formed. To receive baptism rightly, is to receive it at the hands of a proper person, and according to the established forms of the church. The consequences of this ordinance, as it is required to be practised in the baptismal service, will not therefore, in any sense be done away by this clause in the twenty-seventh article.*

Another ceremony in the episcopal church, and one which has no direct scriptural authority, is confirmation. All persons, who have been baptized when infants, are required, after they have learnt the creed, the Lord's prayer, and the ten commandments, to be brought before the bishop, and to be confirmed, before they can partake of the communion of the Lord's Supper. Did our Saviour make any such conditions, when he instituted this rite? Where does he say, it is necessary for any to be confirmed by a bishop be

* The doctrine and form of baptism are taken almost literally from the Romish church. The idea, that this ceremony washed away original sin, was early conceived, and has long been an established doctrine in the church of Roine.

In a catechism published by the bishop of Meaux for his diocess, the following are said to be the effects of baptism. "It frees the person baptized from original sin, and from the other sins, which he may have committed after his birth;-it takes away the sin, which we brought with us into the world, and gives us a new life." The person to be baptized is made to "renounce the devil, and all his pomps, and all his works." (Ne renoncez-vous pas au diable, et à toutes ses pompes, et à toutes ses oeuvres? On répond; j'y renonce.) Oeuvres de Bossuet, Versailles, 1815, Tom. vi. p. 39.

From these quotations it will be seen, that there is no essential difference, in regard to the nature and form of this ceremony, between the Protestant Episcopal Church, and the church of Rome.

fore they can become his disciples, and be made partakers of this privilege.

Moreover, this ceremony of confirmation is exceedingly exceptionable in itself. In a prayer on this occasion, the bishop says, "we make our humble supplications unto thee for these thy servants, upon whom, after the example of the holy apostles, we have now laid our hands, to certify them, by this sign, of thy favour and gracious goodness towards them." From this it would appear, that bishops are to be considered as communicating the same powers, and conferring the same blessings, as did the apostles. In fact, it is making them in this respect, equal to the apostles. We have already seen, that by the ceremony of baptism, they are supposed to have the power of procuring a remission of sins; and here we are told, that by laying their hands on the heads of certain persons, they give a sure sign of these same persons receiving the special grace of God.

Do bishops, indeed, imagine themselves to be not only spiritual descendants of the apostles, but endowed with the same powers? Let them give some of the evidences, which the apostles gave, of these wonderful endowments. Let them heal the sick, perform miracles, speak in various tongues, and confer these gifts on others. When they have done this, I have no doubt, all will acknowledge the reality of their high and extraordinary pretensions, and yield to their authority. Until they give some such evidence, they cannot be surprised, that many should reject the validity of their claims, and choose to consult and obey the scriptures, rather than be guided by human forms,

which have no other sanction, than the authority of

men.

Whenever laying on of hands is mentioned in the New Testament, it always implies either a communication of extraordinary gifts, or an initiation into some office. When Peter and John "laid their hands on the Samaritan converts, they received the Holy Spirit." Acts viii. 17. When the apostles laid their hands on the seven persons, who were appointed to aid in taking care of the poor, (Acts vi. 6.) there is no reason to suppose it was any thing more, than a form of induction into office. Nothing is said of their receiving spiritual gifts; nor did the duties of their office require any.

Paul writes to Timothy thus, "neglect not the gift, that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery." 1 Tim. iv. 14. In this case, the laying on of hands seems to have been a form, by which Timothy was introduced into the ministry, as well as a means of conferring some spiritual gift. As those, who are intended for confirmation, are not designed to be introduced into any office, if this ceremony means any thing, it must imply a communication of extraordinary gifts from the bishop. But no bishop has ever yet made it appear, that he possessed any such gifts himself. How then can he communicate them to others?*

*The ceremony of confirmation is taken, without much alteration, from the church of Rome. It is there required to be performed by a bishop, and is said to confer the gift of the holy spirit, and strengthen the grace, which was received at baptism. The bishop "places his hands on the persons, whom he is about to

Similar remarks may be made on the ordination service of the episcopal church. It implies a power in the bishop of conferring the holy spirit. In one part of the service the bishop says, "come Holy Ghost, our souls inspire," and when he has laid his hands on the head of the person to be ordained a priest, he says, "receive the Holy Ghost for the office, and work of a priest in the church of God, now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands;whose sins thou dost forgive, they are forgiven; and whose sins thou dost retain, they are retained ”

This is going many steps farther, than in the ceremony of confirmation. The bishop not only pretends to communicate the holy spirit, but also the power of forgiving sins "Whose sins thou dost forgive they

confirm, and invokes the holy spirit to descend upon them with its gifts." The Protestant Episcopal Church has omitted the "holy chrism," which the catholics think a very important part of the ceremony. This is a mixture of oil and balm, with which the bishop makes a cross on the forehead of the person confirmed, and is intended "to show, that no one ought to be ashamed of Christ." Catéchisme de Bossuet, Oeuv. Tom. vi. p. 40; et Exposition de la Doctrine de L'Eglise Catholique, Oeuv. Tom. xviii. p. 104.

The sign of the cross was at first adopted by the English church, according to Burnet, in the "ceremony of confirmation, and in the consecration of the sacramental elements," but it was afterwards suppressed; "Nor can I devise," says Bossuet, "why it was retained only in baptism." Hist. des Var. liv. vii. § 90.

In speaking of this ceremony, Cave observes, it was "usually performed with unction, the person confirmed being anointed by the bishop, or in his absence by an inferior minister." Cave's Primit. Christianity, chap. x. p. 208, seventh edition, London, 1714.

From this account it appears, that confirmation was sometimes performed in ancient times by the inferior clergy, and with unction, neither of which is at present allowed in the Protestant Epis copal Church,

are forgiven." Can there be a higher stretch of human presumption? It is assuming the character and authority of our Saviour. He empowered his apostles to forgive sins. Do bishops, indeed, think themselves, in their official capacity, not only equal to the apostles, but to the Saviour of the world? Where will this end? Every minister of the episcopal church, who believes there is any meaning in the forms of ordination, must think he possesses the power of forgiving sins. No matter what his character may be, he possesses this power by virtue of his office. This is expressly acknowledged by Nelson, in his Chapter on the Festival of Whitsunday. "Though all men," says he, "that are in holy offices ought to lead holy lives, yet a failure in duty is not a forfeiture of authority." What doctrine could more effectually promote a spirit of pride and presumption in the minister, and immorality in the people? The wicked man has only to resort to his minister to soothe the achings of a guilty conscience, and receive the assurance of divine forgiveness. It is well, that people of the present day have too much good sense, and too little credulity, to be deceived into so dangerous an error; but it would be better if such forms as are calculated to deceive, and have an immoral tendency, were abolished.

In the English Book of Common Prayer, the minister is required, when he visits sick persons, to absolve them from their sins, "if they humbly and heartily desire it." After imploring the Lord Jesus to forgive the offences of the sick person, the minister

* Companion for the Festivals and Fasts, New York, 1817, p. 213.