Neither can the unction, zgioua, of which we read, 1 John 2:27. 2 Cor. 1: 21, be referred to the rite of confirmation. It might have related, either to a spiritual anointing, or to the royal and priestly dignity of Christians, 1 Pet. 2: 9, or to the communication of miraculous gifts.

The sealing of Christians mentioned in Eph. 1: 13. 4: 30. 2 Cor. 1: 22, denotes, not their confirmation, but their conscious assurance of divine favor.

No authentic reference to confirmation is recorded in the earliest ecclesiastical writers. The authority of Dionysius is unworthy of confidence, and the imparting of the seal of the Lord, as quoted by Eusebius,2 evidently relates to baptism.

2. CONFIRMATION IN CONNECTION WITH BAPTISM.

Tertullian informs us, that the ceremonies of unction, and the imposition of hands, followed in immediate succession after baptism, together with the sacrament of the Lord's supper.3 The imposition of hands in immediate connection with baptism, is also implied in several passages in Cyprian 4 in one of which he speaks of it as a sacrament, sacramentum, but he evidently uses the term with reference to the rite, or ceremony.

To cite passages from later writers in proof of the connection between baptism and confirmation would be quite superfluous.5 The baptism of adults being regarded as a solemn compact or covenant, confirmation might very naturally be expected to follow as the seal by which the covenant was ratified. For this reason, perhaps, it was administered, not by the baptizing priest or deacon, but by the bishop.

At the stated baptismal seasons the bishop was chiefly occupied with the rites of confirmation; but he sometimes administered also the rites of baptism and unction. When this ordinance was administered in the absence of the bishop, confirmation was solemnized at some convenient season afterward, either by the bishop, or by his representative. Accordingly confirmation was, at times, delayed for several years after baptism, especially in large dioceses; which were seldom visited, either on account of their great extent, or of the indolence and negligence of the bishop.

Even after the general introduction of infant baptism, confirma

tion immediately succeeded baptism. In the Oriental churches, baptism, confirmation, and the Lord's supper, are administered in immediate succession; which is strong evidence that such was the ancient custom.6

The permanent separation of the rites of confirmation from those of baptism cannot probably be assigned to an earlier date than the thirteenth century.

3. MINISTERS OF CONFIRMATION, Etc.

Agreeably to the example of the ancient church, and of general usage, the bishop is the appropriate minister of confirmation. In defence of this custom, Chrysostom and Augustine refer to the case of the Samaritan converts, who were baptized by Phillip, but received the imposition of hands from an apostle,7 Acts 8: 12-17. Several canons deny to the other orders of the clergy, the right of consecrating; but presbyters were, in certain cases, authorized to adminis ter the rite; such as the absence of the bishop, or, in his presence by express permission,-on the conversion of a heretic, if he was nigh unto death and the bishop were absent. Deacons exercised the same prerogatives until absolutely forbidden by the council of Toledo, A. D. 400.

In the Latin church, after the separation of baptism from confirmation, a series of preliminary religious exercises was requisite for this rite, similar to those which had been previously required for baptism.

Names given in baptism were sometimes changed at confirmation. This, however, was merely an occasional practice of the later centuries.

Sponsors, or god-fathers, or god-mothers, were also required as in baptism formerly. These might be the same as the baptismal sponsors, or others might be substituted in their place.

A separate edifice for solemnizing this rite was in some instances provided, called consignatorium, albatorum, and chrismarium. After the disuse of baptisteries, both baptism and confirmation were administered in the church, and usually at the altar.

$4. ADMINISTRATION OF THE RITE OF CONFIRMATION.

Four principal ceremonies were employed in the rites of confirmation, namely; imposition of hands, unction, with the chrism, sign of the cross, and prayer.

1. Imposition of hands. This rite is derived from the New Testament: it was used in various religious solemnities, and is still retained in the christian church. For an account of the different opinions which were entertained respecting this rite; and of the mode of administering it, see references in the index.9

2. Unction. This, as has been already remarked, was denominated chrism, in distinction from the unction which was administered before baptism. Origen and Tertullian speak expressly of this rite. In the Apostolical Constitutions it is styled the confirmation of our confession, and the seal of the covenants. A prayer is also given, which was offered on the occasion.10 Cyril of Jerusalem gives full instructions respecting the administration of chrism.11

time it came into general use in the church.

From his

The material used for this chrism was usually olive-oil. Sometimes perfumed ointment, compounded of various ingredients, was used. The chrism was consecrated by prayer, exorcism, and insufflation. It was applied, in the Eastern church, to various parts of the body, to the forehead, ears, nose, eyes, breast, etc. In the Western church it appears to have been applied only to the forehead.

3. Sign of the cross. This was affixed by applying the chrism in such a manner as to represent a cross. This was thought to be a very important and expressive emblem, the sealing rite, which gave to confirmation the name of opgayìs, a seal.12

4. Prayer and mode of confirmation. In the Greek church one uniform mode of confirmation has been observed from the beginning, as follows: "The seal of the gift of the Holy Ghost. Amen." Besides this implied prayer, one more at length is supposed to have been offered. In the Latin church, the form has varied at different times. The most ancient form ran thus: "The seal of Christ to eternal life." The modern form, in the Roman Catholic church, is as follows. "Signo te signo crucis, et confirmo te chrismate salutis in nomine Pa† tris et Fit lii, et Spiritus + Sancti. Amen."

Other formalities were: the salutation, "Peace be with you;" a slight blow upon the cheek, to admonish the candidate of the duty of patience under injuries; unbinding of the band upon the forehead; prayer and singing; the benediction of the bishop, together with a short exhortation from him.

CHAPTER XVI.

OF THE LORD's supper.

§ 1. NAMES OR APPELLATIONS OF THIS SACRAMENT.

Men of all religious denominations have, generally, concurred in regarding the sacrament of the Lord's supper as the most solemn rite of christian worship, the grand characteristic of the religion of Christ. For a full understanding of the doctrines and usages connected with this institution, a knowledge of the various names by which it has been distinguished is indispensable. A full knowledge of these, with all their relations to the times and places in which they were used, would almost furnish a history of the sacrament itself. These names are exceedingly numerous; and, although retaining a general similarity of meaning, yet each has been chosen out of regard to some peculiar views relating to the doctrine of the sacrament, or from a preference for some peculiar mode of administration.

1. The term, the Lord's supper, deлvov zvqiαxòv, sacra coena, coena Domini, has an historical reference to the institution of the rite by our Lord, on the night in which he was betrayed, Matt. 26: 20, 31. 1 Cor. 11:23. Some have erroneously maintained that the passage in 1 Cor. 11: 23 relates, not strictly to the participation of the sacramental elements, but to the feast which accompanied the distribution of these elements. But it has been abundantly shown that the early christian writers understood and used the terin according to the explanation given above.1

2. The table of the Lord, toána xvgiov, mensa Dei, denotes much the same as the Lord's supper, a festival instituted by the Lord. Tertullian styles it convivium Dominicum.2 The context of

1 Cor. 10: 21 forbids the supposition that a common table was used for this purpose. The apostle uses the term τάлša zvo̟iov as synonymous with voiaσrýgiov, an altar. We are constrained, therefore, to believe that a table was set apart for this sacred purpose, like that of the shew-bread, a mensa mystica, a table sacred to the purpose of celebrating the Lord's supper.

3. The following scriptural expressions are also employed in a sense partly literal and partly figurative, to denote the sacrament: bread, the breaking of bread, Acts 2: 42. 20: 7 comp. 27: 35. Luke 24:35-the eating of bread, John 6: 23-the Lord's body, or his flesh, John 6: 53-the cup of the Lord, 1 Cor. 10: 21-the cup of the New Testament, Luke 22: 20. 1 Cor. 10: 21 blood. The custom of breaking the bread, and of administering but one element, has been derived from the foregoing passages.

4. The new testament in my blood, Luke 22: 20. 1 Cor. 11: 25. It has, however, been disputed whether this phrase can, with propriety, be applied to the sacrament of the Lord's supper.

5. Communion, xovoría, communio. This is by far the most common appellation of the solemnity in question. It has been current in all ages, and among all parties. It has been used, both in a doctrinal and mystical sense; and in an historical and ecclesiastical signification.

In a doctrinal sense, it has been supposed to represent our reconciliation to God, and our union with him. Others have supposed it to represent our union and fellowship with Christ. This participation with him, according to some, is through his presence in the elements. Others understand by it the union of believers in spirit, with their spiritual head; and others, again, the union of believers among themselves in the bonds of christian love.

In an historical and ecclesiastical sense, communion denotes a participation in all the mysteries of the christian religion, and, of course, church-fellowship, with all its rites and privileges. Hence the term excommunication.

In a liturgical sense it denotes, sometimes the partaking of the sacrament, and sometimes the administration of it.

6. Agaрaе, άуάлαι, or άɣáлn, love-feast, feast of heaven. The expression in Jude 12. 2 Pet. 2: 13, may refer either to the Lord's supper, or to the festival accompanying it.

7. Eucharist, ezagutia, a very ancient and general appellation,