Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 2 of 2)
SECTION 35.01
Confirmation. - Reading 01
CONFIRMATION.
IV. It was an ancient custom in the Church for the children of Christians, after they were come to years of discretion, to be presented to the bishop in order to fulfil that duty which was required of adults who offered themselves to baptism. For such persons were placed among the catechumens, till, being duly instructed in the mysteries of Christianity, they were enabled to make a confession of their faith before the bishop and all the people. Therefore those who had been baptized in their infancy, because they had not then made such a confession of faith before the Church, at the close of childhood, or the commencement of adolescence, were again presented by their parents, and were examined by the bishop according to the form of the catechism which was then in common use. That this exercise, which deserved to be regarded as sacred and solemn, might have the greater dignity and reverence, they also practised the ceremony of imposition of hands. Thus the youth, after having given satisfaction respecting his faith, was dismissed with a solemn benediction. This custom is frequently mentioned by the ancient writers. Leo, the pope, says, “If any one be converted from heresy, let him not be baptized again; but let the influence of the Spirit, which he wanted among the heretics, be communicated to him by the imposition of the hands of the bishop.” Here our adversaries will exclaim that any ceremony, by which the Holy Spirit is conferred, is properly denominated a sacrament. But the meaning of Leo in these words is sufficiently unfolded by himself in another place: “Whoever is baptized among heretics, let him not be rebaptized; but let him be confirmed by imposition of hands with invocation of the Holy Spirit; because he has received the mere form of baptism, without the sanctification.” It is also mentioned by Jerome against the Luciferians. And though I confess that Jerome is not altogether correct in stating it to have been a custom of the apostles, yet he is very far from the absurdities now maintained by the Romanists; and he even corrects that very statement by adding, that this benediction was committed wholly to the bishops, “rather in honour of the priesthood than from necessity imposed by any law.” Such imposition of hands, therefore, as is simply connected with benediction, I highly approve, and wish it were now restored to its primitive use, uncorrupted by superstition.
V. Succeeding times have almost obliterated that ancient
practice, and introduced I know not what counterfeit confirmation
as a sacrament of God. They have pretended that the
virtue of confirmation is to give the Holy Spirit for the augmentation
of grace, who in baptism is given for innocence; to
strengthen for warfare those who in baptism had been regenerated
to life. This confirmation is performed by unction
and the following form of 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
Spirit.” All this sounds very beautifully and pleasantly. But
where is the word of God which promises the presence of the
Holy Spirit in this ceremony? They cannot allege a single iota.
How, then, will they assure us that their chrism is the vessel
of the Holy Spirit? We see oil, a thick and viscid liquid, and
we see nothing besides. Augustine says, “Let the word be
added to the element, and it will become a sacrament.” Let the
Romanists produce this word, if they wish us to contemplate
in the oil any thing beyond the oil itself. If they acknowledged
themselves ministers of the sacraments, as they ought to do,
there would be no need of any further contention. The first
law of a minister is to undertake nothing without a command.
Now, let them produce any command for this service, and I will
not add another word on the subject. If they have no command,
they can have no excuse for such sacrilegious audacity.
On the same principle, our Lord interrogated the Pharisees:
“The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or of
men?” [1367]
VI. They defend themselves, indeed, by the example of the
apostles, whom they consider as having done nothing without
sufficient reason. This consideration is correct; nor would
they receive any reprehension from us, if they showed themselves
imitators of the apostles. But what was the practice of
the apostles? Luke relates, that “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.” [1368] [1369]