"From this practice of the Apostles": Secker on why Confirmation is not 'a rite in search of a theology'
It has been oft-repeated in an Anglican context regarding Confirmation since the 1960s and has now achieved the status of an almost unchallenged orthodoxy. This state of affairs, however, is the deliberately engineered outcome of a particular theological and liturgical agenda. The statement was promoted in order to undermine and obfuscate the theological rationale for and coherence of the rite of Confirmation. It is now the case within Anglicanism that Confirmation is 'a rite in search of a theology' because the theology underpinning and interpreting the rite amongst Anglicans over centuries was rejected.
'A Sermon on Confirmation' by Thomas Secker (Archbishop of Canterbury 1758-68) exemplifies what was the normative theology of Confirmation. The text for Secker's sermon was Acts 8:17, itself significant as this example of the laying on of apostolic hands for the gift of the Spirit was a consistent theme in commentary on the rite. Hooker invokes it in his defence of Confirmation as "an ordinance Apostolic" (LEP V.66.4&5), as do Sparrow, Taylor, and Wheatly, while Mant's 1820 Notes on the Prayer Book also reference the text regarding the rite.
Secker roots the rite of Confirmation in this example of apostolic practice, relating it to the episcopal ministry continuing this ministry of the Apostles:
From this and the like instances of the practice of the Apostles, is derived, what bishops, their successors, though every way beyond comparison inferior to them, have practised ever since, and which we now call Confirmation. Preaching was common to all ranks of ministers; baptizing was performed usually by the lower rank: but, perhaps to maintain a due subordination, it was reserved to the highest, by prayer and laying on of hands, to communicate further measures of the Holy Ghost. It was indeed peculiar to the Apostles, that on their intercession, his extraordinary and miraculous gifts were bestowed: which continued in the church no longer, than the need of them did; nor can we suppose, that all were partakers of them. But unquestionably by their petitions they procured, for every sincere convert, a much more valuable, though less remarkable blessing of universal and perpetual necessity, his ordinary and saving graces.
Another common theme was how the rite was regarded as an important aspect of Anglican identity, the laying on of episcopal hands - "after the example of thy holy Apostles" - distinguishing Anglicanism both from Roman practice (anointing rather than the laying on of hands) and Presbyterian rejection of the rite:
so far from being a popish ceremony, that the Papists administer confirmation by other ceremonies of their own devising, and have laid aside this primitive one; which therefore our church very prudently restored. And the custom of it is approved, as apostolical, both by Luther and Calvin, and several of their followers, though they rashly abolished it, as having been abused.
Finally, while the miraculous signs of the Spirit were accepted as being discontinued - as Sparrow states of the gift of tongues, "that lasted but a while, as experience hath taught us" - the more significant "inward graces and virtues" remain the gifts of the Spirit to the Church, of which Confirmation is the sign and assurance. The effect of Confirmation, Secker notes, is experienced not in the dramatic but, as the rite declares, the "daily increase" in the inner workings of the Holy Spirit:
Not that you are to expect, on the performance of this good office, any sudden and sensible change in your hearts, giving you, all at once, a remarkable strength or comfort in piety, which you never felt before. But you may reasonably promise yourselves, from going through it with a proper disposition, greater measures, when real occasion requires them, of such divine assistance as will be needful for your support and orderly growth in every virtue of a Christian life.
No, Confirmation is not 'a rite in search of a theology'. The rich Anglican theology of Confirmation been, quite deliberately, abandoned. Rediscovering this theology will enable a renewal of the meaning of this rite.
I wonder as well how of this 'rite in search of a theology' business comes from the increased disregard of the canonical requirement that only those who are confirmed (or otherwise desirous and ready for confirmation) be admitted to Holy Communion. Perhaps influenced by modern RC practice, many Anglicans seem embarrassed of the general requirement of baptism *and* confirmation prior to first Communion.
ReplyDeletePhilip, many thanks for the comment and question. Yes, it is a good point: the disregarding of the canonical requirement certainly has fed the myth of 'rite in search of a theology'. I also think, however, that the disregarding of the canonical requirement itself has been encouraged by the myth. The Rite of Confirmation has been 'hollowed out', resulting in a disregarding of canonical and traditional norms to seem insignificant.
DeletePast-VatII RCC practice has not helped the situation. What has made Anglicans susceptible to this has been the loss of the classical Anglican emphasis that our practice of Confirmation - episcopal laying on of hands - was a more apostolic practice than past (bishop/chrism) and current (often a priest/chrism) RC practice.
Brian.