Confirmation.

Waiapu Church Gazette, 1 September 1910, Page 38

Confirmation.

As an outcome of the mission, we hope that many persons will be led to give m their names for the Apostolic rite of Confirmation, for surely the question will be constantly asked : " Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?" And has not Christ Himself answered the question for us when he said : "If ye love Me, keep My commandments." As Confirmation is always spoken of as the completion of -baptism, it is quite evident that none can be confirmed unless they have been previously baptized. Presuming, then, that we have been baptized, and are certain of the fact, is it God's will that we should also be confirmed ? If we take the New Testament as our guide we must undoubtedly answer: "Yes." When Philip the Deacon had preached the Kingdom of God to the Samaritans (Acts viii), and had baptized them, they were forthwith confirmed by the Apostles, S.B. Peter and John. "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 had been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost." The imperfect tenses used m the Greek for " laid " and " received " m this passage are pictorial ; they individualise ; they enable us, as it were, to see the two Apostles " confirming " the converts, one after the other, and

the converts, one after. another, rejoicing iv the reception of the Divine gift. We notice, m the careful language of the historian, the contrast between the state of those who " had only been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus," and the full possession of the blessings of renewal through the illapse of the Spirit. — / Chase s " Confirmation m the Apostolic Age."J Is it possible that there could have been anything wanting on account of their baptism having been administered by a Deacon? Certainly not, for the Church has always taught that the Sacrament of Baptism is always valid if water and the words "In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" are used, by whomsoever administered. The Church has always recognised the validity, m the case of extreme necessity, of Baptism administered by laymen. It is quite evident, therefore, that the Apostles, whilst recognising the validity of the baptism of the Samaritans by the Deacon, considered that something was needed for the "completion" of the Baptism, and sent two of their number to lay hands upon the Samaritan converts. S. Cyprian, commenting on this Apostolic confirmation, says : " What was lacking was done by Pater and John, namely that, prayer being made for them, with laying on of hands, the Holy Spirit should be invoked and poured upon them. Which now is also done among us, those baptised m the Church being brought to the Bishops of the Church, and by oirr prayer and laying on of hands they receive the Holy Ghost and are perfected m the Seal of the Lord." Confirmation, therefore, was clearly not restricted to the Apostolic age, but was continued by the Bishops. Again, we find that Confirmation was administered at Ephesus as part of Baptism by S. Paul (Acts xix), who received his doctrine "by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Surely, if S. Paul, who was taught directly by God Himself, considered that Confirmation was an integral part of Baptism, just as the Apostles taught and trained by Jesus did, we can hardly avoid the conclusion that Confirmation mustbe m accordance with the will of God. When S. Paul came to Ephesus, the great centre of Asiatic idolatry, he found "certain disciples," and forthwith asked them the very natural question : " Did you receive the Holy Ghost when you believed ? " or, as we should say: "Have you been confirmed?" The Apostle, of course, assumed that they had been baptized

as they were " disciples ; " but was anxious to know whether their Baptism had been followed by their Confirmation. When the Apostle said : " Did you receive the Holy Ghost," etc., he clearly made use of words which could only refer to a definite act and a definite time, and as (he subsequent history shows, evidently referred to receiving the Holy Gliost at the time of their Confirmation. When these " disciples" found that the baptism of S. John Baptist was not Christian Baptism, but only a symbolic and preparatory rite, they at once accepted the Christian teaching of S. Paul, and were baptized and continued. They were evidently m earnest, evidently auxious to do God's will, evidently ready to obey the teaching of Jesus Christ. "They were baptized m the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them." Wo have every reason to suppose that the examples referred to are typical of the custom and practice of the Apostles at all times and m all places. Hut can we be quite sure that this custom of the Apostles was according to the teaching of Christ? Certainly we can, and we venture to define Confirmation as "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us, ordained by Christ Himself, as a means whereby we receive the Holy Ghost, and a pledge to assure us thereof." In Hebrews vi, 1-2, Baptism and Confirmation are spoken of as two of the foundation principles of the doctrine of Christ. A doctrine of Christ is a doctrine of Christ and not a doctrine of man, and no man could invent a doctrine of Christ. And this passage clearly shows that Confirmation was regarded m the Apostolic age as one of the fundamentals of Christian doctrine. Bishop Jeremy Taylor, commenting on this passage says : " The holy rite of Confirmation is a divine ordinance, it produces divine effects, and is administered by divine persons, that is, by those whom God has sanctified and separated to this ministry. . . If it were not of divine institution, S. Paul (sic) m Hebrews vi, 1-2 had been guilty of that which our Blessed Saviour reproves m the Scribes and Pharisees, and should have taught for doctrines the commandments of men." But when did Jesus teach His Apostles about Confirmation ? If we read the first three verses of the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, we shall find that during the great

" Forty Days," Jesus was giving commandments unto the Apostles whom He had chosen, and speaking " the things concerning the Kingdom of God." And if we read the concluding words of the Gospel according to S. Matthew we shall find that Jesus not only sent out His Church to " disciple" and baptize all the nations, but added the significant command, " teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And 10, I am with you all the days even unto the end of the age." He first gave commandments unto the Apostles, and then sent them out to teach their converts to observe these commandments. How can we possibly know what these commandments were except by noting carefully what the Apostles subsequently taught and practised. They certainly taught and practised Confirmation, and therefore we conclude that Confirmation must have been one of those commandments taught to the Apostles by Jesus during these " forty days." We can easily understand, then, how it came to be classed among the fundamentals of the doctrine of Christ. But could they not possibly have made a mistake ? How could they make a mistake m such an important matter as this, when Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to guide them " into all the truth" and to bring to their remembrance all that He had said unto them? Next month we hope to discuss some of the popular mistakes about Confirmation. In the meantime, let. us think seriously over the question: " Did ye receive the Holy Ghost when ye believed? "