Mr. Lewellin.—"How any intelligent Protestant, with the fear of God before his eyes, can conscientiously take upon himself such a vow, that a child, who is born in sin and shapen in iniquity, shall renounce all the sinful lusts of the flesh, and walk in God's commandments all the days of his life, is to me inexplicable, unless he looks upon the ceremony of baptism as a mere farce, and his vow an idle, unmeaning utterance. However, one thing is certain; they find it more easy to make the vow than to keep it; as the children of the church turn out as gay, and dissipated, and sceptical, as those who never had such a vow made in their behalf."
Rev. Mr. Ingleby.—"I can offer no arguments in defence of the appointment of godfathers and godmothers; they certainly have no New Testament origin or sanction. And if I were left to my own choice, I would rather forego administering the rite of baptism to infants, than I would tolerate such vows, when those who make them, and those who hear them made, very well know that they have no power to redeem them."
Mr. Roscoe.—"As no human being can persuade or coerce another to do these deeds of renunciation and submission, we must look upon the whole ceremony as a purely Papal invention, admitted most censurably within the pale of our church, and incorporated with her system of ceremonial discipline and order. Hence I presume, Sir, you would very willingly have these parts of our Catechism expunged?"
Rev. Mr. Ingleby.—"Indeed, Sir, I should, and so would my evangelical brethren. It is a sad evil which we groan under."
Mr. Lewellin.—"The Tractarian clergy, in common with the Papal priests, are resolute in their adherence to this baptismal ceremony and its catechetical adjuncts; and they denounce their evangelical opponents as unfit to officiate in the church, because they impeach her authority to originate ecclesiastical ceremonies which have no sanction from the New Testament. From these data I draw the following conclusion:—the evangelical clergy are the most consistent scripturalists, but the Tractarian are the most consistent Churchmen; and while the former do homage to Divine authority, the latter prefer rendering allegiance to human."
Mr. Roscoe.—"Your conclusion, Sir, is just; but it is a most mortifying one, and I think we should do all in our power to get a Catechism more in harmony with the New Testament and the Protestant faith."
THE CONFIRMATION SERVICE.
Rev. Mr. Ingleby.—"It is maintained by many, that the rite of confirmation which is administered by our bishops is a continuation of apostolic practice, recorded in the Acts; but I prefer the judgment which our own distinguished commentator, the Rev. T. Scott, has given on this subject:—'The rite of confirmation, as practised by many Christian churches, has often been, and still is, spoken of as a continuation of the apostolical imposition of hands for the confirmation of new converts, by the Holy Spirit thus given to them. But it is far from evident that this was done universally by the apostles, or by those who immediately succeeded them. As, however, miraculous powers, rather than sanctifying grace, were thus conferred, unless miraculous powers were now connected with that rite, the parallel must wholly fail.[27] How far something of this kind, properly regulated and conducted, may be rendered subservient to the edification of young persons descended from pious parents, and baptized when infants, is another question; but to advance this observance into a sacrament, and even above a sacrament (as it certainly is advanced when the Holy Spirit is supposed to be conferred by imposition of hands, and by using words in prayer like those of Peter and of John), puts the subject in a very different light. Doubtless it was at first thus magnified in order to exalt the Episcopal order, to whom the administration of it was confined, as if they were intrusted with apostolic authority; but as miracles are out of the question, so to follow the apostles in faith, humility, diligence in preaching in season and out of season, in piety, and self-denial, is the only scriptural mode of magnifying either the Episcopal or the clerical office. Assuredly as this matter (namely, the confirmation service) is very often conducted, it must be allowed to be an evil; and it ought either to be attended to in another manner, or not at all.' Change it, or abolish it."
Mr. Stevens.—"I met the other day, in my casual reading, with an honest confession from a leading Tractarian: 'It is true, the actual word confirmation does not occur in the Bible in that sense in which we are now using it,' which is a plain admission that the rite, as administered by our bishops, differs from that act of confirmation which the apostles performed. They confirmed believers who were members of the church; that is, strengthened their faith, by renewed evidences of its Divine origin, urging them at the same time to continue in it, notwithstanding the persecutions they might be exposed to, and on some occasions they conferred the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost; but our modern bishops administer the ceremony to young people who make no decided profession of personal piety, and the observance of this ceremony, and not their piety, is the ecclesiastical qualification for membership with the church over which their jurisdiction extends."
Mr. Roscoe.—"It appears to me, after a close investigation of the subject, that confirmation, as administered by our bishops, is based on the fatal error of baptismal regeneration, and is a necessary sequence to it. Two objects are accomplished by it. In the first place, it is a release to godfathers and godmothers from the heavy responsibilities they took upon themselves, when they gave the vow at the baptismal font that their godchild should renounce all the sinful lusts of the flesh, &c.; and, in the second place, the confirmed person becomes legally entitled to all the privileges and immunities which the Church of England guarantees to her members; and, at the same time, 'confirms and perfects,' as Dr. Hook says, 'that which the grace of God's most Holy Spirit has already begun in baptism.' Hence the prayer which the bishop offers up before he administers the rite, is in exact agreement with this statement:—'Almighty and everlasting God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these thy servants by water and the Holy Ghost, and hast given unto them the forgiveness of all their sins, strengthen them, we beseech thee, O Lord, with the Holy Ghost the Comforter, and daily increase in them thy manifold gifts of grace; the spirit of wisdom and understanding; the spirit of counsel and ghostly strength; the spirit of knowledge and true godliness; and fill them, O Lord, with the spirit of thy holy fear, now and for ever. Amen.' After this prayer, then, follows the effective act of confirmation; the bishop lays his hand on the head of every one kneeling before him, repeating a short prayer; and it is by this imposition of hands and prayer that the grace is conveyed which nourishes and strengthens the inner spiritual life, which was infused at the baptismal font; or, to quote what Dr. Hook says, 'it is to perfect that which the grace of God's most Holy Spirit has already begun in baptism.'"