LXVI. The ancient custom of the Church was after they had baptized, to add thereunto imposition of hands with effectual prayer for the illumination of God’s most Holy Spirit1 to confirm and perfect that which the grace of the same Spirit had already begun in baptism.
For our means to obtain the graces which God doth bestow are our prayers. Our prayers to that intent are available as well for others as for ourselves. To pray for others is to bless them for whom we pray, because prayer procureth the blessing of God upon them, especially the prayer of such as God either most respecteth for their piety and zeal that way, or else regardeth for that their place and calling bindeth them above others unto this duty as it doth both natural and spiritual fathers.
With prayers of spiritual and personal benediction the manner hath been in all ages to use imposition of hands, as a ceremony betokening our restrained desires to the party, whom we present unto God by prayer. Thus when Israel blessed Ephraim and Manasses Joseph’s sons, he imposed upon them his hands and prayed2, “God, in whose sight my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, God which hath fed me all my life long unto this day, and the Angel which hath delivered me from evil bless these children.” The prophets which healed diseases by prayer, used therein the selfsame ceremony. And therefore when Eliseus willed Naaman to wash himself seven times in Jordan for cure of his foul disease it much offended him; 3“I thought,” saith he, “with myself, surely the man will come forth and stand and call upon the name of the Lord his God, and put his hand on the place to the end he may so heal the leprosy.” In consecrations and ordinations of men unto rooms of divine calling, the like was usually done from the time of Moses to Christ4. Their suits that came unto Christ for help were also tendered oftentimes and are expressed in such forms or phrases of speech as shew that he was himself an observer of the same custom5. He which with imposition of hands and prayer did so great works of mercy for restoration of bodily health, was worthily judged as able to effect the infusion of heavenly grace into them whose age was not yet depraved with that malice which might be supposed a bar to the goodness of God towards them. They6 brought him therefore young children to put his hands upon them and pray.
After the ascension of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, that which he had begun continued in the daily practice of his Apostles, whose prayer and imposition of hands were a mean whereby thousands became partakers of the wonderful gifts of God. The Church had received from Christ a promise that such as have believed in him these signs and tokens should follow them7. “To cast out devils, to speak with tongues, to drive away serpents, to be free from the harm which any deadly poison could work, and to cure diseases by imposition of hands.” Which power, common at the first in a manner unto all believers, all believers had not power to derive or communicate unto all other men, but whosoever was the instrument of God to instruct, convert and baptize them, the gift of miraculous operations by the power of the Holy Ghost they had not but only at the Apostles’ own hands8. For which cause Simon Magus perceiving that power to be in none but them, and presuming that they which had it might sell it, sought to purchase it of them with money9.
And as miraculous graces of the Spirit continued after the Apostles’ times10; (“for,” saith Irenæus, “they which are truly his disciples do in his name and through grace received from him such works for the benefit of other men as every of them is by him enabled to work; some cast out devils, insomuch as they which are delivered from wicked spirits have been thereby won unto Christ, and do constantly persevere in the church and society of faithful men; some excel in the knowledge of things to come, in the grace of visions from God, and the gift of prophetical predictions; some by laying on their hands restore them to health which are grievously afflicted with sickness; yea there are that of dead have been made alive and have afterwards many years conversed with us. What should I say? The gifts are innumerable wherewith God hath enriched his Church throughout the world, and by virtue whereof in the name of Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate the Church every day doth many wonders for the good of nations, neither fraudulently nor in any respect of lucre and gain to herself, but as freely bestowing as God on her hath bestowed his divine graces;”) so it no where appeareth that ever any did by prayer and imposition of hands sithence the Apostles’ times make others partakers of the like miraculous gifts and graces, as long as it pleased God to continue the same in his Church, but only Bishops the Apostles’ successors for a time even in that power. St. Augustine acknowledgeth that such gifts were not permitted to last always, lest men should wax cold with the commonness of that the strangeness whereof at the first inflamed them11. Which words of St. Augustine declaring how the vulgar use of those miracles was then expired, are no prejudice to the like extraordinary graces more rarely observed in some either then or of later days.
Now whereas the successors of the Apostles had but only for a time such power as by prayer and imposition of hands to bestow the Holy Ghost, the reason wherefore confirmation nevertheless by prayer and laying on of hands hath hitherto always continued, is for other very special benefits which the Church thereby enjoyeth. The Fathers every where impute unto it that gift or grace of the Holy Ghost, not which maketh us first Christian men, but when we are made such, assisteth us in all virtue, armeth us against temptation and sin. For, after baptism administered, “there followeth,” saith Tertullian12, “imposition of hands with invocation and invitation of the Holy Ghost, which willingly cometh down from the Father to rest upon the purified and blessed bodies, as it were acknowledging the waters of baptism a fit seat.” St. Cyprian in more particular manner alluding to that effect of the Spirit which here especially was respected13, “How great,” saith he, “is that power and force wherewith the mind is here” (he meaneth in baptism) “enabled, being not only withdrawn from that pernicious hold which the world before had of it, nor only so purified and made clean that no stain or blemish of the enemy’s invasion doth remain, but over and besides” (namely through prayer and imposition of hands) “becometh yet greater, yet mightier in strength, so far as to reign with a kind of imperial dominion over the whole band of that roaming and spoiling adversary.” As much is signified by Eusebius Emisenus saying, “The Holy Ghost which descendeth with saving influence upon the waters of baptism doth there give that fulness which sufficeth for innocency, and afterwards exhibiteth in confirmation an augmentation of further grace14.” The Fathers therefore being thus persuaded held confirmation as15 an ordinance apostolic always profitable16 in God’s Church, although not always accompanied with equal largeness of those external effects which gave it countenance at the first.
The cause of severing confirmation from baptism (for most commonly they went together) was sometimes in the minister, which being of inferior degree might baptize but not confirm, as in their case it came to pass whom Peter and John did confirm, whereas Philip had before baptized them17; and in theirs of whom St. Jerome hath said18, “I deny not but the custom of the churches is that the Bishop should go abroad, and imposing his hands pray for the gift of the Holy Ghost on them whom presbyters and deacons far off in lesser cities have already baptized.” Which ancient custom of the Church St. Cyprian groundeth upon the example of Peter and John in the eighth of the Acts before alleged19. The faithful in Samaria, saith he, “had already obtained baptism: only that which was wanting Peter and John supplied, by prayer and imposition of hands to the end the Holy Ghost might be poured upon them. Which also is done amongst ourselves, when they which be already baptized are brought to the Prelates of the Church to obtain by our prayer and imposition of hands the Holy Ghost.” By this it appeareth that when the ministers of baptism were persons of inferior degree, the Bishops did after confirm whom such had before baptized.
Sometimes they which by force of their ecclesiastical calling might do as well the one as the other, were notwithstanding men whom heresy had disjoined from the fellowship of true believers. Whereupon when any man by them baptized and confirmed came afterwards to see and renounce their error, there grew in some churches very hot contention about the manner of admitting such into the bosom of the true Church, as hath been declared already in the question of rebaptization. But the general received custom was only to admit them with imposition of hands and prayer. Of which custom while some imagined the reason to be for that heretics might give remission of sins by baptism, but not the Spirit by imposition of hands because themselves had not God’s Spirit, and that therefore their baptism might stand, but confirmation must be given again: the imbecility of this ground gave Cyprian occasion to oppose himself against the practice of the Church herein, labouring many ways to prove that heretics could do neither20, and, consequently, that their baptism in all respects was as frustrate as their chrism; for the manner of those times was in confirming to use anointing21. On the other side against Luciferians which ratified only the baptism of heretics but disannulled their confirmations and consecrations under pretence of the reason which hath been before specified, “heretics cannot give the Holy Ghost,” St. Jerome proveth at large, that if baptism by heretics be granted available to remission of sins, which no man receiveth without the Spirit, it must needs follow that the reason taken from disability of bestowing the Holy Ghost was no reason wherefore the Church should admit converts with any new imposition of hands. Notwithstanding because it might be objected, that if the gift of the Holy Ghost do always join itself with true baptism, the Church, which thinketh the bishop’s confirmation after other men’s baptism needful for the obtaining of the Holy Ghost, should hold an error, St. Jerome hereunto maketh answer, that the cause of this observation is not any absolute impossibility of receiving the Holy Ghost by the sacrament of baptism unless a bishop add after it the imposition of hands, but rather a certain congruity and fitness to honour prelacy with such preeminences, because the safety of the Church dependeth upon the dignity of her chief superiors, to whom if some eminent offices of power above others should not be given, there would be in the Church as many schisms as priests22. By which answer it appeareth his opinion was, that the Holy Ghost is received in baptism; that confirmation is only a sacramental complement; that the reason why bishops alone did ordinarily confirm, was not because the benefit, grace, and dignity thereof is greater than of baptism, but rather, for that by the Sacrament of Baptism men being admitted into God’s Church, it was both reasonable and convenient that if he baptize them not unto whom the chiefest authority and charge of their souls belongeth, yet for honour’s sake and in token of his spiritual superiority over them, because to bless is an act of authority23, the performance of this annexed ceremony should be sought for at his hands. Now what effect their imposition of hands hath either after baptism administered by heretics or otherwise, St. Jerome in that place hath made no mention, because all men understood that in converts it tendeth to the fruits of repentance, and craveth in behalf of the penitent such grace as David after his fall desired at the hands of God24; in others the fruit and benefit thereof is that which hath been before shewed.
Finally sometime the cause of severing confirmation from baptism was in the parties that received baptism being infants, at which age they might be very well admitted to live in the family; but because to fight in the army of God, to discharge the duties of a Christian man, to bring forth the fruits and to do the works of the Holy Ghost their time of ability was not yet come (so that baptism were not deferred) there could by stay of their confirmation no harm ensue but rather good. For by this mean it came to pass that children in expectation thereof were seasoned with the principles of true religion before malice and corrupt examples depraved their minds, a good foundation was laid betimes for direction of the course of their whole lives, the seed of the Church of God was preserved sincere and sound, the prelates and fathers of God’s family to whom the cure of their souls belonged saw by trial and examination of them a part of their own heavy burden discharged, reaped comfort by beholding the first beginnings of true godliness in tender years, glorified Him whose praise they found in the mouths of infants, and neglected not so fit opportunity of giving every one fatherly encouragement and exhortation. Whereunto imposition of hands and prayer being added, our warrant for the great good effect thereof is the same which Patriarchs, Prophets, Priests, Apostles, Fathers and men of God have had for such their particular invocations and benedictions, as no man I suppose professing truth of religion will easily think to have been without fruit.
No, there is no cause we should doubt of the benefit, but surely great cause to make complaint of the deep neglect of this Christian duty25 almost with all them to whom by right of their place and calling the same belongeth. Let them not take it in evil part, the thing is true, their small regard hereunto hath done harm in the Church of God. That which error rashly uttereth in disgrace of good things26 may peradventure be sponged out, when the print of those evils which are grown through neglect will remain behind.
Thus much therefore generally spoken may serve for answer unto their demands that require us to tell them “why there should be any such confirmation in the Church,” seeing we are not ignorant how earnestly they have protested against it; and how directly (although untruly, for so they are content to acknowledge) it hath by some of them been said to be “first brought in by the feigned decretal epistles of the Popes:” or why it should not be “utterly abolished, seeing that no one tittle thereof can be once found in the whole Scripture,” except the epistle to the Hebrews be Scripture27: and again seeing that how free soever it be now from abuse, if we look back to the times past, which wise men do always more respect than the present, it hath been abused, and is found at the length no such profitable ceremony as the whole silly Church of Christ for the space of these sixteen hundred years hath through want of experience imagined: last of all “seeing” also besides the cruelty which is shewed towards poor country people, who are fain sometime to let their ploughs stand still, and with incredible wearisome toil of their feeble bodies to wander over mountains and through woods it may be now and then little less than a whole “half-score of miles” for a bishop’s blessing, “which if it were needful might as well be done at home in their own parishes,” rather than they to purchase it with so great loss and so intolerable pain. There are they say in confirmation besides this, three terrible points.
The first is “laying on of hands with pretence that the same is done to the example of the Apostles,” which is not only as they suppose “a manifest untruth28” (for all the world doth know that the Apostles did never after baptism lay hands on any, and therefore St. Luke which saith they did was much deceived29) but farther also we thereby teach men to think imposition of hands a sacrament, belike because it is a principle engrafted by common light of nature in the minds of men that all things done by apostolic example must needs be sacraments.
The second high point of danger is, that by “tying confirmation to the bishop alone there is great cause of suspicion given to think that baptism is not so precious a thing as confirmation:” for will any man think that a velvet coat is of more price than a linen coif, knowing the one to be an ordinary garment, the other an ornament which only sergeants at law do wear?
Finally, to draw to an end of perils, the last and the weightiest hazard is where the book itself doth say that children by imposition of hands and prayer may receive strength against all temptation: which speech as a two-edged sword doth both ways dangerously wound; partly because it ascribeth grace to imposition of hands, whereby we are able no more to assure ourselves in the warrant of any promise from God that his heavenly grace shall be given, than the Apostle was that himself should obtain grace by the bowing of his knees to God30; and partly because by using the very word strength in this matter, a word so apt to spread infection, we “maintain” with “popish” evangelists an old forlorn “distinction” of the Holy Ghost bestowed upon Christ’s Apostles before his ascension into heaven31, and “augmented” upon them afterwards32, a distinction of grace infused into Christian men by degrees, planted in them at the first by baptism, after cherished, watered, and (be it spoken without offence) strengthened as by other virtuous offices which piety and true religion teacheth, even so by this very special benediction whereof we speak, the rite or ceremony of Confirmation.
← Of the Cross in Baptism. · Contents · Of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Ch →
Footnotes
-
Tertull. de Resur. Car. [c. 8.] “Caro manus impositione adumbratur, ut et anima Spiritu illuminetur.” ↩
-
Gen. xlviii. 14. ↩
-
2 Kings v. 11. ↩
-
Num. xxvii. 18. ↩
-
Matt. ix. 18; Mark v. 23; viii. 22. ↩
-
Matt. xix. 13; Mark x. 13; Luke xviii. 15. ↩
-
Mark xvi. 17. ↩
-
Acts xix. 6. ↩
-
Acts viii. 17, 18. ↩
-
Iren. lib. ii. cap. 57. [p. 188. Διὸ καὶ ἐν τῳ̑ ἐκείνου ὀνόματι οἱ ἀληθω̑ς αὐτου̑ μαθηταὶ, παρ’ αὐτου̑ λαβόντες τὴν χάριν, ἐπιτελου̑σιν ἐπ’ εὐεργεσίᾳ τῃ̑ τω̑ν λοιπω̑ν ἀνθρώπων, καθὼς εἷς ἕκαστος αὐτω̑ν τὴν δωρεὰν εἴληϕε παρ’ αὐτου̑· οἱ μὲν γὰρ δαίμονας ἐλαυνουσι βεβαίως καὶ ἀληθω̑ς, ὥστε πολλάκις καὶ πιστεύειν αὐτοὺς ἐκείνους τοὺς καθαρισθέντας ἀπὸ τω̑ν πονηρω̑ν πνευμάτων, καὶ εἰ̑ναι ἐν τῃ̑ ἐκκλησίᾳ· οἱ δὲ καὶ πρόγνωσιν ἔχουσι τω̑ν μελλόντων, καὶ ὀπτασίας, καὶ ῥήσεις προϕητικάς· ἄλλοι δὲ τοὺς κάμνοντας διὰ τη̑ς τω̑ν χειρω̑ν ἐπιθέσεως ἰω̑νται, καὶ ὑγιει̑ς ἀποκαθιστα̑σιν· ἤδη δὲ, καθὼς ἔϕαμεν, καὶ νεκροὶ ἠγέρθησαν, καὶ παρέμειναν σὺν ἡμι̑ν ἱκανοι̑ς ἔτεσι. καὶ τί γάρ; οὐκ ἔστιν ἀριθμὸν εἰπει̑ν τω̑ν χαρισμάτων, ὠ̑ν κατὰ πάντος του̑ κόσμου ἡ ἐκκλησία παρὰ θεου̑ λαβου̑σα, ἐν τῳ̑ ὀνόματι Ἰησου̑ Χριστου̑, του̑ σταυρωθέντος ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, ἑκάστης ἡμέρας ἐπ’ εὐεργεσίᾳ τῃ̑ τω̑ν ἐθνω̑ν ἐπιτελει̑, μήτε ἐξαπατω̑σά τινας, μήτε ἐξαργυριζομένη· ὡς γὰρ δωρεὰν εἴληϕε παρὰ θεου̑, δωρεὰν καὶ διακονει̑.] ↩
-
August. de Vera Relig. cap. 25. [t. i. 763. “F. Accepimus majores nostros eo gradu fidei, quo a temporalibus ad æterna conscenditur, visibilia miracula (non enim aliter poterant) secutos esse: per quos id actum est, ut necessaria non essent posteris. Cum enim Ecclesia catholicaper totum orbem diffusa atque fundata sit, nec miracula illa in nostra tempora durare permissa sunt, ne animus semper visibilia quæreret, et eorum consuetudine frigesceret genus humanum, quorum novitate flagravit: nec jam nobis dubium esse oportet iis esse credendum, qui cum ea prædicarent quæ pauci assequuntur, se tamen sequendos populis persuadere potuerunt.”] ↩
-
Tertull. de Baptis. [c. 8. “Dehinc manus imponitur, per benedictionem advocans et invitans Spiritum Sanctum… . Tunc ille sanctissimus Spiritus super emundata et benedicta corpora libens a Patre descendit, super baptismi aquas tanquam pristinam sedem recognoscens conquiescit.” Vid. Gen. i. 2.] ↩
-
Cypr. Tract. ad Donat. c. 2. (5.) [t. i. p. 4. “Quantus hic animi potentatus! quanta vis est! non tantum ipsum esse subtractum perniciosis contactibus mundi, ut qui expiatus et purus, nulla incursantis inimici labe capiatur; sed adhuc majorem et fortiorem viribus fieri, ut in omnem adversarii grassantis exercitum imperioso jure dominetur.”] ↩
-
Euseb. Emis. Ser. de Pentec. [p. 572. par. i. tom. v. Biblioth. Patr. Colon. “Spiritus Sanctus, qui super aquas baptismi salutifero descendit illapsu, in fonte plenitudinem tribuit ad innocentiam, in confirmatione augmentum præstat ad gratiam.” Hooker, b. vi. expresses an opinion that these homilies were Salvian’s.] ↩
-
Aug. de Trin. lib. xv. cap. 26. [t. viii. 999. “Quomodo ergo Deus non est, qui dat Sp. Sanctum? Immo quantus Deus est qui dat Deum! Neque enim aliquis discipulorum ejus dedit Sp. Sanctum. Orabant quippe ut veniret in eos quibus manum imponebant, non ipsi eum dabant. Quem morem in suis Præpositis etiam nunc servat Ecclesia … ‘Unxit eum Deus Sp. Sancto.’ Non utique oleo visibili, sed dono gratiæ, quod visibili significatur unguento, quo baptizatos unguit Ecclesia … Nos accipere quidem hoc donum possumus pro modulo nostro, effundere autem super alios non utique possumus; sed ut hoc fiat, Deum super eos, a quo hoc efficitur, invocamus.”] ↩
-
Heb. vi. 2. ↩
-
Acts viii. 12-17. ↩
-
Hieron. advers. Lucif. cap. 4. (= 9.) [t. ii. p. 139. “Non abnuo hanc esse ecclesiarum consuetudinem, ut ad eos qui longe in minoribus urbibus per presbyteros et diaconos baptizati sunt, episcopus ad invocationem Sancti Spiritus manum impositurus excurrat.”] ↩
-
Cypr. Epist. 73. [c. 6. = 9.] ad Jubaianum. [t. ii. p. 202. “Baptizari eos ultra non oportebat; sed tantummodo quod deerat, id a Petro et Joanne factum est, ut oratione pro eis habita, et manu imposita, invocaretur et infunderetur super eos Spiritus Sanctus. Quod nunc quoque apud nos geritur, ut qui in Ecclesia baptizantur præpositis Ecclesiæ offerantur, et per nostram orationem ac manus impositionem Spiritum Sanctum consequantur, et signaculo Dominico consummentur.”] ↩
-
[Ep. 74. (c. 5.) ii. 213. “Cur eadem ejusdem majestas nominis non prævalet in manus impositione, quam valuisse contendunt in baptismi sanctificatione? Nam si potest quis extra Ecclesiam natus templum Dei fieri, cur non possit super templum et Spiritus Sanctus infundi? … … Qui potest apud hæreticos baptizatus Christum induere, multo magis potest Spiritum Sanctum, quem Christus misit, accipere.” et Ep. 75. (c. 18.) Firmilianus Cypriano, p. 226. “Si in nomine Christi valuit foris baptisma ad hominem purgandum, in ejusdem Christi nomine valere illic potuit et manus impositio ad accipiendum Spiritum Sanctum. Et incipient cætera quoque quæ apud hæreticos aguntur justa ac legitima videri.”] ↩
-
[Tertull. de Baptismo, c. 7. “Egressi de lavacro, perunguimur benedicta unctione de pristina disciplina, qua ungui oleo de cornu in sacerdotium solebant.” This seems to be the earliest mention of Chrism. See Bingham, Antiq. xii. 3. 2. From Tertullian’s mode of speaking, it would seem to have been then a settled and probably a general custom. And Bishop Pearson (Lect. in Act. Apost. v. 6.) considers it to have been practised immediately after the Apostles.] ↩
-
[Cap. 6. t. ii. 137. “Lucif. ‘Ego recipio laicum pœnitentem per manus impositionem et invocationem Spiritus Sancti, sciens ab hæreticis Spiritum Sanctum non posse conferri’… Orthod… . ‘Quomodo dicis, sine adventu Spiritus Sancti apud Arianos peccata posse dimitti? Quomodo antiquis sordibus anima purgatur, quæ sanctum non habet Spiritum? Neque enim aqua lavat animam, sed prius ipsa lavatur a Spiritu, ut alios lavare spiritualiter possit… Apparet, Baptisma non esse sine Spiritu Sancto … (p. 138.) Igitur si Arianus Spiritum Sanctum non potest dare, ne baptizare quidem potest: quia Ecclesiæ baptisma sine Spiritu Sancto nullum est’ … (p. 139.) Lucif. ‘An nescis etiam ecclesiarum hunc esse morem, ut baptizatis postea manus imponantur, et ita invocetur Spiritus Sanctus? … Ex quo animadvertis nos Ecclesiæ consuetudinem sequi, licet ante advocationem Spiritus constet aliquem baptizatum’… Orthod… . ‘Si hoc loco quæris, quare in Ecclesia baptizatus nisi per manus episcopi non accipiat Sp. Sanctum, quem nos asserimus in vero baptismate tribui: disce hanc observationem ex ea auctoritate descendere, quod post ascensum Domini Sp. Sanctus ad Apostolos descendit. Et multis in locis idem factitatum reperimus, ad honorem potius sacerdotii quam ad legis necessitatem … Ecclesiæ salus in summi sacerdotis dignitate pendet: cui si non exsors quædam et ab omnibus eminens detur potestas, tot in ecclesiis efficientur schismata, quot sacerdotes.’ ”] ↩
-
Heb. vii. 7. ↩
-
Psalm li. 10-12. ↩
-
[Caudry in Strype, Aylm. 89. “The Bishops themselves, for the most part, these twenty-nine years, had not observed it,” (the Book of Common Prayer) … “in not confirming of children.” Archbishop Whitgift writes, in a circular letter, Sept. 1591, “I am very sorry to hear that my brethren, the Bishops of the province of Canterbury, do so generally begin to neglect to confirm children; at least, to call for and exact both the use of it, and of the catechising children in the Church by the minister.” Strype, Whitg. iii. 289.] ↩
-
[Adm. ap. Whitg. Def. 725. “As for confirmation, as they use it by the Bishop alone to them that lack both discretion and faith, it is superstitious, and not agreeable to the word of God, but popish and peevish. We speak not of other toys used in it: and how far it differeth from the first institution, they themselves that are learned can witness.”] T. C. lib. i. p. 199. [160.] “Tell me why there should be any such confirmation in the Church, being brought in by the feigned decretal epistles of the Popes,” (this is retracted by the same T. C. lib. iii. p. 232. “That it is ancienter than the feigned decretal epistles I yield unto:”) “and no one tittle thereof being once found in the Scripture, and seeing that it hath been so horribly abused, and not necessary, why ought it not to be utterly abolished? and thirdly this confirmation hath many dangerous points in it. The first step of popery in this confirmation is the laying on of hands upon the head of the child, whereby the opinion of it that it is a sacrament is confirmed, especially when as the prayer doth say that it is done according to the example of the Apostles, which is a manifest untruth, and taken indeed from the popish confirmation. The second is for that the bishop as he is called must be the only minister of it, whereby the popish opinion which esteemeth it above baptism is confirmed. For whilst baptism may be ministered of the minister, and not confirmation but only of the bishop, there is great cause of suspicion given to think that baptism is not so precious a thing as confirmation, seeing this was one of the principal reasons whereby that wicked opinion was established in popery. I do not here speak of the inconvenience, that men are constrained with charges to bring their children oftentimes half a score miles for that which if it were needful might be as well done at home in their own parishes. The third is for that the book saith a cause of using confirmation is that by imposition of hands and prayer the children may receive strength and defence against all temptations, whereas there is no promise that by the laying on of hands upon children any such gift shall be given; and it maintaineth the popish distinction, that the Spirit of God is given at baptism unto remission of sins, and in confirmation unto strength.” [Comp. Whitg. Def. 785; T. C. iii. 232; Learned Disc. ap. Bridges, Def. of Gov. p. 806.] ↩
-
Heb. vi. 2. ↩
-
[So 2 Adm. 42. “It hath no ground out of the Scriptures at all.”] ↩
-
Acts viii. 15, 17. ↩
-
Ephes. iii. 14. ↩
-
John xx. 22. ↩
-
Acts i. 8. ↩