[TO THE EDITOR OF ms "SPECTATOR."] SIE,—The argument of "A. C."
to some extent depends on the suspension of the practice of confirmation during a period when irregularities were of necessity tolerated. In this respect there is, I venture to suggest, an interesting parallel in the Jewish Church during the forty years' wanderings, when the rite of circumcision and the observance of the Passover were both of them neglected. No one, however, would reason from this that either of these ordinances was regarded as unimpor- tent or any less obligatory; and Gilgal stands for the" rolling away" of the "reproach." I cannot believe, moreover, that, with the New Testament instances of the laying on of hands at Samaria and Ephesus to guide her, our Church evei
thought of limiting the administration of confirmation to children. If "the example of the Apostles" is followed, as claimed by her, surely she contemplates the need of adults to receive the rite, as in the case of the twelve " men " who did so at the bands of St. Paul at Ephesus. Whether the Church in certain cases may relax her rules is, to my mind, altogether another matter. The Bishop of Zanzibar's own predecessor had no scruples in administering the Sacrament to Dr. Livingstone and his people, though they were all Presbyterians. But must we not plead that excep- tions prove the rule, and hold that the rite should on no account be neglected where it may be bad ? I should be sorry if adults were encouraged to think that a great means of grace was a matter of indifference. The loss would even outweigh any possible advantage to the comparatively small number of persons who desire to be admitted occasionally to the Communion under, let us presume, exceptional conditions. After all, the Church has a right to consider the well-being of her own faithful members most.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
