What does the Bible say about Christian confirmation?

Confirmation, as claimed by the Church of Rome, is a rite, which has no counterpart in the Scriptures. There is not a line in the whole Word of God to support the idea of the one to be confirmed receiving the Holy Spirit with the chrism, nor of the Bishop slapping the one to be confirmed on the cheek, signifying that as a soldier of the cross he must be prepared to endure hardness, nor of the Bishop kissing him, signifying the impartation of “the peace that passes all understanding.”

The child grows up and at the age of sixteen or so is urged to be confirmed. It suffices for the candidate for confirmation to repeat the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments, and answer questions that are contained in the short Catechism. It takes for granted the carrying on of the lie of baptismal regeneration, and still further lulls the soul into a deadly, false peace. Suffice it to say that the rite of confirmation gives to the candidate no spiritual blessing whatsoever, any more than his being baptised as an infant did. Let all who enter on the partaking of the Lord’s supper lightly, remember the solemn warning of Scripture: “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 2:27).

This is essential to the meaning and nature of a sacrament, rightly understood. Marriage is not a sacrament, though it is, and was from the first, a divine institution. It does not distinguish Christianity from Judaism or from heathenism, for the relationship exists in these. There are in fact two "sacraments" only, using the term-in the proper sense, the term itself no doubt being merely ecclesiastical, though expressing the two New Testament ordinances, and not necessarily in a wrong sense. Confirmation is not regarded as a sacrament in the Anglican body, though it is retained as a rite. Still, not a trace of it is to be found in the Scripture. The word episterizo occurs four times, all in the Acts; and it is impossible to read those passages with an unbiassed mind, and not see that the meaning is no ritual process, but morally and spiritually to strengthen or establish. Thus Parkhurst says in his Lexicon: "In the New Testament it is used only in a figurative and spiritual sense for confirming persons in their adherence to the gospel, notwithstanding opposition and persecution." These occurrences are Acts 14:22; Acts 15:32 and 41; Acts 18:28; the last text being, "And after he had spent some time there, he departed and went over all the country of Galatia and Phrygia in order, strengthening all the disciples." And in Acts 15:82, Judas and Silas, the prophets, exhorted and confirmed the brethren. Now the so-called "Bishop" is the person who "confirms" — doubtless for the sake (as is so often said) of decency and order. but this human view of decency and order has utterly overthrown God's order, and made human authority in the church paramount to Scriptural authority, generally with the flimsiest pretence, and often without say at all.

A belief is entertained in some quarters that the laying on of hands is necessary, both for the reception of the Holy Spirit and for recognition as a Christian minister. Hence the confirmation and ordination services.

As to the claims of "bishops" to ordain the servants of Christ, I may be permitted to refer the reader to my previous book, "Royal Service: A Study in Christian Leadership." Our present concern is as to what the New Testament says about the laying on of hands in connection with the reception of the Holy Spirit.

One of these objections is that the imposition of hands preceded that gift here as well as in Acts 19, where the apostle Paul laid his hands for a like purpose and with a like result on the twelve disciples at Ephesus. But why should this offend them? They may not like the ritualistic effort to base confirmation on a scripture which gives no real countenance to that ceremony; they may feel grieved at or ashamed of a mere form without power, they may justly censure R. Nelson (or any citing him) for untruly referring to Calvin as if he thought confirmation was instituted by the apostles. For in fact in the Institutes (iv. ch. 19:76) he disproves the very thought attributed to him. But to deny that it was the Holy Spirit Himself that was communicated at Samaria and Ephesus by imposition of apostolic hands is to fly in the face of God's word; to construe it into the gifts, and not the gift, of the Spirit, is to prepare the way for the most withering unbelief and the loss of the spring of all true power. For what is the church without the personal presence of the Holy Ghost? and what is the Christian without His indwelling? That which baptizes into unity does not exist otherwise, there is no power adequate to constitute the believer a member of Christ; for both depend on the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Thus, beside regeneration, which is the first operation of the Spirit of God, there is the further gift of the Holy Ghost. "In whom ye also … after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation." They were born of water and of the Spirit. They heard the word of truth, which we find in this very epistle set forth under the figure of water — "that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." (Eph. 5:26.) It is not only that the Church is washed by the word, but the poor sinner is born of the word when he believes the gospel — born of water and of the Spirit. But was it merely that they were born of water and of the Spirit? "In whom also, after that ye believed (or having believed), ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise." It is very startling to many to find that, after they have been born of the Spirit, there is such a thing as being sealed by the Spirit. Others, again, seeing both facts, invented confirmation. They felt from the Scripture that there is something over and above being born of water. Therefore a religion of forms first made baptism to regenerate every one, and then confirmation to crown it. But forms are no better than idolatry: it is putting something in the place of Christ. After the apostles left, this grew apace. Ceremonies, done by the hand of men, were substituted for the power of the Holy Ghost acting on the souls of men. Finding from the word of God that there were these two things, regeneration first and then the subsequent gift of the Holy Ghost, they adopted two different ceremonies — in one sense very properly, if there must be a religion of forms at all. But it is a total mistake as to the very nature of Christianity.

95 The history of confirmation is clear enough; we hear of it first early in the third century, yet not separate from baptism, but conferred at the same time and with nothing to say to a bishop. In the next, however, it was soon left to the bishop to do. This separation of it from baptism, and leaving it to the bishop, was not established in the East nearly so soon. It continued an act of the baptizing minister, and is treated even by Jerome as that part of baptism by which the Holy Ghost is received, only left to the bishop in order to maintain his dignity. I give some quotations which shew this.

The sacraments I have already spoken of, save to note that it is stated that the promises of God are made to them in the sacraments, and whatever articles may be given credence to, promises in a sacrament are the only personal resting-place which is proposed to the child: he is to believe in promises made in that sacrament. This preparation being made, he is to be brought to the bishop, he having there asserted that he is bound to believe, and that he will keep the commandments. It is repeated that they had been regenerated with the Holy Ghost, and been given the forgiveness of all their sins; and thus after Confirmation they are introduced to the Communion, being now in full membership (and why not, if they are regenerate of the Holy Ghost?) and now confirmed. And all her members are called upon by the Establishment as Christians, as Mr. M'Neil justly agrees, to partake of the Lord's supper - the very people to whom the same person would preach, I believe very faithfully, as sinners to repent and turn to God, and to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, that they might be saved.

According to holy scripture then, a man passes from death to life by the Holy Ghost applying the word! according to High Church and Rome, by a priest applying water in baptism. But then if this very foundation of baptismal regeneration be false and unscriptural; what becomes of confirmation? What does the bishop confirm? Well, if it is a falsehood, a lie, he can only confirm a lie. Oh, sad truth — deceiving and being deceived! Think of the millions of people thus deceived. And shall we make no effort to reach them?

This simple action has been most grievously misunderstood and misrepresented in the interests of ecclesiastical officialism, and many souls have been injured thereby. The rite of Confirmation is indeed built upon it. But what is the significance of the laying on of hands? The general idea may be gathered from such a Scripture as Lev. 1:4. It is expressive of identification.