urge these claims. For as ALL THEIR MINISTERS ARE BISHOPS; as their bishops, at the reformation, were ordained by those in authority; as they can undeniably trace their succession upward through the Romish, the Waldensian, and the Culdee churches, to the very time of the apostles; and as in the apostles' time bishops were presbyters, and acted under the one and only commission given by divine appointment; it is therefore plain, that while their ministerial succession is certain and unquestionable, that of prelates never can be established. Finally, I have shown that the assertion, that this unbroken succession of prelates is essential to a true church, to a true ministry, and to all hope of covenanted mercy, would destroy ALL EXISTING CHURCHES, and thus, all hope of salvation; since there is no church which can establish such a succession. It also fosters pride and ambition among the clergy; lukewarmness, formality, and hypocrisy among the laity; and carnality, contention and animosity among all Protestant denominations. It strengthens popery, by conceding its essential principles and its most arrogant demands; and it strengthens infidelity, by implicating Christianity in a doctrine which is in itself unscriptural, in its tendency hurtful, in its evidence baseless, and in its reasoning absurd. Were it necessary, I might show the dangerous character of this doctrine in undermining all faith in spiritual influences, and in the truth, power, and efficacy of the gospel.tt But recent events are surely sufficient to convince any impartial mind of the fact I have stated. For have we not seen that the belief of this abstract dogma has been sufficient to outweigh plain and positive testimony to the open and scandalous immorality of a prelate who had received the communication of this imaginary prelatical grace? Have not several prelates, many clergy, and many also of the laity of the Episcopal church, declared that such was their faith in this doctrine, and therefore in the gracious and holy character of the convicted culprit, (and to some extent self-convicted and avowedly guilty!) that the character, veracity, honor, and chastity of respectable ladies are all to be sacrificed for the sake of cloaking mitred infamy, and upholding the indefectible character of the prelatical succession? Such open and public prostitution of reason and propriety to **See author's Lectures, lect. xv. xvii. xviii. and xix. See this done by Professor Powell of Oxford, in his Tradition Unveiled, and especially in the supplement to that work. |