66

For

As you request to know "how church confirmation originated," I will just observe, that it can be traced back as far as the middle of the third, or even to the close of the second century, when the religious services of the Christians were corrupted by the adoption of many ceremonies, some from the Jews, and others from the Heathen. particulars I refer you to "Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History" regarding those centuries; and I beg you will read Lord Chancellor King's "Inquiry concerning the Primitive Church." Those learned men show, that after the Christian ministers had imposed on the people by pretending to be priests, they practised various ceremonies, which took the place of preaching the gospel and reading the Scriptures. Laying on of hands" was commonly practised on three occasions among the early Christians:-1. Upon those newly baptized. 2. On those restored after backsliding. 3. On those in danger of death, and oil was poured upon them as a necessary part of the ceremonies. Hence arose this pretended sacrament of confirmation, as it is accounted in the Greek and Roman churches; in which, as Dr. Hook states, oil, or ointment, is used. Lord King says: "As for those rites that succeeded baptism, and which we find first mentioned in Tertullian, they were in number three: viz, unction, signation, and imposition of hands; or, if the reader pleases, he may call them all by the name of confirmation.

2. Under this christuation (anointing) was comprehended signation, or the signing of the baptized person with the sign of the cross, which the minister performed with this oint

ceeded imposition of hands, or that which most properly we term confirmation; which was-the minister laid his hands on the head of the party baptized, anointed and signed, and prayed that the Holy Ghost would be pleased to descend and rest upon him: this immediately followed signation, as that did unction.

"Having thus shown what their additional acts to baptism were," that learned man proceeds to notice their reasons for these rites; "and first," says he, "for unction. This was taken from the Jewish rites, where it was employed in the instalment of the high priest, to denote sacerdotal consecration to the service of God. As for signation, or the signing with the sign of the cross; by this was denoted, that they were to be strong and valiant in the cause of Christ: whence Tertullian says, that as all Christians so the priests of Mithras signed the foreheads of their soldiers. As for the very act of confirmation, or imposition of hands, that was practised from an opinion of the imperfections of baptism, that it did not convey the graces of the Holy Spirit, but only prepared for the reception of them."

You should understand also, that this ceremony of " confirmation" was performed chiefly upon adults; and, as Lord King says, "was not like baptism, only once performed; but on many persons frequently reiterated. All persons after baptism were confirmedthat is, by imposition of hands and prayer, the Holy Ghost was beseeched to descend upon them, and so to fortify them by his heavenly grace; but if any should fall from the Christian faith, and be for a time excluded the church's

peace, when they were again admitted hands were again imposed on them, and the Holy Ghost again invocated; and so often was he confirmed!"

These and various other ceremonies were so increased in the second and third centuries, to serve the ambitious purposes of interested teachers, after they had imposed upon the people to acknowledge as priests-all which you will find in Dr. Mosheim's "Ecclesiastical History,"-that it became difficult to discern the difference between the public worship of professing Christians and that of the heathen! All sound Protestants, therefore, reject these things as essential Popery, not being found in the Holy Scriptures! Still it is solely because Dissenters reject these anti-Christian impositions, to which conscience obliges us in loyalty to Jesus Christ, that we are subject to many disadvantages even now in Britain. This is unjust, as the wisest have acknowledged; but while church writers, unable to disprove our principles, commonly slander us, and chiefly excite prejudice against our persons, as seen in most of their publications which refer to us. This is highly offensive to God

I have no need to add anything more in my own justification; but I feel thankful that I am not obliged to become a party in this unscriptural rite. Still I will give you my thoughts in this liberty, from what I witnessed only a year ago at Ramsgate; when, June the 9th, the Archbishop of Canterbury "held a confirmation" in the church of that town. The whole might have been interesting as a holiday show; and so, indeed, it seemed to be regarded by many among the town'speople. The young people were dressed

After

in their best clothes-some of the females elegantly in white; the archprelate in his peculiar wig and flowing lawn; the other clergymen were robed in their appropriate attire, as" priests of the Church of England,” headed by a clerical official, carrying a huge silver mace, with the churchwardens and beadles having their staves of office, rendered the scene imposing. the chief ceremony, the venerable archpriest seated himself on his throne in the front of the altar, with the clergy standing behind and on each side of him, while he read an address to those who had just been confirmed! The scene reminded me of the manner of royalty thus imitated, certainly not like Christian humility. When I have gone up to the throne to address the late King, and also to her Majesty the Queen, the sovereign alone has been seated, and all the attendant courtiers stood while the monarch read the gracious reply; in the case of the Queen, even Prince Albert stood during that ceremonial;-but it appeared to me extremely like priestly pride, and ont of character, for a Christian minister to sit, reading a religious homily in the congregation, while his fellow-ministers were required to stand; it seemed very unlike the conduct of our blessed Lord.

Of course all this was according to custom and the will of the arch-prelate; but with the Bible in our handɛ, we must examine whether it will agree with the institutes of Jesus Christ. I could not but mentally ask, Does the archbishop believe all this to be scriptural? Does he hold it to be a part of Christianity? or, Does he feel conscious that the whole is a contrivance of priestcraft? I have here proved to you on the best testimony, that this

ceremony is no part of Christianity but that the whole is an invention of Antichrist! I could not but think that the archbishop seemed conscious that his ceremony had no prescription or sanction in the oracles of God.

I rejoice to think that you read with me daily the New Testament in the original Greek, and in Latin as well as English; so that you can compare this rite, as I witnessed it, with the blessed word of God. This is our duty, in loyalty to our Lord and Saviour; and, making that the sole rule of judgment, | we shall perceive at once that this ceremony is a mere fabrication of priestcraft, not found in the Scriptures. All this the archbishop must know well; but he is sworn to the system as its chief priest, bearing his awful title, "THE RIGHT Reverend FATHER IN GOD, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, PRIMATE OF ALL ENGLAND AND METROPOLITAN!" Of his pretended priesthood-though contrary to both the letter and the spirit of Christianity—he seems to glory, as he exhibits to the world the armorial badge of a high-priest's MITRE, as I saw on his carriage; all of which he cannot but know-for he is a learned man-has been derived, not from the institutes of the apostles, but alone and entirely from that shocking MYSTERY OF INIQUITY, Popery; and is, therefore, ANTI-CHRISTIAN! This is the true occasion of the fearful increase of Romish Popery under the name of PUSEYISM, of which many evangelical clergymen complain at the present time in the Church of Eng land. And it would be a reflection upon the clergymen in attendance, to suppose them ignorant of the origin and real character of the rite of confirmation. They are fellow-workers in

the imposition. Judging by the Scriptures, I must regard them as very guilty in this. But they also are richly paid for the parts which they acted, besides their being honoured by the superstitious multitude. As for the archbishop, he is rewarded for acting his chief part in the sacerdotal imposture, by a princely revenue of £20,000, or, as some reckon, £30,000 per annum! besides church livings, to distribute among his relatives and friends, to the annual value, as is commonly estimated, of above £50,000! How difficult, then, must it be-if not impossible, as some maintain-for the priests in that rich hierarchy to see these things in their true light! and especially for them to become faithful expounders of the pure doctrines of the gospel and of the simple institutions of Jesus Christ!

As to the archbishop's address it was very poor, unworthy of so great a name, and what the Hon. and Rev. Baptist W. Noel, the Rev. E. Bickersteth, and every other evangelical clergyman, would pronounce to be unsound and dangerous in theology. The arch-prelate seemed to feel nothing of "the love of Christ constraining him" to charge his young hearers, whom he had been declaring God had “ regenerated by water and the Holy Ghost," and " given them the forgiveness of their sins," and "notifying of the favour of God." He seemed not to understand how to exhort them, as the apostles did, to walk in holiness, as being "not theirs, but bought with a price," " redeemed by the precious blood of Christ."

I felt pity for the venerable looking old gentleman, bearing his awful responsibilities, as I did for the Catholic Bishop Welch, when I saw him act his

anscriptural part in the mass in the Popish cathedral at Birmingham. I compared the Archbishop of Canterbury with that aged prelate, and with the archbishops of Paris, of Vienna, and of Cologne, who are regarded as very respectable, as chief priests. Dr. Howley was highly esteemed as a moderate prelate, though his priesthood made him an oppressor of Dissenters, for whom he expressed scorn in his first Archiepiscopal "Charge;" but he was a complete Churchman, full of his office, which yet corrupts the religion of Christ; and as he entered his carriage, driving from the church with four horses and postilions, in magnificent pomp, I thought, "How blinded

must be the conscience of this antiChristian prelate! and how deluded must be the people, who, in the light of the Scripture, can support this system of priestcraft at so great a cost! TEN THOUSAND TIMES his revenues, with far greater honours from the state, and homage from the vulgar, than he receives, would not induce me to exchange my humble ministry of the gospel for that of this chief English pontiff, the Archbishop of Canterbury!"

Praying that you may be confirmed in the blessed truth of the gospel by the Holy Spirit, growing in grace and in the knowledge of Christ, I remain, YOUR AFFECTIONATE FATHER,

THOMAS WARD, OF DERBY. THOMAS WARD was born at Donnington, in Shropshire, in the year 1822. His parents were poor but respectable persons; yet destitute, it appears, of religion. He had five brothers, and as many sisters. Two of his brothers and two of his sisters are dead. Those who are living are moral persons, and one sister very pious. His father died about eight years ago; but his mother is still living. When about three years ago he fell from a cart, injured his neck, and put his hip out of joint. This, for want of efficient medical aid at the time, made him a cripple for life.

He served an apprenticeship to a country tailor in the same county in which he was born. About three years and a half since he came to Derby to obtain employment, improve himself in his business, and reside with his

uncle and aunt in Liversage-street. It was there I met with him; and the conversation I had with him and his relatives, the reading of the Scriptures and prayer, with the blessing of God, produced an impression on his mind that was never erased. From that time he attended regularly the preaching of the Gospel at Victoria-street Chapel; and taught in the sabbathschool at Chester-place, where his convictions for sin ripened into conversion to God. In about six months he gave satisfactory evidence that he was born from above, and adopted into the family of God. About a year and a half ago, by his own desire, he was admitted to fellowship with the church of Christ worshipping in Victoria-street Chapel. His relatives, and those who knew him best, bear witness that his conduct has been consistent with his profession. He continued instant in

private prayer, and engaged in that exercise occasionally in the family. He came to me for counsel in perplexity, for comfort in trouble, and for advice and prayer when he thought religion was not growing in his soul. He attended the means of grace and the Sunday-school as often as his circumstances would admit. He supported the cause of Christ by his presence, prayers, and contributions, to the best of his ability; and was a diligent and anxious teacher, not neglecting to visit absent scholars when opportunity afforded. He sympathised with, and visited and relieved, the poor and afflicted; and, to my knowledge, he was the means of the conversion of a young man whom he has now met in heaven! Being persecuted by worldly fellow-workmen, he "overcame evil by good," and led a reviler of the truth to reverence the word of God, and attend the sanctuary. In short, his prevailing desire was to be holy, happy, and useful.

there." The seventh chapter of the Revelations by John, and the seventeenth Psalm from Watts's Hymnbook, he delighted to hear read,to meditate upon and repeat himself. On Sunday, June 4th, he inquired, at twelve o'clock, what time it was; and being asked, why he was anxious to know the time, he said, Because I long to be gone." On being asked if he was happy; he said, "Yes. Come, Jesus, come and fetch me." Early on Monday morning the inquiry was made, "Are you quite happy ?" when he answered, "I shall be soon." Not long after this he fell into a doze, which continued for two hours, when his spirit quietly departed to his rest and reward in heaven! His Christian course was short; but it was bright and useful, and his end was peace.

J. M.

JOHN LONGMORE GRIFFIN, TEACHER OF GARRISON-LANE SAB

BATH-SCHOOL, BIRMINGHAM.

THE subject of the following sketch was the son of pious parents, who were for more than thirty years members of the church under the pastoral care of the Rev. J. A. James, and whose venerable father sustained the honourable office of a village preacher for the long period of forty-five years, and whose memoir appeared in the CHRISTIAN WITNESS in 1846. Being thus blessed, his youthful feet early trod the courts of the Lord's house; and the faithful preaching of his beloved pastor led him to seek for pleasures lasting as eternity!

At the age of fourteen he became afflicted with a spinal disease, which rendered him an object of sympathy, and unfitted him for any athletic exer