Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

cles, &c.; and, therefore, the practice of the rite, upon such authority, is mere solemn trifling. But supposing, as we may for the sake of argument, that the Holy Ghost was given to the Samaritans for the common purposes of christian piety, then the fruits of the spirit were, no doubt, visible in their lives, and proved that the laying on of the hands of the Apostles was not an empty ceremony. Do we find any thing analogous to this, resulting from the modern administration of this rite? Do "love, joy, peace, meekness, goodness, faith," &c. shine forth conspicuously in the lives of those who have been confirmed?" If not, the conclusion is, (upon the above supposition,) that they have not received the Holy Ghost, and that their confirmation was an useless unmeaning ceremony. It hath been well remarked, "if the Apostles laid not their hands on all who were baptized, it makes nothing for confirmation; if they did, then Simon Magus was confirmed, and received the Holy Ghost, which those who argue for confirmation will by no means admit."

[ocr errors]

Reference is sometimes made to those passages in the Acts of the Apostles, which contain the term confirming," (as chap. xiv. 22, and chap. xv. 32-41.) as though they alluded to, and justified the present practice. But a little attention to them will be enough to convince any unprejudiced mind, that the confirmation imparted by the Apostles differed essentially from that of the church of England. This will appear by considering the subjects, the nature, and the consequences of apostolic confirmation. I need only to suggest the contrast.

I.-It will be proper to inquire, first, Whom did the Apostle confirm?

Surely not the giddy and thought less youth, who made no pretenCONG. MAG. No. 61.

sions to even the form of godliness, and whose conduct proved that they were utterly destitute of all sense of religion.-Not those whose sole preparation for it consisted in their being able to repeat a form of prayer, or a short catechism. To confirm such, in the apostolic sense of the term, is perfectly impossible. And to do it in any case-to lay hands upon them, and declare in the most solemn manner, even in an address to the Searcher of hearts, that " God has vouchsafed to regenerate these his servants by water and the Holy Ghost, and to give them the forgiveness of all their sins," and "to certify them," by that sign "of God's favour, and gracious goodness towards them;" what is it, but to practice upon them a gross deception? Does not such a confirmation, under such circumstances, directly tend to encourage the most fallacious hopes-to fix the mind in all its ignorance and inveterate prejudices-and to produce that inattention to the means of grace which is so fatal to the souls of thousands ?*

By a reference to the passages mentioned above, it will be seen that those whom the Apostles confirmed were "the churches," i. e. those who had felt the power of divine truth-who believed all that the witnesses for Jesus had testified concerning the person, miracles, life, death, resurrection, as

* On the day above alluded to, the writer was attracted to the window by an unusual voice in the street, when he was shocked to see twelve or fourteen

young men, who had just been confirmed, in a state of intoxication; one of them was conducting himself in a very outrageous manner, and uttering the most profane oaths. On being addressed by a person who happened to be passing, on the impropriety and unsuitableness of his conduct, he replied, with an oath, "that he had received the Bishop's blessing, and therefore might enjoy himself if he pleased." This is not a solitary instance of the bad moral effects of this unhappy ceremony.

D

[ocr errors]

Hence

of the state of any persons, it was done upon better grounds, with better means of judging, and more substantial evidence, than such assurances can have in the present day.

Among the things comprised in scriptural confirmation, the most prominent appear to be-progressive instruction-establishment of the truth a statement of privilege-and suitable excitement.

cension, power, and grace of their Divine Master, and who, under a sense of guilt and impending misery, had fled to him for refuge from the wrath to come. they became disciples of Christmade public profession of his religion-came out from the world, and associated themselves for all the purposes of public religious worship-and were content to endure, from a scoffing, persecuting age, great tribulation, so that they might enter the kingdom of God. These characteristics of primitive church members could all be verified by Scripture references; and from them it appears, that a christian character was a necessary prerequisite to apostolic confirmation. Is the same character requisite now? Alas! it seems that ability to repeat a form of words has supplanted this appropriate qualification. How then can that be apostolic confirmation, in which neither the administrator, nor the receiver, is qualified according to the precedent? II. What was the nature of mation would be necessary to conapostolic confirmation ?

It was certainly not the mere performance of a rite. The reli gion taught by these inspired men was not composed of ceremonial observances. They appear to have been perfect strangers to that summary method of making and establishing Christians, which has prevailed in subsequent ages. Neither was it an authoritative declaration of the spiritual condition of the persons confirmed. The bishops, in the ceremony in question, thank God for regenerating and pardoning those upon whom they lay their hands-we cannot, therefore, wonder, that they should believe themselves to be regenerated and pardoned, when they are personally assured of it by one whom they are taught to consider as a success or to the Apostles? If those who had "the power of discerning spirits," ever spake so confidently

Progressive Instruction. - The people to whom the Apostles preached the word of life, had not been educated in the religion of Jesus; but had every thing to learn connected with its divine discoveries. It was not possible to make them at once acquainted with "the doctrines of the Lord," nor would it have been prudent to attempt it. They were taught as they were able to bear it. A thousand doubts, and questions, and desires would arise in those minds, in which the first lessons of the Gospel had been received with feeling and interest, and more extended infor

firm them in the first principles of the Gospel. The Apostles fed babes with milk, but gave stronger food to those whose age and strength required it.

Establishment of the Truth.The new converts would require proof that the system which claimed all their souls, and challenged all their confidence, was a divine revelation. This the Apostles asserted, as witnesses, and proved by every necessary and appropri ate evidence. By a reference to the Jewish scriptures-by convincing argumentation-by a statement of incontrovertible facts, and by astonishing miracles, they established the truth of their testimony, and "confirmed the souls of the disciples."

What a fixed and unyielding attachment to the Gospel would result from the glowing and beautiful descriptions of Christian pri

vilege, which are every where to be found in the Apostolic writings? Neither the difficulties necessarily connected with personal religion, nor the persecutions of a frowning world, would shake the steady purpose of that man, who understood and could appropriate what the Apostles taught of the power, promises, grace, and faithfulness of Christ. What stability might be expected from such language as the following-"I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, &c. shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Rom. viii. 38, 39. The truth must be understood and believed, before it can be fairly brought into practice. But it was intended, by its great Author, and used by its first promulgators, as an engine of mighty power, which might be brought to bear upon man, as an intelligent and moral agent, to move all his capacities, and regulate all his actions. Therefore the Apostles " exhorted and charged" every Christian "to walk worthy of God," "to adorn the doctrines of God" their "Saviour in all things," to be "faithful unto death," &c.; and thus, by suitable excitement and advice, they confirmed them in the habitual practice of every christian duty, by which it might be proved that they had not believed in vain. I need not point out how different is all this, and much more which might be added, of a similar nature, from the nature of the modern ceremony.

III. What consequences resulted from it?

"The weapons of our warfare," said Paul, 66 are not carnal, but mighty through God." We hence infer, that every institution and ceremony of the Gospel is of great moral and spiritual utility, and eminently calculated to promote the power of godliness.

In the subjects of apostolic confirmation, a practical illustration of

the Gospel is discoverable. How would the Apostles have wept if they had seen those, whom they had endeavoured to confirm in the faith, wallowing in intemperance, and defying heaven by their blasphemies! Certainly, instead of bestowing upon them flattering commendations, they would have administered sharp, yet benevolent rebukes. They had no greater joy than to see their children walk in the truth. "Now we live," said they, "if ye stand fast in the Lord." Had they not exhibited "holiness to the Lord," in their lives, they never could have been addressed in the following language-"Ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God." And those who receive the message of the Gospel, "not in word only, but also in power," will be anxious to glorify God in their body and spirit, which are God's.

Unshaken attachment to the truth is another beneficial result of Scriptural confirmation. Would to God we could see this attachment in all who submit to the modern ceremony! But, alas, they in general learn to substitute the form of godliness for its power! The Gospel is not written in their hearts, and therefore most of them are alike indifferent to the claims, and duties, and pleasures of religion. But where the religion of Jesus is received as true, and engages the strong affections of the heart, the perversions of the Gospel, and the frivolities and pleasures of the world, will seek an entrance and an influence in vain. Such an one will be able to say,

"Should all the forms that men devise, Assault my faith, with treach'rous art, I'd call them vanity and lies, And bind the Gospel to my heart."

Stability in temptations and persecutions may be expected in the truly confirmed Christian.

"The Prince of the power of the air" may rule" in the children of disobedience;" but the Christian resists the devil, stedfast in the faith; and does not yield himself રં a servant unto iniquity." It is not possible to convince him that there is no reality in religion, or that it is not worth the endurance of present affliction. He hath no other expectation than to "the kingdom" through much tribulation; "but he endures as seeing him who is invisible," and remains "faithful unto death."

enter

A holy confidence in God will be one of the enduring and invaluable fruits of the privilege in question. The Lord is the saving strength of his anointed. Should such a person be passing through the deepest waters of affliction even should the forlorn and calamitous suppositions of Habakkuk be realized, yet this divine privilege will enable him to rejoice in the Lord, and to joy in the God of his salvation; and he expresses his holy and well-placed confidence in the language of inspiration, while the triumph of faith enables him to exclaim, "I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he can keep what I have committed to him against that day;" and he shall confirm me to the end."

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

the signature Philippensis, an attempt to vindicate the adoption of a seat-rent in Dissenting places of worship. The writer's general object in the paper, appears to be so good, that I regret he should have taken the readiest way to defeat his own intentions. The slightest examination of the arguments adduced by him, in defence of the practice, will shew their utter fallacy.

The first objection to the practice, and it is the one which ought to have the greatest weight, is, that it is not compatible with the voluntary character of our contributions. On this point Philippensis, and the writer on whom he animadverts, are at issue. "There is nothing about it," says your correspondent, " at all approximating to compulsion." And yet, his chief argument for the practice proceeds upon the supposition, that it does· compel an involuntary contribution from men of habits of avarice and hearts of stone." It is the very compulsive force of a seat-rent, which is to wring from these men a payment, for which all applications, in any other shape, would be useless; and it is the presence of such men in our societies that renders a seat-rent, we are told, an indispensable measure. What then is meant by compulsion? Does your correspondent mean to restrict the word to a legal impost? Can nothing short of a necessity, which leaves no alternative, be called compulsion? If so, there is no merit in our abstaining from compulsion, as Dissenters, because we cannot have recourse to it. According to this view of the case, if the parson, or the squire, threatens a poor man, that if he does not come to church, he will withdraw his patronage or his custom, he does not compel the man to come to church; he has an alternative. And when a Sunday toll is levied on persons going to a Dissenting meeting

house, who have to go through a turnpike, no compulsion is used; they need not go. Differing, however, entirely from your correspondent, in my notion of compulsion, I maintain that, by his own shewing, the principle of a seatrent is that of compulsion, and that, in this respect, it is at once unfair, and contrary to the spirit of the New Testament directions. It is unfair, because it takes no cognizance of a man's ability, but merely of the size of his family. It is, in fact, a species of poll-tax, levying so much per head. I do not quite understand what Philippensis means, by seats being lett according to their "respective value.” I have heard, indeed, of green pews, and crimson pews, and curtain pews, of churchwardens pews, and my Lord's pew, and the Squire's pew. For special fittings up of this kind, if such things must be, the parties must, of course, pay accordingly. But the value of a pew, according to my old fashioned dissenting notions, I am apt to consider regulated chiefly by its size, the room it occupies; and I take it for granted, that seat-rents are always governed by the size of a pew, that is to say, they are levied per sitting. Further, I imagine, that a bachelor, old or young, without incumbrances, worth, let us say, £300. a year or upwards, or a gentleman, with his lady, having no family, with an income of 7 or £800. a year, would not require quite so large a pew, as good Mr. A., the carpenter, with his six children, or Mrs. B., the widow, with her daughters and apprentice, and many others of small means with large families. What then does your correspondent mean by a person's occupying an inferior seat, in order to escape the payment of a certain sum, too great for his inclinations? Inclination is not the proper word in such a reference; it is the individual's means we

as

speak of, when we complain that a seat-rent, which presses on a man of large family in so inequitable a manner, does partake, in such a case, of compulsion, towards the man of small means, while it connives at the niggardliness of those who may be the best able in the congregation to contribute largely.

But is not the rich man at liberty to contribute more? I am surprised that your correspondent should advance so unsubstantial an argument. His principle of seatrent supposes, that those who are best able to give, would otherwise give nothing; and now he inquires, if they are not at liberty to give

more.

Why should they give

more, when they give all that is either demanded or expected, and, what is still more satisfactory to their own minds, all that others give? What is the state of facts? Are persons, where the practice of seat-rents prevails, found, in a general way, adding a voluntary contribution to their seat-rent? There will of course be liberal exceptions; but it is my firm conviction, that the seat-rent intercepts between the minister and the liberality of those who would otherwise have exceeded the rent in their voluntary contribution. There are many pleas for not giving more: it is unusual; it would be ostentatious; it is not known how it would be taken; the person would, if others would; it is not expected, &c. &c. But especially the seat-rent has this effect, as it tends to keep out of sight the real nature of the pastor's claims, and the only principle which the New Testament recognises as the legitimate motive to such offerings. The money is paid for the seat, not for the ministry: it is given to the building, not to the man. Instead of being regarded as, in the highest sense, a debt of honour, it is regarded as a tax or a mercantile bargain, a price given, a

« AnteriorContinuar »