If led by gentle love we come, Ah! who can tell the joy prepared Our lowly longings to reward? "Twill ever flow, though clouds of pain Hang gloomily o'erhead; "Twill flow, till all the soul is full, Till all is overspread With one vast sea of endless joy, Which nought can end, nor aught alloy. Then, holy Crispin, praise to thee And to thy brother true; The honours of this evil world Ye chose a mean and humble trade, Around them persecution rained ON THE MODE OF ADMINISTERING CONFIRMATION, AND THE PROPER AGE FOR ITS RECEPTION. 1. Confirmation Considered Doctrinally and Practically, in four Sermons. By a CLERGYMAN. (London: Masters. 1847.) 2. Manual of Confirmation and First Communion. In "Practical Christian's Library." THE Catholic doctrine of Confirmation was placed in great danger during the progress of the religious changes in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Most of the early Reformers seemed at a loss to determine what position should be assigned to Confirmation in their respective theological systems. The violent, of course, discarded it altogether, as a mere device of "Popery." Others desired to retain it as an edifying ceremony, with no improbable sanction in Holy Scripture. A third party, more learned than the rest, believed it to be a Catholic ordinance, sacramental in its nature, and coeval with Christianity in its origin. Among these, would seem to have been the compilers of the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. They retained the old Confirmation Service, with very slight alteration in the prayers, and a change in the rites of its administration. In the Preface prefixed to the English Order, it was expressly laid down, that "Confirmation is ministered to them that be baptized, that by imposition of hands and prayer, they may receive strength and defence against all temptations to sin, and the assaults of the world and the devil." There was here no innovation upon the ancient doctrine. Yet a part of that doctrine was developed, and brought out into a prominence it had never before occupied. The act of ratifying and confessing the obligation incurred at Baptism, is necessarily inherent in Confirmation; but was not put prominently forward before the Reformation. No ancient Rituals contain the least allusion to it; partly because Confirmation was usually administered to children in their infancy, and partly because a confession of baptismal responsibilities was sufficiently implied in the reception of the succeeding Sacrament, or rather in the preparation for it. An implicit recognition of these responsibilities was the distinguishing feature in the ancient system-an explicit in that of the moderns. The development of this particular phase of Confirmation soon threatened to overthrow the higher view of it, as a means of grace and a sacramental ordinance. Our own Reformers vacillated between the two; not openly denying the latter, and yet secretly inclined to the former, as if it were the entire truth. They were unable to grasp both parts of the Catholic doctrine, and to enunciate them boldly as one whole. They seemed to speak inconsistently, and in a way which required explanation. However this be, the lowest views about Confirmation continued to gain ground apace, both within and without the Church, and more than once seriously threatened the existence of the true doctrine. In the reign of King James I., the Puritans pressed for some authoritative explanation of what they conceived to be the only import of Confirmation. They proposed that the rubric prefixed to the Service should be worded," the Confirmation, or furder examination of children's faith ;" and it was their secret desire that its administration, instead of being confined to the Bishops, should be conceded to every parochial minister. Dr. Reynolds, at the Hampton Court Conference, plainly intimated his own belief, that Confirmation was "a depraved imitation of the Apostles." He also objected to the wording of the last prayer of the Confirmation Service, conceiving it to imply in the Bishops the power to convey by prayer and imposition of hands, the visible graces of the HOLY SPIRIT. His objections were ably refuted in the answer of the Bishops, while the efficacy of the ordinance was in no way denied: * Cardwell, Hist. Conferences, p. 141. † Ib. p. 179 and p. 182. and Confirmation, instead of being defined in compliance with the wishes of the Puritans, was explained to be the "laying on of hands," Impositio manuum, according to its most ancient appellation. Never perhaps had the truth a narrower escape; although it might be shown--could we enter fully upon the subject—that even afterwards it was frequently in the greatest jeopardy; being denied by some, doubted by others, forgotten by the majority of those who should have been its boldest defenders. Here, if anywhere, the Providence of God would seem to have been conspicuous. Deep views with respect to the nature and benefits of this sacred ordinance have steadily gained ground, notwithstanding the opposition of open enemies or the weak vacillation of real friends. The Order of Confirmation itself, in essential doctrine, is still the same as in ancient times. A cloud of witnesses among the brightest, Hooker, Nelson, and Bishop Wilson*-have testified to its sacramental grace, in their successive generations. Our own day has seen the same truth taking hold on the minds of earnest men, and so far leavening the public mind, as to render the neglect of this ordinance, among professed Churchmen, no longer as it used to be, the habitual rule, but the rare and infrequent exception. Our present concern, however, is not so much with the doctrine of Confirmation, as with an inquiry into the changes introduced in its administration, and the proper age for its reception. Upon both these points, we are anxious to state what seems to us to have been the Church's true intentions; in the hope that our remarks may tend towards the repression of two serious abuses connected with the celebration of this sacred ordinance. One of these would defer the Confirmation of children until they had well-nigh teased to be children at all—until they had entered upon their sixteenth or seventeenth year, and were launched forth upon the stormy waves of a busy life. The other is the prevalent custom in the manner of its administration, whereby great numbers are confirmed in an incredibly short space of time-a custom so novel, so anomalous, so unlike what the Catholic Church has ever before witnessed, that it is only surprising how it could have been introduced, or how it can continue to be tolerated. I. No uniform mode of administering Confirmation has at all times prevailed in the different branches of the Church. Among the Greeks, Confirmation follows immediately after Baptism, and is contained within the same Baptismal Office. The ceremony attending its celebration is plain and simple. As soon as the baptized rises from the water, he is anointed with the holy chrism, and signed with the sign of the Cross upon the different parts of the *Bishop Wilson's views about Confirmation are among the clearest put forward by the English divines. "Confirmation," he says, "is the perfection of Baptism. The HOLY GHOST descends invisibly upon such as are rightly prepared to receive such a blessing, as at the first He came visibly upon those that had been baptized.” -Sacra Privata, Sunday Med. body, the Priest repeating these words, Σφραγὶς δωρεᾶς Πνεύματος aylov, auév,-The seal of the Gift of the HOLY GHOST, Amen. There is no mention in the Euchologium Græcum, of imposition of hands, nor of any other prayer peculiar to the rites than what may be contained within the form of benediction. Hence there is reason to believe that this ceremony was altogether superseded by the Chrism. Bingham,* it is true, is of a contrary opinion, and thinks it a mistake to suppose that the Greeks did not use the imposition of hands in Confirmation. But although his judgment must always have weight, it need not be conclusive; and in the present instance certainly is far from being so. The authority to which he refers would lead us to conclude, not that laying-on of hands was superadded to the Chrism, but that the latter was the form which imposition had assumed. And this probably was the case. However it cannot be denied, that the Confirmation rites of the Greeks are so scanty and imperfect, as to give a colouring to the objection that what they practised was not Confirmation at all. This objection, we believe, has been examined by learned men, who have long been satisfied that it cannot hold good.† In the Western Church, Confirmation always had its own office, with suitable prayers and benedictions. The principal rites in its administration are the imposition of hands, and the anointing with Chrism in the sign of the Cross upon the forehead, the Bishop making use of these words," I sign thee with the sign of the Cross, and confirm thee with the Chrism of Salvation, in the Name of the FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST. Amen." To this is added a slight blow upon the check of each, to signify that the confirmed must henceforth bear affronts and injuries with patience, like a faithful soldier of JESUS CHRIST. The imposition of hands enjoined in the Latin Rituals is not altogether what we understand by that term. The Bishop signs each child separately with the sign of the Cross, and he also gives the little blow separately to each, so that there are two distinct ministries to every child: but he imposes hands upon all at once. That is, he elevates his hands and extends them towards the children, offering up a general prayer for the descent of the HOLY SPIRIT. It is important to notice this. We believe that it was the intention of the English Church to reform that mode of imposition of hands, and to return to one, which she considered to be more primitive and apostolic. The first revisers of our Offices directed the Bishop to "cross the children in the forehead, and to lay his hand upon their head, saying, 'I sign thee with the sign of the Cross, and lay my hand upon thee, in the Name of the * Origines Eccles. B. 12, chap. iii. § 5. + Goar (Eucholog. p. 366) confutes this objection, and establishes the validity of the Greek Confirmations. See Palmer, Orig. Lit., Vol. 2. p. 201. FATHER, and of the SON, and of the HOLY GHOST, Amen.' And thus shall he do to every child one after another." In the next edition of the Prayer Book some alteration was made. The sign of the Cross, we regret to say, was laid aside, and the Bishop was directed merely to lay his hand upon every child severally, saying, "Defend, O LORD, this child with Thy heavenly grace, that he may continue Thine for ever, and daily increase in Thy HOLY SPIRIT more and more, until he come unto Thy everlasting kingdom. Amen." The Rubric, as amended at the last review, is worded thus, "Then all of them kneeling in order before the Bishop, he shall lay his hand upon the head of every one severally, saying, Defend, O LORD, this Thy child, or this Thy servant, &c." (The introduction of Thy before child, is significant in its bearing upon the controversy about baptismal regeneration.) The English Church, therefore, has appointed as her act of Confirmation, separate laying on of hands upon each individual, accompanied by a separate benediction, or prayer, as in the Holy Communion, thereby superseding the form of extension of hands, with a general prayer, followed by the chrism and other ceremonies. Sadly as we miss the very ancient symbol of the chrism, it is yet undeniably true, that the mode of imposition introduced into our present Office is more correct than that which had been practised before. If, as the Church has always maintained, Confirmation be alluded to, in the "laying on of hands" noticed in Hebrews vi. ; and if the same ordinance be clearly mentioned in Acts viii., it follows, that this separate imposition of hands, with prayer, is the most apostolic method of Confirmation. And it is quite clear that it was designed by the Church to correct the former practice of extension or elevation, as well as to take the place of consignation with chrism, applied to each child severally. It was not her desire to deprive any of a benefit originally enjoyed, namely, that of individual benediction and prayer. She merely wished to amend the use of an apostolic form, and even in laying aside an ancient rite, to return to one more ancient still. The theory which influenced the framers of our present Office, was the principle of the closest practicable conformity with the models of the apostolic age; so that finding Confirmation represented in Scripture as the laying on of hands," they resolved to make this imposition a real thing. If this be the true account of the Church's design in altering the rites connected with Confirmation, it becomes a matter of the greatest moment that they should be carried out with strict fidelity. Innovation in any of her ordinances, must always be attended with evil, and in the present instance, few can tell the amount of mischief it has already entailed upon us. Arising in part from the melancholy negligence of former times,* and in part from the Confirmation seems to have been greatly neglected in our Church, from the Reformation to our own day. Hooker (Vol. ii. p. 345,) laments the deep neglect |