Part Three · Sources and Rationale of the Offices

Chapter XI

OCCASIONAL OFFICES:
BAPTISM, INSTRUCTION, AND CONFIRMATION

§ 1

The Baptismal Liturgy

The rites of initiation into the Christian Church offer some significant parallels to the eucharistic Liturgy. In the traditional view of the Church, both the “Great Sacraments” claim immediate institution by our Lord, assert his authority for their continued observance, and embody definite forms of words attributed to him. Both display the fixed procedure of a distinctive Rite, uniform in essentials throughout the world, attested in the earliest Christian writers, and even to some extent recognizable in the New Testament accounts.

Indeed a fully developed structure of the baptismal order receives rather earlier and wider attestation than that of the Eucharist. Moreover, this Baptismal Liturgy, as it has every right to be called, has on the whole been less subject to accretions and innovations than the Communion. Hence to this day it is inherently the same in all branches of the historic Church, and very little altered anywhere from what it is known to have been at the beginning of the third century, and what it may have been much earlier.

Just as in the case of the Eucharist, of late the ultimate origins of the baptismal rites have been the subject of somewhat searching criticism. The results of that investigation, so far, are somewhat disconcerting to traditional views, and may of course be disregarded by those satisfied with those views, and content to rest their conceptions of the nature of the Sacrament upon the primâ facie evidence of the plain statements of the New Testament as it stands, before these critical methods are applied to that evidence. The following inquiry is submitted to the judgment of the reader as a specimen of inquiries which are still being pursued, and which further discussion may modify.

§ 2

In the New Testament

In the Hebrew religion, there were many rites which we call ceremonial ablutions, but which the Jew believed to be immediately effectual,¹ with no merely “symbolic” meaning, and with no contrast between ceremonial and moral purity. Of these rites, perhaps the most striking was the Baptism of Proselytes—a self-administered bath of purification among the ceremonies of initiation into the family of Israel.

It was this rite which was adopted in the “revival” of John the Baptist. In effect he told the complaisant orthodox Jews that they were apostate by their sins, so that like the despised Gentiles they needed to renounce their old status and embrace a new one, by a comprehensive act of purification of the whole man.

It seems probable that this act, like the Baptism of Proselytes, was in most cases self-administered: that the candidates immersed themselves in the Jordan in his presence.² And while the immediate effect of this baptism was the “forgiveness of sins,” it was also a regeneration, an initiation into a new life and a new fellowship. This baptism and his “church” did not cease with the coming of Christ. This explains the fact that Christianity did not regard Baptism as a purification which might be repeated, but as an entering upon a new status for life.

Both the Synoptics and the Acts are silent as to any use of Baptism during our Lord’s ministry. Acts 1:5 picks up Mark 1:8 precisely, pointing to Pentecost as the beginning of the distinctively Christian rite. Against this we find standing alone the statement of John 4:1–2, that “Jesus baptized more disciples than John,” with the qualification “though Jesus baptized not, but his disciples.”

The question of a direct institution of Christian Baptism by our Lord, which was asserted with such confidence by all parties at the Reformation, is now somewhat under a cloud, with the reluctance of modern critics to adduce the Fourth Gospel in evidence, and with the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 also defended by few. Yet the explicit statement of John 4:1–2 may still be correct; and certainly something of the nature of the discourse on Baptism in John 3 seems required to explain the Church’s unhesitating adoption of the fundamental rite of Christian initiation. Underlying these passages, there may well be a genuine tradition of some definite instruction by the Lord.

It seems certain that Christian Baptism at the first was at least in some cases self-administered, exactly as its Jewish antecedents were. The reflexive form of the verb is used unmistakably in the Greek of Acts 22:16, and 1 Corinthians 1:11 and 10:2. The “three thousand” on the day of Pentecost would hardly have been immersed individually by the Apostles; it is more probable that this was a group baptism like the multitudes of John’s followers.³ St. Paul seldom administered Baptism in person;⁴ and we have seen that the testimony of the Fourth Gospel as to the practice of Jesus is along the same lines.

Hence the action of an official “minister” appears to have been no more essential then for Baptism than it is now for Marriage.⁵ The function of the officiant in both cases may be described as supervising the due performance of the voluntary actions of the individuals concerned before proper witnesses. The fact that lay Baptism is recognized in the Church, though lay celebration of the Eucharist is not, may have its origin in these primitive circumstances.

It further appears that the only “Form” of the administration of Baptism was the declaration of faith proclaimed by the candidate. Apparently for Jewish converts this was the affirmation, “Jesus is Lord.”⁶ The accession of Gentiles brought in a Trinitarian formula, which left its mark on Matthew 28:19, and ultimately became standard in the Church; we find it complete in the Didaché⁷ and Justin Martyr.⁸

Originally, the Christian Initiation was normally designed for the admission of adult converts on profession of their faith. Yet the example of the Jewish reception of the whole families of proselytes, and the repeated mention of the baptism of the “households” of Cornelius, Lydia, Stephanas, and the Jailor at Philippi, as well as the lack of any negative evidence in the entire history of the Church, make it an undeniable inference that from the beginning infants were thus brought within the Christian Covenant.

Jewish baptisms required complete submersion, forbidding even rings and hairpins as preventing entire contact with the cleansing waters. Immersion was certainly the normal mode of Christian Baptism. St. Paul found in it a secondary symbolism of the Christian’s burial and resurrection with Christ.⁹ Yet as the primary meaning was that of a rite of purification, the essential symbolism could be carried out with any amount of water, however small, which was available. The “three thousand” baptisms on Pentecost would seem to offer practical difficulties. Certainly early in the following century, the Didaché explicitly allows affusion if immersion is impracticable;¹⁰ and all the pictorial representations of Baptism, which show affusion, with or without partial immersion, reflect the subsequent practice of the Church.

The mode of administration very early acquired another ceremony from current custom. At this period, immersion in a bath was always preceded and followed by an anointing of the body with oil. All ancient baptismal rites both Eastern and Western have always had this dual anointing before and after Baptism: indeed, in all of them the post-baptismal Unction has overshadowed the laying on of hands as the ceremony of Confirmation. Now necessary actions in connection with sacred rites always tend to become ceremonies, invested with mystical interpretations. The act of anointing, originally as purely utilitarian as the corresponding modern use of soap and cold-cream, became aligned with the Jewish ritual unctions at the consecration of prophets, priests, and kings.¹¹ This use is unmistakable as early as the year 180;¹² and there remains the possibility that the primarily spiritual expressions in the New Testament about anointing and “sealing” may reflect an already emergent ritual practice.¹³

But if the anointing was in some way integral to the baptismal ceremonies, as soon as they settled into a fixed rite, there is more difficulty about the other ceremony of laying on of hands, which we find associated with Baptism in the New Testament in ways which are not altogether clear or consistent with each other. This action was the accustomed Jewish rite for transmitting divine power; its function in Christian use was to convey a special impartation of the Holy Spirit. But while in Acts 19:1–6 we have an instance of the laying on of hands continuously with Baptism administered by an Apostle, and in 8:14–17 as an apostolic act supplementing a previous Baptism by a Deacon, in 9:17–18 and 10:47 this action, and the gift of the Spirit, precedes the Baptism. According to the Lucan theory, then, this rite conveys the Spirit only, Baptism cleanses only, and they might be administered in either order. Against this stands the Pauline and Johannine postulate that the Spirit is given in Baptism.¹⁴ This latter, in fact, is the rationale which appears in all the Church’s baptismal liturgies from the beginning. But while the Church in practice conformed to the custom recorded in the Acts that Baptism should normally be supplemented with “Confirmation,” it did not require Confirmation for any of the rights of membership, but in theory aligned it with Ordination, as a particular enabling gift and grace for a sort of lay priesthood.

§ 3

The Third Century

At the beginning of the third century we have copious attestations of baptismal customs from St. Cyprian and Tertullian, embodying almost everything known in subsequent rituals. Even more important, the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus furnishes us with a complete basic order of the Baptismal Liturgy in use in Rome at the beginning of the century, in substantial agreement with the North African use just mentioned, with the witness of St. Cyril of Jerusalem in 347, and with customs Eastern and Western to the present day.¹⁵

By this time, the new institution of the Catechumenate had grown up. There are no traces of this in the New Testament; then all applicants had been immediately accepted on expression of their faith and desire; but under the stress of persecution without and inconstancy within, the Church had been compelled to safeguard its holy mysteries and to assure the character of its membership by imposing a period of probation, during which careful instruction was imparted to the candidates.

According to the Apostolic Tradition, the candidates had to apply for enrolment as Catechumens; each vouched for by a Sponsor; and those in occupations inconsistent with the Christian profession must abandon them. A probationary period of three years was suggested, to be shortened at discretion. During this time the Catechumens were admitted as “Hearers” to the preliminary part of the eucharistic Liturgy, being dismissed before the Gospel¹⁶ after an instruction, with a prayer of blessing and imposition of hands. As the stated time of Baptism drew near, their conduct during their probation was subject to review; and those who were acceptable were enrolled for the period of intensive instruction. Hippolytus calls them those “set apart.”¹⁷ Thenceforth throughout the Lenten season there was daily instruction, with imposition of hands and exorcism.

Finally on Maundy Thursday the candidates made their preparations; fasted on Good Friday; and assembled on the morning of Saturday for the concluding prayers, imposition of hands, exorcism, exsufflation,¹⁸ and instruction. They were told to bring their offerings to the eucharist of the Easter Vigil that night.

After the Lections of the Vigil Eucharist, at cockcrow toward the dawn of Easter morning the baptismal water was blessed; and the Bishop said an exorcism over one quantity of oil, and a “thanksgiving” over another. The candidates removed their clothing. Each made a renunciation of Satan, all his servants, and all his works; and the Presbyter anointed him with the “exorcised oil,” with a final sentence of exorcism. All the candidates descended into the water, accompanied by a Deacon. The chief officiant put his hand on the head of each, demanding his assent to each of the three clauses of an interrogative Creed, and on receiving each assent, immersed him. Evidently this is a transition-form from the self-baptism which we have seen to have been the original form, to a clerical administration of the rite; but there is still no other “Form” than the candidate’s profession.¹⁹

Ascending from the font, each was anointed by the presbyter with the “Oil of Thanksgiving,”²⁰ dried and clothed, and brought into the church to the Bishop, who laid his hand on their heads, saying:

O Lord God, who hast vouchsafed these persons to be worthy to obtain remission of sins through the laver of regeneration of the Holy Spirit, bestow upon them thy grace, that they may serve thee according to thy will; for thine is the glory, etc.

Then each was anointed on the forehead with the “Oil of Thanksgiving” in the name of the Trinity, and signed with the sign of the Cross. The Prayer of the Faithful, Kiss of Peace, and offering of the Eucharist now followed. At the end of the Canon, water, milk, and honey were blessed, to be received by the newly baptized between the two species of their first communion.

§ 4

The Seventh Century

The “Gelasian” Sacramentary at the end of the seventh century furnishes a developed form of this rite already established in the third. The enrolment of prospective candidates had become a formal service “for Making a Catechumen,” consisting of exsufflation, naming and signing, prayer and imposition of hands, and the giving of salt²¹ to symbolize the “wisdom” of the instructions to follow.

The intensive preparation consisted of six Masses of “Scrutiny,” as they were called, held from the third to the fifth weeks in Lent.²² In these, after the Collect of the day, the Godparents signed the candidate; this being followed by signing, prayer, imposition of hands, and exorcism by the Acolytes, and the same without exorcism by the Priest; concluding with another signing by the Godparents. As in the time of Hippolytus, the Catechumens were dismissed before the Gospel.

At the third Scrutiny the hitherto reserved instruction on the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the liturgical Gospel was imparted to the candidates: the communication of the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer being accompanied by the ancient Roman ceremony of the “Opening of the Ears,” wherein the Deacons in solemn procession brought in the book of the four Gospels, reading and expounding the introductory passages of each.

The seventh and final Scrutiny was held at 9 a.m. on Easter Eve. This time the Priest himself signed, imposed hands, and exorcised. Then followed the peculiar Roman touching of ears and nostrils with saliva, known as the Effeta (Ephphatha, cf. Mark 7:34).²³ The preliminary unction with holy oil was reduced to an anointing of breast and back. This was succeeded by a triple renunciation of Satan, and by the reddition of the Creed inculcated at the third Scrutiny—theoretically by the candidates, but actually performed by the Priest, laying his hands on their heads successively.

After the Lections of the Vigil Mass that night, the water was blessed with long and imposing ceremonies. After the triple profession of faith in response to the interrogative Creed, Baptism was administered by triple immersion. The Priest then anointed the candidates with chrism, in a version of precisely the same prayer as Hippolytus gave for the Bishop’s “Confirmation.” Clothed in white robes and brought into the church, the Bishop laid his hands upon them with a doublet of this Confirmation Prayer,²⁴ enumerating the recital of the sevenfold gifts of the Spirit, and anointed them with chrism. Then followed the Easter communion, succeeded by the gift of milk and honey.

It will be noted that although by the seventh century the Catechumenate was really obsolete, most baptisms being those of children, yet the whole structure of the service remained unchanged, and the infants were treated throughout as if they were adults, the Godparents, by a legal fiction, assuming responsibility for them.

§ 5

The Sarum Rite

Immediately before the Reformation, the service was still on the ancient basis. Baptism was not confined to the paschal season, however, and the whole ceremony was conducted at a single session. The introduction to the Sarum service was still called “The Order for Making a Catechumen,” and began symbolically at the church door. It consisted of the same elements as in the seventh century; but the ceremonies of the old Scrutinies were reduced to signing, prayers, and exorcism performed by the Acolytes and repeated by the Priest. The “Opening of the Ears” left as its vestige the reading of a Gospel (Matt. 19:13–15). It was followed by the Effeta, and by the “redditions” represented by the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer, Hail Mary, and Creed, by the Priest and Godparents. Then the child was signed, blessed, and carried into the church.

At the Font, the triple Renunciation was made;²⁵ followed by the anointing on breast and back, and the triple Profession of Faith in response to an interrogative Creed still retaining its primitive summary form. After the Baptism by triple immersion, the child was signed with chrism, clothed in the “chrysom” or white robe, and given a taper.²⁶ The service concluded with an Exhortation to the Godparents.

Confirmation, at this period usually a separate rite, was in the same form as in “Gelasian” times.

§ 6

Anglican Services Before the Last Revision

The Administration of Public Baptism in 1549 kept the outlines of the Sarum ceremonial intact, omitting only the exsufflation, salt, acolytes’ exorcism, Effeta, Hail Mary, and the first anointing. The German orders contributed the explanatory and hortatory addresses to the people, and suggested the substitution of Mark 10:13–16 for the old Gospel. The Interrogatory Creed was given in full instead of in summary, but in a paraphrase independent of the form in Mattins. A Blessing of the Font, for use as needed, was appended to the service. It seems to have been derived from some “Gallican” source not now extant, since it does not quite coincide either with the Mozarabic rite or the Missale Gallicanum. It consisted of a prayer for the benediction of the water, followed by eight of the sixteen Mozarabic suffrages for the candidates, with an effect something like a little Litany, concluding with a summary Collect.

The Second Prayer Book, under Continental pressure, abolished nearly all the remaining “pictorial” ceremonies—the exorcism, imposition of hands, chrysom, and anointing. It rather neatly transferred the Signing with the Cross to the place and office of the baptismal Unction, thus removing the needless doublet of the Confirmation prayer and ceremony. The “Reddition” of the Creed disappeared, as the Creed now occurred in full in the interrogative form. The Lord’s Prayer also was transferred to begin a new section of Thanksgiving at the end, on the analogy of like changes made in the Communion Office in the same book. The text of the order for the Blessing of the Font was incorporated into the service after the Interrogations, excising from it however the initial prayer for the blessing of the water, and half the remaining eight Suffrages. This left both Suffrages and Collect devoted to sole reference to the candidates, and coming in with really admirable continuity of thought in connection with the preceding Baptismal Vows.

In 1662 a phrase for the blessing of the water was inserted into the Collect. A fourth Interrogation as to intention to live according to God’s Commandments was inserted, taken from the Catechism. This Book also reverted to primitive principles by instituting a special office for the Baptism of Adults. Naturally this was modeled on the current service for infants, from which it differed only in a special Gospel, some proper matter in the Exhortations, and the addressing of the Interrogations to the candidate rather than the sponsors.

The first American Prayer Book of 1789 made mutual alternatives out of the first two prayers of the service, since they had been left in direct sequence and apparent duplication by the removal of the Sign of the Cross after the first one in 1552. The prayer and exhortation before the Interrogations were dropped outright; and the Gospel and the following exhortation, and the Suffrages after the Interrogations, might be omitted at discretion, provided they were said once a month! The Sign of the Cross might be omitted if requested by the family; a permission which quieted an old controversy quite painlessly, as there does not seem to be any case on record where such request was made.

The revision of 1892 restored the omitted prayer and exhortation, but as before allowed the service to be abbreviated by passing from the first prayer to the Interrogations, and from thence to the Blessing of the Font.

The only other important variant introduced by these American books was the substitution of the question, “Dost thou believe all the Articles of the Christian Faith, as contained in the Apostles’ Creed?” for the paraphrased interrogative Creed of the English orders. This completed the elimination from the baptismal service of the recitation of the Creed, whose prime origin had been as a baptismal profession of faith.

§ 7

Private Baptism, and Other Makeshift Orders

To this situation before the last revision must be added the fact that this portion of the Prayer Book was cluttered with ill-considered forms and directions for private baptism at home in case of emergency, for the reception in church of those so baptized, and for combinations of baptisms, receptions, and of the offices for infants and adults.

The provisions for emergency baptism in 1549 were taken straight out of the Saxon Agenda, without regard to the quite different rationale of the normal English office of Public Baptism. Those present were directed to “call upon God for his grace”—apparently extemporaneously—say the Lord’s Prayer, then name and christen the child. It advised as many “Collects” as possible from the office of Public Baptism, and appended the Thanksgiving. It extended the use of emergency baptism to adults; and specified that in that case the Interrogations should be put to the candidate before he was baptized.

If the child to whom private baptism had been administered in apparent danger of death survived, it was to be brought to the church to be received, and the omitted portions of the rite supplied. The text of this supplementary service was given in full, but treated in a desultory manner—it was never brought up to date and into conformity with the public office in any given revision. The Prayer Book of 1549 had an extended but rather inquisitive inquiry into the circumstances of the private baptism, resulting in a public certification that what had been done was well done; followed by the baptismal Gospel and its exhortations, Lord’s Prayer and Creed, Interrogations, gift of chrysom (though not Unction, which was the one supplement one might have expected at this date), the prayer “Almighty and everlasting God, heavenly Father,” transferred from its place after the Creed in default of any other Thanksgiving, and the final Exhortations. 1552 dropped the Creed and chrysom, but did not insert the new Thanksgiving nor the Sign of the Cross from the public office, nor alter the position of the Lord’s Prayer, which remained in its 1549 place in Private Baptism through the book of 1892! 1662 added the Sign of the Cross, and the Thanksgiving with its Bidding; but a printers’ misunderstanding of Cosin’s copy curtailed the final Exhortation.²⁷ The American books filled up the latter; allowed the Priest to pass from the Certification to the Interrogations (omitting Gospel, Exhortation, and Lord’s Prayer); and permitted the reception of one child in combination with the baptism of another—entailing some real confusion of reference and inappropriateness of tenses.

The American books further attempted to give a consolidated order for the combined baptism of infants and adults, consisting of the first Exhortation from the Adult matter, one of the two first prayers, the Interrogations first for adults and then for infants (omitting therefore even the prayer for the Blessing of the Font), the remaining prayers, and the final respective Exhortations, one after the other.

§ 8

The American Baptismal Rite of 1928

All this accumulated confusion, disharmony, and complicated rubric demanded a thoroughgoing revision more than any other part of the Prayer Book. Few clergy understood all the intricacies of the matter; and, faced with any unusual combination, did not try to tread the maze themselves, but fell back upon some such compilation as the Priest’s Prayer Book to straighten out the tangle, leaving the congregation to follow as best it might.

The revision reduced all the tangled baptismal orders to one straightforward scheme, whether for infants and adults, or both, without confusion on the part of any one who could read; shortened at the points where it was really redundant, namely the homiletical Exhortations, so that there would be no excuse for abbreviating it by omitting parts integral to its structure; consolidated the scattered rubrics to bring the Church’s requirements in intelligible form into a prominent position where they could not be ignored; and reduced the orders for Emergency Baptism and Reception to such conformity with the main office that all that was needed to use them was a single directive rubric.

The result was outstandingly skilful and successful, the most minute collation of the rubrics being marked, especially, by masterly discrimination, economy, and finesse. There was no attempt (as, broadly speaking, there was no need) to go back of the provisions of 1892. There was no question at this late date of restoring the old “pictorial” ceremonies; however ancient some of them may be, however significant to those accustomed to their use, none were in the least essential to the rite, or desirable to be reintroduced. From a practical point of view, virtually all the changes in the structure of the service since 1549 have been actual improvements.

The only revival of an archaic feature was the restoration of “The Lord be with you” from 1549 before the Blessing of the Font. This is now followed (as also in the English and Scottish books) by the Sursum Corda, with a corresponding modification of the beginning of the prayer. By this means the whole has been brought into line with the solemn benediction of the Font in the ancient liturgy of the Easter Vigil, from which it was ultimately derived. This prayer now constitutes the only example we possess, outside the Communion Office, of a “eucharistic” or preface-form prayer, such as the Latin rite freely employs for the greater benedictions.

The first of the two prayers at the beginning of the service was now omitted. So likewise was the permission to leave out the Sign of the Cross. This permission had served its purpose, as all objection to the ceremony seems to be extinct.

Those accustomed to the office of the Baptism of Infants prior to 1928 not unnaturally miss some of the beautiful phrases of the first Exhortation, and of that following the Gospel. But these are precisely the portions where the services for infants and adults necessarily diverged; and by their combination into one order they inevitably eliminated each other. As for the Exhortations for adults, this was small loss.

The Interrogations were increased to six in both cases, by casting the effective substance of the former final Exhortation for infants into two personal promises by the sponsors, and by interpolating two distinctly evangelical acts of faith in Jesus, and intention to accept and follow him as Saviour and Lord, for the use of adults.²⁸

Three alternative Gospels were provided, one from each of the old orders, and one suitable to a combined baptism. The Doxology was most appropriately appended to the Lord’s Prayer—as Wren had intended to do in 1662.²⁹ And a new proper Benediction was added, summarized from Ephesians 3:14–19.

§ 9

Rubrics and Use of the Baptismal Service

It was certainly high time that the present initial rubric on p. 273, directing that the clergy should “often admonish the People, that they defer not the Baptism of their Children,” was rescued from the relative obscurity of the office of Private Baptism: since in this country in the present age there is manifest a considerable carelessness, often an absolute indifference, toward what is certainly a primary duty of Christian parents.³⁰

It was also a gain to have brought to a like prominence the rule against baptisms at home except in emergency. Baptism is a corporate act of the Church, not the expression of the whim of individuals. Children should be brought to the church, to be received by the congregation, instead of being subjected to the too common abuse of submerging a sacred rite in a social function.

It is likewise advisable, as the rubric intimates, that Baptism, when practicable, be solemnly performed at a principal service on a Sunday—the alternative of Holy-Days having ceased to mean much, except for Easter Even. All the recent books indeed leave it to the discretion of the Minister to appoint other days and times. But mere convenience should not be the sole guide; suitable opportunities should be embraced to administer the Sacrament in the presence of a general congregation.

The present rule as to the number and sex of the Godparents has prevailed since 1662. In ancient times, one Sponsor, of the same sex as the candidate, was required for admission to the Catechumenate, another at Baptism, and yet another at Confirmation; and the Church displayed considerable reluctance to admit more than one at any of these junctures. Thus our three Godparents at Baptism are a reminiscence of the old triple sponsorial system. The three were considered a normal maximum; there was hardly need for the American books, in the face of missionary conditions, to be apologetic about it with the qualification “when they can be had.” But as the provision exists, parents should be encouraged to fill up the whole number of Godparents to which their children are entitled. The ancient ban on parents’ occupying the position of sponsors was reenacted as recently as 1603 in England; but the American books abrogated it from the first, the Convocation of Canterbury followed suit informally in 1865, and all the recent revisions of the Prayer Book have done the like. Another provision of the 29th Canon of 1603, that sponsors must be communicants of the Church, is grounded in reason, and may profitably be observed in America; though neither our canons nor rubrics so specify.

The requirement of a minimum of two “Witnesses” of an adult Baptism comes from the Scottish rite, and characterizes all recent revisions. There is more than a hint of the discipline of the old Catechumenate in the other directions for an adult Baptism, prescribing ample prior notice, instruction, and preparation by prayers and fasting.

Both text and rubric still treat Immersion as the normal and primary method of Baptism, though actual instances of its use are exceedingly rare. Responsibility for choosing the mode was placed upon the Godparents in 1662; and the American books have always treated the two methods as simple alternatives.

The regulations for Private Baptism expressly indicate that in cases of sudden emergency when a clergyman cannot be procured, any baptized person may validly administer the Sacrament. This is a reversion to the general consensus of the Primitive Church, which, after some outspoken controversies, came to the realization that as Baptism is the sole gate of the Church, that gate must be made as wide as possible, and open to the knock of any one at any time. The Roman doctrine is that any human being may so officiate—a Jew, a Turk, an infidel soldier, an atheist doctor—any one who knows that this is a rite for admitting one to the Christian Church—provided he uses the appointed matter and form. For our purposes, there was no need to explore the extreme limits of these possibilities; but the new permission rescinded the action of 1604, which restricted emergency baptism to “the Minister of the Parish, (or, in his absence, any other lawful Minister that can be procured).” The Bishops at the Savoy Conference accepted this restriction on the insistence of the Presbyterian party, who in this instance as in many others showed themselves to be more sacerdotalist than the historic Church of the land. The other recent revisions also now extend the ministration of Baptism in necessity to any one present.

The provisions for Conditional Baptism furnish a form for use when there is “reasonable doubt” as to valid matter and form having been employed in a former purported administration of the Sacrament. Since Baptism is of prime importance, and since the assurance of all other Sacraments subsequently conferred depends upon it, the conditional form should always be used in the reception of persons baptized in other communions, if there appears any question, even the slightest, of the fact or the manner of their Baptism. But there is little ground for copying the custom of Rome, which, in actual practice if not in theory, is content to acknowledge the certainty of no ministrations but its own, and requires the conditional baptism of all converts whatever.

§ 10

The Offices of Instruction

Catechesis is as old as the Christian Faith. Its essential meaning is mouth-to-ear instruction. In the time of St. Augustine, and of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, this was in the form of lectures. The term Catechism however was first applied to the Interrogations of the Baptismal Office. By the time of the Reformation this application to the ritual examination in the essentials of the preparatory instruction was extended to the method of teaching by approved answers to set questions.

We have seen that the Catechumenate was originally a preparation for the baptism of adult converts. With the growth of infant baptism, the grounding in Christian principles necessarily came after baptism. It was not, as at present, a specific preparation for Confirmation (which, as we shall see, was generally administered immediately after infant baptism until the thirteenth century), so much as a general instruction of the whole congregation. From the eighth century on, the English clergy were repeatedly enjoined to teach their people the substance of Christian faith and practice, on the basis of the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments.

German Protestant influence led Cranmer to adopt the principle of Confirmation at “years of discretion.” This had been increasingly advocated by Catholics on the Continent for the preceding three hundred years, but apparently without affecting English practice appreciably. The innovation was now justified at some length in the argumentative rubrics of the office of “Confirmation, wherein is contained a Catechism for Children.”

This Catechism was proposed as the basis for a public examination of candidates for Confirmation before that service, and also as the groundwork of instruction to be held at least every six weeks, in the half-hour before Evensong.³¹ It was by no means intended as a complete summary of divinity, but quite explicitly as an interpretation of the Baptismal Vows, which were now conceived as being ratified propriâ personâ at Confirmation. The traditional instruction of the congregation induced the inclusion of the Decalogue here, righteousness of life being a necessary implication of the Christian profession; and this in turn, as we have seen, produced in 1662 an explicit Baptismal Vow to correspond. Presbyterian demands for a fuller schedule of teaching resulted in the addition of the matter on the Sacraments in 1604. The Convocation of Canterbury in 1887 proposed a further exposition on the Church and the Ministry. This was not adopted by the Upper House; but, with judicious amendments and condensations, it was incorporated in the Office of Instruction of the American revision of 1928.

The new Offices of Instruction thus contain the old Catechism, with minimum additions to cover some other essential matters which “every Christian ought to know and believe to his soul’s health.” The straight catechetical material has however been incorporated into a public service of worship, which is not addressed at all to children as such, but to a general congregation. Such in fact is the intention: parents and sponsors being directed not to “send,” but to “bring,” the children, and hence to stay and participate with them in the Church’s teaching.

The only substantial omission from the old Catechism was that crux infantium, the “I desire.” It can hardly be denied that the Lord’s Prayer needs careful explanation to young children: but it has long been abundantly clear that the Catechism’s paraphrase of that Prayer left much to be desired for such an explanation.

It was the intention of the Revision Commission to present the new Offices of Instruction not merely in part to supplement, but absolutely to supplant the Catechism. This proposal however met with some resistance; with the result that while the new Offices were adopted in the body of the Prayer Book, the old Catechism was also retained in an appendix, and Canon 21 was left unaltered. Literally construed, it would seem that the Church Catechism is still the legal standard and method of instruction.

Comparing other Reformation Catechisms, it may be said that no other conveys so much in so little space. The content of the Anglican syllabus of instruction is eminently sound and practical. Modern pedagogical theories seem inclined to take issue with the old methods of its inculcation. But if it is approached by an inductive method, and not taught by rote until it is to some extent understood, these objections will lose much of their force. Moreover, some hundreds of years of practice have qualified the Church to maintain that some of the newest psychologies do not give enough weight to the value of a “form of sound words” written indelibly on the mind, and waxing in meaning with ripening experience.

§ 11

Confirmation

We have seen that both in the New Testament and the early Church, Confirmation normally followed immediately upon the rite of Baptism, as its complement and consummation. This remained true down to late medieval times in the West, Confirmation being separated from Baptism only when a Bishop was not available, regardless of the age of the candidate. In the East, where the right of administering Confirmation has everywhere been conceded to priests, to this day infants are confirmed directly after they have been baptized, in a single ceremony.

The Council of the Lateran in 1215 seems to have been the first to indicate Confirmation for the “years of discretion”—which Roman practice has interpreted as the “years of reason,” i.e. normally not earlier than seven, though not later than twelve. But this does not seem to have penetrated England to any real extent before the Reformation. The Sarum rite directed that children should be presented to the Bishop at the first available opportunity after their baptism; and Archbishop Cranmer baptized and confirmed Queen Elizabeth at the age of three days. The idea of Confirmation as a responsible act of the candidates, and a rite to be administered only to those who had memorized the Catechism, was, as we have shown, an innovation.

The English canons intimate that Confirmation may be administered at twelve, and require it to be received by the age of sixteen (Can. 112). Yet the custom of confirmation at ages as early as seven survived in the time of Bishop Andrewes, and was warmly advocated by him. At the present time there seems to be some trend toward earlier confirmations. It is argued that the unstable transition-years of adolescence are a bad time to implant lasting impressions, and that it is more important to “condition” children to definite habits of the reception of the Sacraments, than it is to secure a more thorough understanding of all the difficult matters inculcated in the Catechism.

Whatever measure of truth such considerations may contain, and however they may affect a priest’s judgment in individual cases, they can hardly outweigh the accumulated experience of the Church, which has found it best to accept one of the great natural turning-points of life, and to consecrate the first important voluntary act of adult status to the personal acceptance of religion. The burgeoning altruisms, ideals, and enthusiasms of that period mark it as the “acceptable time” for such an act of self-devotion. And it must not be forgotten that the ultimate “Mother Church” of Israel retains it to this day as it did in the time of our Lord; and that Rome, which of recent years has been experimenting with First Communion at seven, still feels it cannot give up Confirmation at adolescence.

The First English Prayer Book followed the Sarum rite of Confirmation very closely, with Suffrages, the prayer for the Sevenfold Gifts of the Spirit, the ceremony of Consignation (marking the forehead with a cross), a prayer for God’s continuing blessing, and a brief Benediction. The last fine prayer however was taken from Hermann’s Consultation; the Sarum psalm-verse was omitted; and the anointing with chrism was abolished.

The essential “form” of the rite was originally considered to be the prayer for the ordaining power of the Spirit, which in the time of Hippolytus was accompanied by the imposition of hands. But just as in the ordination services the plurality of candidates caused the primary precatory “form” to be said with hands outstretched over the whole group collectively, so it was here, leaving the consignatory Unction to be performed individually. There is of course no doubt whatever as to the imposition of hands in the New Testament, while, as we have seen, the Unction alluded to may be metaphorical. Certainly Cranmer so understood it, for he conjoined the Imposition to the Consignation, with only a verbal reference to an “inward unction” of the Holy Ghost.

The Second Prayer Book abolished also the Consignation, and substituted the present beautiful sentence in precatory form: “Defend, O Lord, this thy 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.” Thus while the primordial Confirmation Prayer has been displaced from its central position and office, the new Sentence is really a full equivalent of it; and our rite has in fact returned to the primitive form of Confirmation by prayer accompanied by imposition of hands. It seems a mistake for the recent Scottish and South African books to have restored the Consignation—in South Africa with optional use of Unction—accompanied by a declarative form such as seems so much more definite to the modern, as it did to the medieval, mind;³² but the English and American books join in rejecting such a backward step.³³

The revision of 1662 incorporated the apologetical rubrics of 1549 into a homiletical Preface to the office, followed by a summary reaffirmation of the Baptismal Vows. In both passages the words “ratify and confess” of the First Prayer Book became “ratify and confirm”—leaving the unfortunate impression on the minds of many generations that Confirmation is essentially an act of the individual in “confirming” his Vows, instead of the heavenly grace of the Spirit confirming him!³⁴

1662 also added the Lord’s Prayer after the Imposition, and the Collect for grace to keep the Commandments from the Occasional Collects.³⁵

The American revision of 1892 made the Preface optional, and appended after it a presentation of the candidates, analogous to that at ordinations, and also a lection from Acts 8:14–17.³⁶

Our last revision dropped the Preface entirely; and added a second question, “Do ye promise to follow Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour?” in line with those added to Adult Baptism. The recent English and Scottish books offer the feature of rehearsing the Baptismal Vows in full, instead of by summary reference.

The final rubric, And there shall none be admitted to the Holy Communion, until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed, was added in 1662, after Confirmation had been in entire abeyance under the Commonwealth. It was taken from a rubric of the old Sarum baptismal service, which in turn was derived from the Constitutions of Archbishop Peckham of 1281. Properly speaking, this rubric has no bearing on the practice of what was known in England as “occasional conformity”; it defines admission to the full and permanent privileges of the status of a communicant in the Church.

The latest English and Scottish books require, when possible, the presence of a Godparent at Confirmation. This is in line with the declaration of their responsibility to see that their Godchildren be brought to the Bishop to be confirmed—which is made an explicit promise in the American rite. It has been suggested that it might be desirable to have such Godparents stand at the altar-rail with their Godchildren, and themselves, with the Priest, present them to the Bishop. The present ceremony symbolizes the unsatisfactory fact that the enlistment, preparation, and presentation of candidates is in practice left to the sole responsibility of the parish priest. A change of rubric here might add considerably to the strength of the Church.