DIVISION II
- Let
us take next the question of the proper minister of “Confirmation” in the
early Church. I take this next because it happens to be possible to settle
the point more easily and decisively than is the case with Ordination, as
far as the direct evidence goes; and because it has, as I shall endeavor
to show below, a decisive even if only indirect bearing on the question of
the primitive minister of Ordination.
- The
fact that St. Paul “confirms” (or is represented as “confirming”) in Acts
19:1-6 would not by itself necessarily indicate that the power to
“confirm” in the early Church was limited to Apostles. But if we can find
other evidence pointing in that direction, it will provide some slight
measure of confirmation to such a conclusion. And such evidence, by an
almost incredible coincidence, we do find in the only other passage which
mentions “Confirmation” at such length as to leave open any possibility
that the point might be made clear. The passage, of course, is Acts
8.
- This
passage tells us how St. Philip, one of the Seven chosen and ordained in Acts
6:1-6, went down to Samaria, made some converts, and baptized them. When
the Apostles at Jerusalem heard this, they sent down to Samaria St. Peter
and John. The narrative does not explicitly assign the reason why they
were sent—why it should have been deemed necessary to send them. But we
can arrive at the answer to that question with a very high degree of
probability. For the reason is not likely to have been to impart to them
any secret teaching that was known only to the Apostles but not to St.
Philip. If so, why impart to newly made converts secrets which even the
tried and true man chosen to be one of “the Seven” had not been allowed to
know? It was not to baptize them, for we are explicitly told in the
narrative that they were already baptized before the Apostles arrived. Nor
can any other plausible guess be made, except the one which the whole
narrative favors.
That guess is that, although St. Philip was an eloquent preacher, and a worker of great signs and wonders, and an adequate teacher, and was fully able to baptize them, he was unable to “confirm” them, to give to them the supreme gift of the Holy Spirit. We do later find just that same limitation on the power to “confirm.” Is it not logical and highly probable, especially in the absence of any alternative explanation, to suppose that this later-attested limitation was already in force? That would explain fully and easily why it was necessary to send the Apostles down to Samaria, not to make additional converts, but to do something for those already made by someone below the rank of an Apostle.
- This
conjectural explanation receives overwhelming support from the text of the
narrative itself. To begin with, we are told just one thing that the
Apostles did when they arrived. We read “(The Apostles) prayed for them,
that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for as yet He was fallen upon
none of them, only they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.
Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.”
Apparently our conjecture was right!
- But
someone may think that the evidence produced so far falls short of being
clear enough to be completely decisive. Let us therefore notice certain
added language which makes it utterly irresistible. We read in Acts
8:18, “Now, when Simon (Magus) saw that through the laying on of the
Apostles' hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered money to them,
saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay my hands, he may
receive the Holy Spirit. Etc.” It is hard to see how language could make
it clearer that the Apostles had a power which Simon Magus did not have,
yet greatly wanted. The reason they had it and Simon did not was because
it was “the gift of God” and God had given this gift to the Apostles and
not to Simon. Since there is no reason to suppose Simon to have been any
different in this respect from any other layman, it follows that all
laymen lacked the power to “confirm.” Nor can there be any reasonable
doubt that St. Philip also lacked this power; for if he had possessed it
there would have been no necessity for the Apostles to have sent some of
their own number. Hence if St. Philip was a deacon, as seems probable to
the present writer, we must conclude that deacons also lacked the power to
“confirm” those they could baptize. If he was a presbyter, then presbyters
also lacked the power.
- It
is worth noting that the implication of this whole narrative is that
Baptism alone, when separated from “Confirmation,” did not confer the gift
of the Spirit. For we may be sure that Simon would not have cared by what
means—baptism or the laying on of hands—he could “give” the Holy Spirit,
as long as he could “give” Him at all. And as a layman he would have had
the power to baptize. This conclusion confirms very strongly our decision
in Chapter XII that “Confirmation” was universally practiced. For there is
no doubt that every Christian was supposed to receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit. Consequently, if this gift was not given in baptism as
distinguished from “Confirmation,” we would be forced to conclude that the
two were always combined wherever an Apostle was present, and that in such
a case the terms “Baptism” or “baptize” always include both the washing
and the laying on of hands. On the other hand, since only an Apostle (and
possibly but doubtfully a presbyter) could “confirm,” it would be necessary
to separate the washing from the laying on of hands when no “competent
minister” of “Confirmation” was present.
- It
may be objected that we dare not trust the historicity of the Simon Magus
episode. I do not see any valid reason why we should distrust it. But for
the benefit of those who do, it should be emphasized that St. Luke (or the
author of his source, if he is here closely dependent on one) could not
have credited the story, and could not have expected his readers to
understand it, unless the presuppositions of the narrative had been
generally shared by Christians at the time the narrative was written down.
So it would follow that the limitation of the power to “confirm” which we
have found implicit in the whole narrative must have been axiomatic to
Christians at least by the last quarter of the first century, since St.
Luke very probably wrote Acts at some time during that period.
- An
upholder of the presbyterian hypothesis would maintain that the custom
attested for the fourth century of allowing presbyters to “confirm” with
chrism blessed by the Bishop was the same practice that was in use in the
first three centuries, even though it completely lacks attestation (as far
as I know) during that period. Some believers in the Catholic position
would hold that during the first two centuries and a large part or the
whole of the third century the power to “confirm” was limited to Apostles,
deutero-apostles, and monarchical Bishops.
For myself I think that the acquisition of the right to “confirm” by the presbyters came about as a result of a change of view as to what was the “essential matter” (as the later Western Church would express it) of “Confirmation.” I think that during the period before and after St. Hippolytus the right to anoint with the chrism previously blessed by the Bishop had been allowed to the presbyters, and that this ceremony had been a part of the complete Initiatory Rite. But I think that at that early date the question had not yet been raised clearly as to what was the essential part of “Confirmation.” If this reconstruction is correct it will be seen that when the question was raised, and as soon as the view came to prevail in any locality that the anointing with chrism was the essential part of “Confirmation” rather than the laying on of hands, that change would automatically carry with it the inference that mere presbyters had the essential power to “confirm,” since they had been allowed already for a long time to anoint with the chrism blessed by the Bishop.
If this reconstruction is right, it will confirm very strongly the view I have expressed above that, far from the right to “confirm” having been more closely restricted as the Church came down the ages, it became less closely restricted. But even on the presbyterian hypothesis it has not become more closely restricted; it has remained unchanged. Thus on neither theory has there been any narrowing of this right. There is no direct Jewish antecedent of “Confirmation” and consequently there cannot have been any Jewish precedent as to the “proper minister” of “Confirmation” differing from the earliest attested Christian practice. So we have no reason to raise any question as to the possibility of a very primitive Christian practice agreeing with such a hypothetical Jewish practice rather than with the earliest attested Christian practice. Consequently, there is no justification for doubting that even in the earliest days of “Confirmation” the practice concerning the “proper minister” was the same as it certainly was when we come to our first evidence on the point. Thus the objection based on a rejection of the historicity of the Simon Magus story leaves our main conclusion quite unaffected.
232.
From a very different standpoint it might be
objected that, since the Simon Magus story probably is historical, it shows
only that the power to “confirm” was thus restricted during the first decade of
Christianity, and that the narrative has no historical value for the practice
of the last half of the first century. But it is very unlikely that St. Luke
could have told the story in the way he has, without saying a word in
explanation of the “dogmatic” presuppositions of the strange episode, unless
those presuppositions had been as axiomatic to him and his anticipated readers
as it was to the characters in the narrative on the assumption that the
narrative is strictly historical. Moreover, since we find the same restriction
implied in the narrative to have been in existence as soon as we come to our
next clear evidence at the end of the period of silence, and since there is
neither evidence nor any a priori probability of any change between the
Simon Magus episode and the established practice toward the end of the second
century, and even earlier, the probability would be all in favor of the same
restriction having been in force throughout the first two centuries, even if
the chronological gap in the actual evidence is from c. 35 A.D. to St.
Hippolytus rather than from the date of Acts to St. Hippolytus.
- There
are two other phenomena in the early evidence which are too indefinite to
be much more than straws in the wind, but which I am inclined to think are
at least that, and thus to give some measure of confirmation to our main
conclusion. In St. Ignatius we find him emphasizing that “without the
Bishop (i.e. apart from his permission) it is not lawful either to baptize
or to hold a love feast.” I believe I have established in my book, The
Early Eucharist, that the term translated “love feast” would mean the
Eucharist, along of course with the common community meal which the
Eucharist began and ended. Also in the Didache we find careful
directions given for the immersion part of Baptism and for the Eucharist.
But neither St. Ignatius nor the Didache mentions the laying on of
hands, and it appears that we would have a right to expect them to do so
if the ministry of “Confirmation” and Ordination were not limited to the
Bishop.
But if everyone knew and no one challenged that only the Bishop could “confirm” and ordain, then we can understand without difficulty why St. Ignatius did not have to forbid the schismatics to “lay on hands” without the Bishop's permission. We can also understand in that case why the Didache, which presupposes local Churches in which there are normally only “bishops and deacons” but no resident Apostles, deuter-apostles, nor monarchical Bishops, should not include directions how to do what its resident ministers had no power to do—viz., to “confirm” and ordain. The Apostles, who are the pretended authors of the book, are presumably expected to do the “confirming” and ordaining when they visit the local Churches periodically. The direction in the Didache to choose for themselves worthy men as “bishops and deacons” does not mean that they are to be ordained by those who elect them. The local Church did have the power to elect its own “bishops and deacons” and hence direction is given on the subject. But it did not have the power to ordain them, so no directions are given on that point. Of course this explanation is conjectural. But the alternative explanation that the laying on of hands was not important enough to require mention in such contexts is negated by its obvious importance in Hebrews 6:1-4. And it seems that if a satisfactory explanation can be found, it is more scientific to accept it as probable than to attribute the double phenomenon to pure coincidence.
- Thus
it seems that the evidence is completely onesided in favor of the
conclusion that the right to minister “Confirmation” was limited to
presbyters or others of still higher rank. And it is very probable184 that
for over two centuries not even presbyters were able to “confirm.” (Felix
L. Cirlot, Apostolic Succession: Is it True? An Historical and Theological
Inquiry [Felix L. Cirlot, n.d.], 170-75)
An alternative possibility is
that Baptism was found to bestow the gift of the Holy Spirit when ministered by
an Apostle, and hence would not always, at least at first, include the laying
on of hands when so ministered; but that it was found not to convey the Holy
Spirit when ministered by a layman or deacon (and probably by a presbyter) and
hence had to be supplemented by later action by an Apostle as soon as possible.
Since “rebaptism” was apparently never practiced, even in the earliest days,
the Apostles had to resort to a different means for mediating the gift of the Holy
Spirit. Naturally, for reasons already developed in Chapters XII-XIII, they
resorted to the laying on of hands; and the outward evidences of the gift of
the Spirit which were common in those early days showed that in so doing they
had correctly read the will of God; if indeed some prophet, speaking obviously
“in the Spirit,” had not explicitly told them what to do the first time the
question arose. But either of these reconstructions leaves “Confirmation” a
“sacrament” which only a few members of the Church (Apostles and possibly
presbyters) would have the power to minister. So on either theory, it is a very
important illustration of our main thesis in this chapter. (Ibid., 172 n. 180)
