01.11. Additional Notes: Note D. Confirmation

(Note D.)

Confirmation. In the apostolic church, there was no such rite as that which under this name has been long established in the Romish communion as a sacrament, and adopted in some Protestant churches as a solemnity, in their view, if not commanded, yet as both expressive and edifying. It is not intended in this note to record a sentence condemnatory of those who think proper to employ the rite in question: but only to state with brevity some of the reasons why the fathers of the Presbyterian Church, thought proper to exclude it from their ritual; and why their sons, to the present hour, have persisted in the same course.

1. We find no foundation for this rite in the Word of G od. Indeed our Episcopal brethren, and other Protestants who employ it, do not pretend to find any direct warrant for it in Scripture. All they have to allege, which bears the least resemblance to any such practice, is the statement recorded in Acts 8:14-17 : Now when the Apostles, which were at Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John, who when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them; only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. That there is here a reference to the extraordinary or miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, and these conferred by extraordinary officers, is so perfectly apparent, that it is no wonder the advocates of Confirmation do not press it as proof of their point. The only wonder is, that they ever mention it as affording the most remote countenance to their practice. The diligent reader of Scripture will find four kinds, or occasions of laying on hands recounted in the New Testament. The first, by Christ himself, to express an authoritative benediction. Matthew 19:1-30, Mark 10:16; the second, in the healing of diseases, Mark 16:18. Acts 28:8; the third, in conferring the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, Acts 8:17, Acts 19:6; and the fourth, in setting apart persons to sacred office. Acts 6:6. Acts 13:3. 1 Timothy 4:14. The venerable Dr. Owen, in his commentary on Hebrews 6:2, expresses the opinion, that the laying on of hands there spoken of, is to be considered as belonging to the third class of cases, and, of course, as referring to the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit. Others have supposed that it rather belongs to the fourth example above enumerated, and therefore applies to the ordination of ministers. But there is not a syllable or hint in the whole New Testament which looks like such a laying on of hands as that for which the advocates of Confirmation contend.

2. Quite as little support for Confirmation can be found in the purest and best periods of uninspired antiquity. Towards the close of the second century, several uncommanded and superstitious additions had been made to the ordinance of baptism. Among these were anointing with nil, in avowed imitation of the Jewish manner of consecration; administering to the baptized individual a mixture of milk and honey, as the symbol of his childhood in a new life, and as a pledge of that heavenly Canaan, with all its advantages and happiness, to which the hopes of the baptized were directed; the laying on of the hands of the minister officiating in baptism, for imparting the Holy Spirit; to all which may be added, that immediately after the close of this century, we find the practice oi exorcism introduced as a preliminary to baptism, and as a means of expelling all evil spirits from the candidate for this ordinance. These superstitious additions were made to succeed each other in the following order; exorcism, confession; renunciation; baptism; chrismation, or anointing with oil, which was done in the form of a cross; and finally, the laying on of hands, or confirmation, which immediately followed the anointing with oil, and the administration of the simple element above mentioned. “As soon as we are baptized," says Tertullian, “we are anointed with the blessed unction." And he adds, "This unction is according to the Jewish dispensation, wherein the high priest was anointed with oil out of a horn." The laying on of hands, or confirmation, immediately followed the unction. “As soon as we come from the baptismal laver," says Tertiullian, “We are anointed, and then hands are imposed." This was considered as essential to the completion of the ordinance. "We do not receive the Holy Ghost," says the same father, “in baptism, but being purified by the water, we are prepared for the Holy Ghost, and at the laying on of hands, the soul is illuminated by the Spirit." The exorcism, then, the anointing with oil, the sign of the cross, the imposition of hands for conveying the Holy Spirit, and the administration of milk and honey to the candidate, were all human additions to baptism, which came in about the same time, and ought, in our opinion, to be regarded very much in the same light with a great variety of other additions to the institutions of Christ, which, though well meant, and not destitute of expressiveness, are yet wholly unauthorized by the King and Head of the Church.

3. When the practice of the laying on of hands, as an ordinary part of the baptismal service, was added, by human invention, to that ordinance, it always immediately followed the application of water, and the anointing with oil. “As soon as we come from the baptismal laver," says Tertullian “we are anointed, and then hands are laid on." And it is further acknowledged by all, that every one who was competent to baptize, was equally competent to lay on hands. The two things always went together; or rather formed parts of the baptismal ordinance, which was not thought to be consummated without the imposition of hands by him who had applied the water and the unction. And this continued to be the case, throughout the greater part of the church, for the first three hundred years. Then the term bishop signified the pastor or overseer of a flock or congregation. Every pastor was a bishop, as had been the case in Apostolic times. And then, in ordinary cases, none but the bishop, or pastor of each church, administered baptism. Of course, he only laid on hands. But afterwards, in the progress of corruption, when Prelacy was gradually brought in, it became customary, for the sake of doing greater honor to the prelates, to reserve this imposition of hands to them, as a part of their official prerogative. Jerome (Dialog. Adv. Lucifer.) expressly declares, that the committing this benediction wholly to the bishop;?, was done “rather in honor of the priesthood, than from necessity imposed by any law." Even now, throughout the Greek Church, this rite is administered, for the most part, in close connection with baptism, and is dispensed by any priest who is empowered to baptize. In like manner, in the Lutheran and other German churches, in wiiich confirmation is retained, it is administered by every pastor. Still, even when confined to prelates, this imposition of hands was not, in ordinary cases, long separated from the baptism: for the children were commonly carried to the bishop to have his hands laid upon them as soon as convenient. After a while, however, it became customary to separate the two things much more widely. Confirmation, or the laying on of the bishop’s hands, began to be postponed for a number of years, according to circumstances; until, at length, it was often left till the arrival of adult age, and even, in some cases, till the decline of life. All these progressive steps evidently marked a mere human invention, for which there is no divine appointment or warrant whatever.

4. The rite of confirmation is superfluous. As it was plainly a human invention, so it is unnecessary and answers no purpose which is not quite as well, to say the least, provided for in the Presbyterian Church, which rejects it. Is it said to be desirable that there should be some transaction or solemnity by which young people who have been baptized in their infancy, may be called to recognize their religious obligations, and, as it were, to take upon themselves the profession and the vows made on their behalf in baptism? Granted. There can be no doubt that such a solemnity is both reasonable in itself, and edifying in its tendency. But have we not just such a solemnity in the Lord’s Supper; an ordinance divinely instituted; an ordinance on which all are qualified to attend, and ought to attend, who are qualified to take on themselves, in any scriptural or rational sense, their baptismal obligations; an ordinance, in fact, specifically intended, among other things, to answer this very purpose, viz. the purpose of making a personal acknowledgement and profession of the truth, the service, and the hopes of Christ: — have we not, I say, in the Sacramental Supper just such a solemnity as we need for the end in question — simple, rational, scriptural, and to which all our children may come, just as soon as they are prepared in any form to confess Christ before men? We do not need confirmation, then, for the purpose for which it is professed to be desired. We have something better, because appointed of God; quite as expressive; more solemn; and free from certain objectionable features which are now to be mentioned.

5. Finally; we reject the rite of confirmation in our Church, because, in addition to all the reasons which have been mentioned, we consider the formula prescribed for its administration in the Church of England, and substantially adopted by the Episcopal Church in this country, as liable to the most serious objections. We do not think it a duty in any form, to practice a rite which the Savior never appointed; but our repugnance is greatly increased by the language with which the rite in question is administered by those who employ it. In the “Order of Confirmation," as prescribed and used in the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, the following language occurs. Before the act of laying on hands, the officiating bishop, in his prayer, repeats the following language: “Almighty and ever living God, who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these thy servants, by water and the Holy Ghost, and hast given unto them forgiveness of all their sins," &;c. &lq. And again, in another prayer, after the act of confirmation is completed, he speaks to the Searcher of hearts thus — “We make our bumble supplications unto thee for these thy servants, upon whom, after the example of thy holy Apostles, Ave have now laid our hands; to certify them by this sign of thy favor and gracious goodness towards them," &c. And also, in the act of laying on hands, assuming that all who are kneeling before him already have the holy sanctifying spirit of Christ, he prays that they “may all daily increase in this Holy Spirit more and more."

Such is the language addressed to large circles of young people of both sexes, many of whom there is every reason to fear, are very far from having been “born of the Spirit," in the Bible sense of that phrase; nay, some of whom manifest so little seriousness, that any pastor of enlightened piety would be pained to see them at a communion table: yet the bishop pronounces them all — and he appeals to heaven for the truth of his sentence — he pronounces them all regenerate, not only by water, but also by the Holy Ghost; certifies to them, in the name of God, that they are objects of the divine favor and declares that, being already in a state of grace and favor with God, they are called to “grow in grace;" to "increase in the Holy Spirit more and more."

There are many who have long regarded, and who now regard this language not only with regret, but with shuddering! as adapted to cherish false hopes, nay, to deceive and destroy souls by wholesale! I must again say, that if there were no other obstacle to my consenting to minister in the Protestant Episcopal church, this alone would be an insurmountable one. For it must come home to the conscience and the feelings, not of the bishop only, but of every pastor in that church who has, from time to time, a circle of beloved youth to present for confirmation. It is vain to say, that the church presumes that all who come are sincere, and of course born of the Spirit, and in a state of favor with God. This is the very point of objection. She so presumes, and undertakes to “certify” them of it. Presbyterian ministers do not, dare not, use such language. They do not, and dare not, undertake to “certify" to any number of the most mature and exemplary communicants that ever gathered round a sacramental table, that they are all in a state of grace and salvation, and that they have nothing to do but to "follow on," and "increase in the Holy Spirit." Nor is it a sufficient answer, I repeat, to say, that a liturgy, being a fixed composition, cannot be so constructed as to discriminate between different characters. This is denied. Every enlightened and faithful ministry of whatever denomination, who is at liberty to employ such language as he approves, knows how to express himself, both in prayer and preaching, in discriminating and impressive terms; and how to avoid modes of expression adapted to deceive and betray unwary souls. It is surely not impracticable to address the largest and most promiscuous assembly in a manner which, though not adapted to the precise case of every individual, shall be at least free from error, free from every thing of a deceptive and ensnaring character. Our Methodist brethren, it was before remarked, have a prescribed liturgical form for baptism; which they have rendered sufficiently discriminating, and at the same time unexceptionably safe. And, what is not unworthy of notice in this place, though the liturgy of the Protestant Episcopal church is evidently the model which, to a certain extent, they have kept before them in constructing their own, they have wisely discarded altogether the ceremony of confirmation from their ritual. The advocates of confirmation, as a separate ecclesiastical rite, seldom fail of quoting Calvin as expressing an opinion decisively in favor of it. This is doing great injustice to that illustrious man. Calvin directly and warmly opposes the idea of confirmation being considered as a distinct ordinance, claiming divine authority in the Church of God. This he reprobates; and especially the practice of confining the administration of it to prelates; but adds, “that he has no objection to parents bringing their children to their minister, at the close of childhood, or the commencement of adolescence, to be examined according to the catechism in common use, and then, for the sake of greater dignity and reverence, closing the ceremony by the imposition of hands. “Such imposition of hands, therefore, says he, as is simply connected with benediction, I highly approve, and wish it were now restored to its primitive use, uncorrupted by superstition." (Institutiones. Lib. IV. cap. 19:§ 4.) But what serves to throw light on Calvin’s real sentiments on this whole subject is that, in commenting on Acts 8:17, he reproaches the Papists for pressing that passage into the support of their sacrament of confirmation; and not only asserts, but proves, that the laying on of hands there spoken of, relates, not at all to the ordinary and sanctifying, but to the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, which have long since ceased in the church; and, of course, that the passage in question ought never to be quoted in favor of confirmation, or of any other permanent rite in the Christian Church.