Fr. Johann+ In the sub-Apostolic age, the laying on of hands accompanied baptism and there seems to have been no separate rite of confirmation. The washing with water, anointing with oil and laying on of hands were all parts of a single rite in which a person was received into Christ and gifted with the Holy Spirit. (Acts 19:4,5, ETC.) Quoting again from the Oxford Dictionary of Christian Church, 'Confirmation' (but not by this name) appears as a rite clearly separate from Baptism in Tertullian. The same clear distinction is made by St. Cyprian and by Pope Cornelius. By the 4th Century, Confirmation, whether conferred by anointing or layhing on of hands, was generally a separate rite. The Bishop, who in primitive times was able to take a personal interest in all the candidates for Baptism, now found that the number of those seeking admission into the Church was such that he could no longer baptize all in person, and the functions of parish priest (immersion) and Bishop (anointing), originally usually closely associated, gradually became distinct. What had once often been scarcely distinguishable elements in the single Baptismal-Confirmaiton rite were now performed by different ministers. There is much history to be reviewed to discuss the manner in which confirmation in the Greek Church came to differ from Roman Catholic practice and how the Reformation has similarly affected Anglican tradition. IN 1549 the Church of England ceased using oil in confirmation and in 1552 the sign of the cross also ceased. The 1552 BCP introduced the formulaof administration in which the Bishop, laying his hand on the head of each candidate says "Defend, O Lord, this (Thy) child with Thy heavenly grace, that he may continue Thine forever; and daily increase in Thy Holy Spirit more and more, until he come into Thy everlasting Kingdom. Amen." In 1662 the link with Baptism by repeating Baptismal vows was introduced. The discussion of what confirmation means and how it is to be done has continued, emphasizing the differences between the Christian bodies. Even those who claim to be Anglicans are hardly in agreement on the subject. I understand the arguments on both sides and think a compromise of this sort might be in order. 1. If a person is coming to Baptism as a youth or adult, one might have baptism and confirmation at the same time, assuming a Bishop is available. 2. In the case where a person is an infant when baptized, it would seem to me to be a good thing that this child could, at some age after he has language and some concept of commitment to a way of life, re-affirm the vows made for him by parents at this baptism, be signed with the cross and anointed with oil and have prayers said for the Protection and Guidance of the Holy Spirit on his life as he faces the troubled world. That is not to say he had not been blessed with the Spirit at baptism. This "sacrament of the Church" may "have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper" (Article 25) in that "they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God" for Jesus does not explicitly teach anointing and laying on of hands to receive the spirit; yet anointing, laying on of hands and prayer for the holy spirit has been encouraged by the teaching of the Apostles and the Church as a good thing. In my opinion, the battles against superstition and the abuses of the Middle Ages which the Reformers fought should not deprive the Church of our time from using an important and impressive tool for education and sanctification. Charles+ _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!