Friday, August 29, 2014

Feast of the Martrydom of St. John the Baptist


Today is the Feast of the Martyrdom of St. John the Baptist.  In contrast to the Nativity of St. John the Baptist (observed on June 24), this feast commemorates his beheading by the tetrarch Herod Antipas.  From the perspective of the world, this was a pathetic end to John the Baptist’s life.  Yet it was in fact a noble participation in the cross of Christ.  Our Lord Himself said that none had arisen greater than John the Baptist (Matthew 11:11).  He was the last of the prophets in the tradition of the Old Testament, and was the “prophesied prophet” – the Elijah of whom Malachi spoke who would come to prepare the way for the Lord (Malachi 3:1; 4:5-6; Matthew 17;10-13) and the voice crying in the wilderness foretold by Isaiah (Isaiah 40:3; Matthew 3:3) . John prepared the way for Christ by proclaiming “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has arrived” (Matthew3:2) and administering a baptism of repentance.  John’s death anticipated that of the Christ for whom he prepared the way.  By his own martyrdom he bore witness to the fact that God works through the cross in the lives of His people, and that they bear witness to Jesus Christ as they suffer, and even die in His name. 

Scripture reading:
King Herod heard of it, for Jesus' name had become known. Some said, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead. That is why these miraculous powers are at work in him.” But others said, “He is Elijah.” And others said, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” But when Herod heard of it, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised.” For it was Herod who had sent and seized John and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, because he had married her. For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother's wife.” And Herodias had a grudge against him and wanted to put him to death. But she could not, for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe. When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed, and yet he heard him gladly.

But an opportunity came when Herod on his birthday gave a banquet for his nobles and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee. For when Herodias's daughter came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his guests. And the king said to the girl, “Ask me for whatever you wish, and I will give it to you.” And he vowed to her, “Whatever you ask me, I will give you, up to half of my kingdom.” And she went out and said to her mother, “For what should I ask?” And she said, “The head of John the Baptist.” And she came in immediately with haste to the king and asked, saying, “I want you to give me at once the head of John the Baptist on a platter.” And the king was exceedingly sorry, but because of his oaths and his guests he did not want to break his word to her. And immediately the king sent an executioner with orders to bring John's head. He went and beheaded him in the prison and brought his head on a platter and gave it to the girl, and the girl gave it to her mother. When his disciples heard of it, they came and took his body and laid it in a tomb. (Mark 6:14-29)

Collect of the Day:
Almighty God, You gave Your servant John the Baptist to be the forerunner of Your Son, Jesus Christ, in both his preaching of repentance and his innocent death.  Grant that we, who have died and risen with Christ in Holy Baptism, may daily repent of our sins, patiently suffer for the sake of the truth, and fearlessly bear witness to His victory over death; through the same Jesus Christ, our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one  God, now and forever.

           


Thursday, August 28, 2014

Commemoration of Augustine of Hippo, Pastor and Theologian

Today we remember and give thanks for Augustine of Hippo, Pastor and Theologian.  Augustine was one of the greatest of the Latin church fathers and a significant influence in the formation of Western Christianity, including Lutheranism. Born in A.D. 354 in North Africa, Augustine’s early life was distinguished by exceptional advancement as a teacher of rhetoric. In his book Confessions he describes his life before his conversion to Christianity, when he was drawn into the moral laxity of the day and fathered an illegitimate son. Through the devotion of his sainted mother Monica and the preaching of Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (339–97), Augustine was converted to the Christian faith. During the great Pelagian controversies of the 5th century, Augustine emphasized the unilateral grace of God in the salvation of mankind. Bishop and theologian at Hippo in North Africa from A.D. 395 until his death in 430, Augustine was a man of great intelligence, a fierce defender of the orthodox faith, and a prolific writer. In addition to the book Confessions, Augustine’s book City of God had a great impact upon the church throughout the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

Collect of the Day:
O Lord God, the light of the minds that know you, the life of the souls that love you, and the strength of the hearts that serve you, give us strength to follow the example of your servant Augustine of Hippos, so that knowing you we may truly love you and loving you we may fully serve you – for to serve you is perfect freedom; through Jesus Christ, our Lord, who lives and reigns with You and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever.

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

Commemoration of Monica, Mother of Augustine

Today we remember and give thanks for Monica, Mother of Augustine.  A native of North Africa, Monica (A.D. 333–387) was the devoted mother of Saint Augustine. Throughout her life she sought the spiritual welfare of her children, especially that of her brilliant son, Augustine. Widowed at a young age, she devoted herself to her family, praying many years for Augustine’s conversion. When Augustine left North Africa to go to Italy, she followed him to Rome and then to Milan. There she had the joy of witnessing her son’s conversion to the Christian faith. Weakened by her travels, Monica died at Ostia, Italy on the journey she had hoped would take her back to her native Africa.

Collect of the Day:
O Lord, You strengthened Your patient servant Monica through spiritual discipline to persevere in offering her love, her prayers, and her tears for the conversion of her husband and of Augustine, their son.  Deepen our devotion to bring others, even our own family, to acknowledge Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, who with You and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one God, now and forever.

Culture news: 7 reasons marriage debate is nothing like interracial marriage

Ryan Anderson has provided a helpful list of seven reasons that the current debate about a "right" to same sex marriage is nothing like the issue of interracial marriage and how it was handled in the past.

Sunday, August 24, 2014

Mark's thoughts: The weird and wacky history of Confirmation, Part 2 - Rome



In the first post in this series, I looked at the history of Confirmation in the western Church before Nicaea (The weird and wacky history of Confirmation, Part 1: When there was no Confirmation – the western Church before Nicaea).  The only firm evidence we have for this period is from North Africa and we learn that the pattern there was: baptism in water, anointing, imposition of the hand.  It appears that the baptized were signed with the cross, but that this may have occurred in different places in the ordering.  Although the Spirit was believed to be active in baptism itself, both Tertullian and Cyprian were explicit in saying that the imposition of the hand bestowed the Spirit.  In Cyprian we find the first use of Acts 8 to justify this practice.

At the beginning of the sixteenth century, Confirmation involved: 1) the use of chrism 2) by the bishop 3) in a second post-baptismal anointing usually done at a time removed from baptism 4) to bestow the Spirit in a new and additional way that brought an added benefit to the believer for living the Christian life.  The data from the pre-Nicene period indicates that at this time “Confirmation” did not exist as a term.  Confirmation also did not exist at a ritual or conceptual level.  We see this in three ways.  First, there was no second anointing. Second, it was the imposition of the hand and not an anointing that was believed to impart the Holy Spirit.  Finally, the baptism in water and the post-baptismal actions of anointing and imposition of the hand were understood to be a united whole. There was simply the rite of baptism and there was no thought regarding any action after baptism that was not included in baptism itself. There was no speculation about any additional gift or blessing brought by the Spirit. The blessing received, was the Spirit received in the rite of baptism through the imposition of the hand.

In order to understand how Confirmation came into existence, we have to look to Rome in the fourth and fifth centuries.  Confirmation will arise as the Roman ritual structure (with its second anointing by the bishop) and her theological emphasis on the bishop cross the Alps into Gaul and there meet a very different pastoral situation and a confirmation terminology (“confirmation/to confirm”) which describes how bishops ratify what has already been done by a local presbyter (an action that could involve applying the one anointing that had not yet been done for the baptized or laying on the hand).  It is the fusion of these Roman and Gallic factors during the eighth and ninth centuries, and scholastic theological reflection upon this fusion, that will produce Confirmation as it existed in the sixteen century.

I. The development of western medieval liturgy
It is crucial to understand that the history of the development of the western liturgy in general is a movement from Rome to Gaul, and then back to Rome.[1]  As the prestige of the church at Rome grew the rites of Rome were taken up by the church in Gaul. Eric Palazzo observes about Gaul, “In their eyes, the rites of the Roman Church were models to be imitated, and this goal necessitated the availability of written descriptions.”[2]

In many places this was not something that needed to be forced upon the clergy.  Palazzo reports about the Old Gelasian sacramentary (Vat. Regin. 316) that it was “the earliest agent of the Romanization of the Frankish liturgy before the reform of Pepin the Short (751-768). It was in use in the presbyterial churches of Rome in the seventh and eight centuries; it must have reached Gaul in the course of the eighth century through the intermediary of pilgrims returning from a visit to the Eternal City.”[3]  Individual leaders like Chrodegang of Metz (742-766) embraced and promoted Roman practice.[4]  This found official support in Pepin who caused the Eighth Century/Frankish Gelasian (Gellone Sacramentary) to be produced.[5]  When Charlemagne (768-814) began his program to foster worship on the Roman model he was not doing something brand new or completely unwanted.

Roman texts were brought north to Gaul. But once there, they were changed and adapted to meet the Gallic pastoral situation and sensibilities.  The liturgy that was created by this process was not Roman and it was not Gallic.[6]  Instead it was a Romano-Frankish liturgy, and it spread rapidly. Cyrille Vogel says that, “In the second stage of its evolution, this mixed liturgy spread with surprising but understandable speed to all the churches of Northern Europe and, after the Renovatio Imperii (962), established itself without difficulty at Rome under the patronage of the Ottonian emperors.”[7]  Otto I himself made several trips to Rome “with the intent of remedying the liturgical void which at that time afflicted Rome along with a large part of Italy.”[8]

In this post we will look at Roman baptismal practice up to 800 AD. and consider how it created factors that would help to produce Confirmation.  The next posts will look at Milan and northern Italy, North Africa, and Spain in order to demonstrate how their practice was different from that in Rome.  Then, we will look at Gaul and consider how it contained factors that would help to produce Confirmation.  Next, a post will focus on the crucial period of the eighth and ninth centuries in order to explore how the Roman and Gallic factors combined to create the beginning of something new: Confirmation. We will then consider how this trend was advanced by factors that separated the bishop from baptism.  Finally, a post will examine how scholastic theology developed Confirmation into the sacrament that existed at the start of the sixteenth century.

II. Verona manuscript of the Apostolic Tradition and Ambrose
We have no specific textual evidence about Roman baptismal practice in the fourth century.  It is only in Innocent I’s 416 AD letter to Decentius of Gubbio that we have a text to consider.  However, there are two non-Roman sources for which there is a high probability that they provide evidence about baptism in fourth century Rome. These two sources are: 1) the Verona (Latin) manuscript for the Apostolic Tradition and 2) Ambrose’s De Sacramentis, books 2-3.

In the previous post we have seen that while the Apostolic Tradition has in the past been used as evidence for pre-Nicene baptismal practice in Rome, this now seems unlikely.  The attribution to Hippolytus is based on weak evidence and is in no way certain for a number of significant reasons.[9]  It seems more likely that the text is a conflation of several different traditions from a number of periods and that its final form probably reflects a fourth century setting.[10]

The earliest manuscript for the Apostolic Tradition is the Verona manuscript.  It is copy of a translation which itself appears to have been made during the second half of the fourth century in northern Italy.[11]  The Verona manuscript cannot be connected directly to Rome. However, a key feature in the text makes it highly probable that if the original autograph is not from Rome itself, then it describes a practice that was very much like what was present in Rome.  This feature is the second post-baptismal anointing that is done by the bishop (21.22) after the first post-baptismal anointing has been performed by the presbyter (21.21).  This second anointing is something that in the available evidence is only found in Rome. This is one of the basic facts that work with this topic makes apparent.  It is so apparent that Frank Quinn asks the question in a straightforward form: “Why do we find this second anointing only in Rome during the first eight centuries?”[12]

The second source is Ambrose’s De Sacramentiis, books 2-3 which is dated ca. 380-390 AD.[13]  Ambrose is explaining that after baptism and anointing, the Milanese baptismal rite includes a foot washing.  He acknowledges that this practice is not found in Rome, but then immediately affirms that in all other respects Milan’s practice is the same as Rome.  He says, “We are aware that the Roman Church does not follow this custom, although we take her as our prototype, and follow her rite in everything.  But she does not have this rite of the washing of the feet” (3.5). Ambrose clarifies that he is not condemning anyone who does not have the foot washing, but that instead where a difference of rite has merit, there is no sense in abandoning it just because it is different. He goes on to say, “I wish to follow the Roman Church in everything: but we too are not devoid of common sense.  When a better custom is kept elsewhere, we are right to keep it here also” (3.5).[14]

There is little doubt that rhetorical hyperbole is at play in Ambrose’s statement, as he deals with the fact that the baptismal rite he inherited is different from Rome.  However, the prayer associated with the giving of the Spirit that Ambrose describes clearly matches what we will find in the later Gelasian Sacramentary which was used in Roman practice in the seventh or eighth century. 

The Verona manuscript contains the following baptismal rite.  The catechumen is baptized in water (21.14-18).  Next it says, “Afterward, when he has come up, let him be anointed by the presbyter with that oil which was sanctified, saying: ‘I anoint you with holy oil in the name of Jesus Christ’” (21:19).[15]  The individuals dress (they had stripped naked before entering the font; 21.11), leave the baptistery and enter into the church (21.20).

Next the Verona text says:

“And let the bishop, laying [his] hand on them invoke, saying: ‘Lord God, who has made them worthy to receive the forgiveness of sins through the laver of regeneration of the Holy Spirit, send on them your grace, that they may serve you according to your will; for to you is glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit in the holy church, both now and to the ages of ages. Amen’ (21.21).

Afterward, pouring the sanctified oil from [his] hand and placing [it] on the head, let him say: ‘I anoint you with holy oil in God the Father Almighty and Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit’ (21.22).

And signing [him] on the forehead, let him offer [him] a kiss and let him say, ‘The Lord [be] with you.’  And let him who has been signed say, ‘And with your spirit’” (21.23).

In the Verona text it is: 1) the bishop who 2) lays on the hand 3) as he speaks a prayer invoking God to “send on them your grace” 3) followed by a second anointing 4) and the sign of the cross.

The Ambrose text is found in the post-baptismal catechetical instruction in which Ambrose has just described baptism in water, anointing and foot washing. Then he adds: “The spiritual sealing follows.  You have heard about this in the reading today.  For after the ceremonies of the font, it still remains to bring the whole to perfect fulfillment. This happens when the Holy Spirit is infused at the priest’s invocation: ‘the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and strength, the Spirit of knowledge and piety, the Spirit of holy fear’.  These might be called the seven ‘virtues’ of the Spirit.”[16]

Ambrose’s “spiritual seal” is one of the great conundrums of liturgical scholarship.  It is unclear whether this describes imposition of the hand, anointing, signing with the cross, some combination of these or, in fact, no ritual action.[17]  A significant problem in interpreting the phrase is encountered, just as it is almost every time language such as “seal” and “sign” is used. In his exhaustive study, Lampe calls attention to the “bewildering variety of meaning” employed by the early Church writers when using the term “seal.”[18]  He observes that, “Each instance of its use has to be considered individually on its merits, for there are few of the many meanings of σφραγίς, σφραγίζειν, signaculum¸ signare, which are not adopted by Christian writers to serve as baptismal metaphors and in many cases the metaphorical application combines more than one of the literal senses of the term.”[19]  Early church writers often use it in a polyvalent fashion, and synecdoche (a part for the whole) is often involved. This word of caution must be kept in mind throughout our consideration of post-baptismal acts in the early and medieval Church.

What is significant for our purposes is Ambrose’s description of how the Holy Spirit is infused through the priest’s invocation that is based upon the words of Isaiah 11:2 (“And the Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD” [ESV]).  The Verona text of the Apostolic Tradition 21.1 speaks about “sending on them your grace,” while Ambrose’s prayer directly brings the Spirit.

This fact is important because of what we find in the Gelasian Sacramentary which provides us with the first full text of baptismal practice in Rome.  It describes Rome practice in the seventh/eighth century (or perhaps slightly earlier).[20]  There after indicating that the infant is dipped three times in the water it says:
         
Then when the infant has gone up from the font he is signed on the head with chrism by the presbyter, with these words:
The Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has made you to be regenerated of water and the Holy Spirit, and has given you remission of all your sins, himself anoints you with the chrism of salvation in Christ Jesus unto eternal life. R. Amen.

Then the sevenfold Spirit is given to them by the bishop.  To seal them [ad consignandum], he lays his hand upon them with these words:
Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has made your servants to be regenerated of water and the Holy Spirit, and has given them remission of all their sins, Lord, send upon them you Holy Spirit the Paraclete, and give them the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and godliness, and fill them with the spirit of fear of God, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ with whom you live and reign ever God with the Holy Spirit, throughout all ages of ages. Amen.

Then he signs them on the forehead with chrism saying:
The sign of Christ unto life eternal.[21]

Like Ambrose, the invocation of the Holy Spirit is based on Isa 11:2.  The post-baptismal ritual ordering is: 1) Signing on the head with chrism by presbyter 2) Imposition of the hand by the bishop 3) Invocation of the Holy Spirit based on Isa 11:2 4) Signing on the forehead with chrism by the bishop. It is immediately apparent that the order of events is the same as that of the Verona text (though now it is signing with chrism rather than anointing with oil).  When the three prayers are set side by side, the resemblance is quite striking:

Verona: “And let the bishop, laying [his] hand on them invoke, saying: ‘Lord God, who have made them worthy to receive the forgiveness of sins through the laver of regeneration of the Holy Spirit, send on them your grace, that they may serve you according to your will; for to you is glory, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit in the holy church, both now and to the ages of ages. Amen’ (21.21).

Ambrose: “The spiritual sealing follows.  You have heard about this in the reading today.  For after the ceremonies of the font, it still remains bring the whole to perfect fulfillment. This happens when the Holy Spirit is infused at the priest’s invocation: ‘the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and strength, the Spirit of knowledge and piety, the Spirit of holy fear’.  These might be called the seven ‘virtues’ of the Spirit.”

Gelasian: Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has made your servants to be regenerated of water and the Holy Spirit, and has given them remission of all their sins, Lord, send upon them you Holy Spirit the Paraclete, and give them the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and godliness, and fill them with the spirit of fear of God, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ with whom you live and reign ever God with the Holy Spirit, throughout all ages of ages. Amen.

Bearing in mind Ambrose’s claim that Milan takes Rome “as our prototype” and that we “follow her rite in everything” (De Sacramentiis 3.5), it seems probable that around 400 AD Rome had a very similar prayer in use.  It also appears that it may have been a strengthened version of a prayer like the Verona prayer (now sending the Spirit and not just “grace.”).

III. Innocent I’s letter to Decentius of Gubbio
These three sets of text provide the framework within which we can examine our earliest evidence describing Roman baptismal practice: Innocent I’s March 19, 416 AD letter to Decentius, bishop of Gubbio.  Innocent I (401-417) is often overshadowed by the later bishops of Rome, Leo (441-460) and Gregory the Great (590-604).  However, he was instrumental in establishing Roman claims about the primacy of Rome based upon the link of the apostle Peter and the Bishop of Rome. He held up Roman practices as the model that other churches were to emulate.[22] 

Connell has called attention to the need for interpretation of Innoent I’s letters to take the social context into account.  Rome was sacked by Alaric in 410. The western half of the Roman Empire was crumbling and would come to a complete end in 476.  Connell comments, “Innocent returns to the occupied city, and the letter reflects his efforts at stabilizing the Church as the world in which it lived is falling down around it.  Recognizing the social and political upheavals of Rome in the time of Innocent’s letter is key in understanding the exigencies in which the liturgical prescriptions to follow are mandated.”[23]  An assumption of Innocent “is that there is only one way to do the rites.  In this assertion he is erasing, by ignorance or calculation, the diversity of ritual traditions that are evident in the gospels themselves. The stability of the Church is being rendered as dependent on liturgical uniformity, and this is a relatively new ecclesiological and liturgical idea.”[24]

Innocent’s assumptions and approach are demonstrated in the Introduction, Part 2 of Innocent’s letter to Decentius where he writes:

“For who does not know or who is not aware of what has been handed down to the Church of Rome from the prince of the apostles, Peter, or that this has been guarded and followed by all until now?  Nothing without authority is to displace or be introduced, nor should something from another place be considered a model.  Unless these have been introduced by the esteemed apostles Peter or his priest-successors, nothing is to be introduced into churches in all Italy, in Gaul, Spain, Africa and Sicily and the nearby islands.”[25]

Decentius was bishop of Gubbio, a minor town about one hundred miles north of Rome on the road to Ravenna (then the seat of imperial government).  Connell describes how Gubbio would have been within the sphere of influence of three metropolitan churches: Milan, Aquileia and Ravenna.[26]  Decentius had written to Innocent I’s predecessor, Damasus, with questions about a number of aspects of church practice.  Most likely his letter had been prompted by the diversity of practice that Decentius and his church encountered.[27]  Damasus had died, and so the task of responding to Decentius’ letter fell to Innocent I.

In the letter, Innocent I addresses the topic of the signing of infants.  He writes:

Regarding the signing of infants (De consignandis vero infantibus), this clearly cannot be done validly by anyone other than the Bishop. For even though presbyters are priests, none of them holds the office of pontiff (pontificatus). For not only is it ecclesiastical custom that shows this (consuetude ecclesiastica demonstrate) should be done only by pontiffs (pontificibus) – in other words, that they alone would sign or give the comforting Spirit (ut vel consignent, vel paracletum Spiritum tradant) – but there is also that reading in the Acts of the Apostles that describe Peter and John being ordered to give the Holy Spirit to those who had already been baptized. For whether the Bishop is present or not, presbyters are allowed to anoint the baptized with chrism (chrisimate baptizatos unguere licet).  But they are not allowed to sign the forehead with the same oil consecrated by the bishop (sed quod ab episcopo fuerit consecratum, non tamen frontem ex eodem oleo signare), for that is used by the bishops only when they give the Spirit, the Paraclete (quod solis debetur episcopis cum tradunt Spiritum paracletum).  I cannot reveal the words themselves, lest I seem to betray more than is needed to respond to your inquiry.[28]

There are interesting shifts of vocabulary in this text as Innocent I uses consignare (“to sign together”), ungere (“to anoint”), oleum (“oil”), and chrisma (“chrism”).  Connell notes this with the statement, “Perhaps the change of references is tied to the change of the liturgical minister who does the anointing – i.e., the bishop is ‘marking together,’ while the presbyter is merely ‘anointing.’ But there are too many variables to know the reasons for the vocabulary shifts.”[29]

There is often an assumption because of Innocent’s reference to Acts 8 that he is speaking about the episcopal hand laying as well as a second post-baptismal anointing.[30]  However, Innocent’s emphasis is clearly on the anointing and Spinks is correct when he cautions, “whether the citation of Acts 8 allows us to infer also an episcopal hand-laying is less clear.”[31]

Innocent I writes with a sense of authority and presumed uniformity of practice that does not correspond to the available evidence (as we will see below).  It is clear that he writes as much about what he wants to be the case in all places, as what is actually happening.  Kavanagh has argued that, “Given all this in its historical setting, one must conclude that Innocent’s letter to Decentius, at least on the matter of consignation, is propaganda rather than a serene and objective articulation of doctrine – well meaning, understandable in the circumstances, and for high motives, but propaganda nonetheless.  Based on a selective biblical appeal, it seeks to justify a new understanding of an old post-chrismational structure in the Roman baptismal procedure.”[32]

In Ambrose’s invocation of the Spirit with words based on Isa 11:2 and Innocent’s argument that the second post-baptismal anointing performed by the bishop gives the Spirit we find an advance over the mere prayer asking God to “send on them your grace” in the Verona text.  Kavanagh has pointed out that it is likely that the theological events in the second half of the fourth century influenced this change. 

The creed adopted at Nicaea in 325 AD said only this about the Holy Spirit: “And in the Holy Spirit.”[33]  Kelly reports that beginning in the late 350’s there was discussion about the nature and status of the Spirit, and in the course of discussions the Pneumatomachians (also called Macedonians) rejected the divinity of the Spirit.  The extended discussion of the Spirit in the third article of the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed in 381 AD is the orthodox response to this.[34] It is likely that the climate of pneumatological controversy prompted an increased focus on the Spirit in the rite of baptism and that this is reflected in the Ambrose text and in Innocent’s letter.[35] At the same time it is necessary to observe that Innocent I’s position finds no prior precedent in the material we have looked at, and stands contrary to the understanding – based on what actually happens in Acts 8 - that the episcopal hand laying gives the Spirit. 

There are four important observations to draw from this text about Roman baptismal practice in the early fifth century.  First, Innocent’s letter provides explicit evidence for a second post-baptismal anointing that is performed only by the bishop.  He describes this as a matter of “ecclesiastical custom” (ecclesiastica consuetudo) and so presumably, it is not a new development. The same pattern is found in the Verona text, and so there is good reason to believe that it was being done in Rome during the fourth century (and perhaps earlier, though we have no way of knowing).  This will be a defining feature of Roman baptismal practice and will be a key factor in generating Confirmation.

Second, the letter provides the first evidence for the giving of the Spirit being linked to the second post-baptismal anointing.  We have seen in the previous post in this series that both Tertullian and Cyprian attributed this to the laying on of the hand and that Cyprian was the first to cite Acts 8 in support of this.  Because of the Acts 8 text, this will be a dominant understanding. However in a very strange move, Innocent I uses the handlaying of Acts 8 to explain the fact that the second anointing by the bishop gives the Spirit.  It is unusual for this period.  However, it presages the same move that another Innocent, Innocent III, will make in the thirteenth century.

Third, the letter provides the first evidence for the different location of the two anointings.  The presbyter anoints on the head; the bishop anoints on the forehead.  This will be maintained as the standard distinction wherever the second post-baptismal anointing is found.

Finally, Innocent I’s emphasis on the second anointing prompts us to consider how the first anointing by the presbyter was viewed.  Fisher is surely correct when he writes, “Since Innocent is here arguing that, on the analogy of what happened in Acts 8.17, only bishops have the right to confer the Holy Spirit upon the baptized, the inference is irresistible that the unction which he permitted presbyters to administer had a purpose other than to convey the Holy Spirit."[36]

The basic wording of this first anointing probably used in Rome during this period can readily be surmised based on the evidence we possess.  Ambrose in ca 390 says about baptism in Milan: “So you were immersed, and you came to the priest. What did he say you? God the Father Almighty, he said, who has brought you to a new birth through water and the Holy Spirit and has forgiven you all your sins, himself anoints you into eternal life.[37] The Gelasian Sacramentary for seventh/eighth century Rome has:

Then when the infant has gone up from the font he is signed on the head with chrism by the presbyter, with these words:
The Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has made you to be regenerated of water and the Holy Spirit, and has given you remission of all your sins, himself anoints you with the chrism of salvation in Christ Jesus unto eternal life. R. Amen.[38]

Fisher calls attention to the statement that Leo I (441-460) makes after quoting 1 Pet 2:9: “Remain firm in that faith which you have confessed before many witnesses, and in which reborn by water and the Holy Spirit you received the chrism of salvation and the sign of eternal life” (Serm. 24.6). He concludes that Leo I “seems to show a knowledge of the Gelasian formula, which must therefore have formed part of the Roman rite of initiation as far back as the mid-fifth century.”[39]

Leo I’s quotation of 1 Pet 2:9 is significant because it indicates that he is associating this first anointing with the Christian’s status as part of the royal priesthood through baptism.  This is the dominant interpretation provided to the first anointing no matter whether it is the first of two anointing or is the only anointing. We have already seen in the previous post that Tertullian interpreted the anointing in terms of priesthood.[40]  Ambrose describes the anointing of his rite in the same way: “It flowed down into the beard – that is, unto the grace of youth – even unto Aaron’s beard, for this purpose, that you may become a chosen generation, priestly, precious; for we are all anointed with spiritual grace unto the kingdom of God and the priesthood” (De Mysteriis 30).[41]  Writing around 500 AD from Rome, John the Deacon will say, “He is next arrayed in white vesture, and his head anointed with the unction of the sacred chrism: that the baptized person may understand that in his person a kingdom and a priestly mystery have met. For priests and princes used to be anointed with the oil of chrism, priests that they might offer sacrifices to God, princes that they might rule their people (5).[42]  This interpretation will appear again and again in the western Church.[43]

IV. John the Deacon’s letter to Senarius
John the Deacon’s letter to Senarius (ca. 500) provides the next witness to Roman baptismal practice in this period.[44]  Ultimately, he describes the same rituals found in the Gelasian Sacramentary.  However, the manner in which he does so raises some questions.  In describing the baptismal rite, he says that after baptism in water there is an anointing that is described in royal and priestly terms (6).[45]  In his discussion of the rite he doesn’t mention anything else.  However it is clear that John also knows of the invocation of the Spirit and the second post-baptismal anointing by the bishop.  He writes, “There remains now that question which you thought should be asked, if a baptized person departs this life without having received the anointing with chrism and blessing of the bishop, whether this will be to his loss in any way or not” (14).[46] 

John indicates that this chrism and blessing by the bishop is not necessary for salvation (14).[47]  Most likely Senarius’ question pertained to infants who died after baptism, without having the bishop perform his acts. The manner in which John describes the baptismal rite without mention of the bishop’s prayer and second post-baptismal anointing, and his answer to Senarius’ question about the necessity of these for salvation, seems to indicate a rather tepid assessment of them.  Johnson appropriately concludes, “Such reluctance on his part to advocate for these episcopal ceremonies would seem, again, to underscore at the end of the fifth century, and in spite of past papal directives to the contrary, that the rites of Christian initiation even at Rome itself had not yet become synthesized into a single dominant pattern.”[48] Nevertheless, the single pattern was present and taking root for as Fisher observes, “Therefore these episcopal acts, as we find them in John the Deacon and the Gelasianum, must have formed part of the Roman rite before the time of Gregory I and before the compilation of any sacramentary called after his name.”[49]
         
V. Ordo Romanus XI
The desire of the bishops of Rome to promote this baptismal practice is apparent in the last piece of evidence from the time period we are considering.  Ordo Romanus XI provides the rubrical guide for the rite of baptism in seventh or eighth century Rome.[50]  It describes a rite that runs in the same way as the Gelasian Sacramentary which dates from the same period (a sacramentary provides the spoken text and an ordo provides the directions for conducting the rite). It includes the following new information, “And being vested, they are arranged in order as their names are written, in a circle, and the pontiff makes a prayer over them confirming them with an invocation of the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit” (XI.100).[51] Then after describing the signing with chrism in the triune name it goes on to add: “Great care must be taken that this is not neglected, because it is at this point that every baptism is confirmed and justification made for the name of  Christianity” (XI.102).[52]
         
Ordo XI uses the word “confirm” to describe the bishop’s invocation of the Spirit using the words based on Isa 11:2.    The statement in XI.102 seems to indicate that the prayer and the second anointing may have been understood as a unit.  We will return to this text later when examining how the language of confirm/confirmation was used in Rome during this period.  For now, it is important to take note of how strongly Ordo XI emphasizes these post-baptismal acts by the bishop.  Johnson concludes about this:

Since ordines like this, it must be recalled, were designed especially for those areas outside of Rome where the Roman rite itself was being introduced, such an emphasis here is obviously intended to underscore what would have been new, unclear, and, hence, frequently neglected element as that rite was coming to be adopted.  Indeed, rubrics and directives like this are not normally needed unless something desired is, in fact, not taking place.[53]

VI. Baptism at Rome
The implementation of the Roman rite of baptism with post-baptismal episcopal invocation of the Spirit and second anointing would be the major factor in creating Confirmation.  We can find evidence of this process beginning already in this period in areas under the authority of the Roman bishop that were outside Rome.  However, in order to understand how the rite functioned in Rome itself it is necessary to understand the baptismal context of the city.

Fisher notes that Ordo XI almost certainly describes the ritual in the pope’s church of that period, the basilica of the Lateran.[54]  However, he also points out that “there is incontrovertible evidence that there were other baptisteries in existence in the city of Rome before the seventh century, and that some, if not all, of them were used at the Paschal season.”[55]  Fisher lays out the evidence in the following manner:

Without doubt therefore by the seventh century Paschal initiation took place not only in the Lateran but also in the churches of St. Mary Major, St. Peter and St. Paul. What is less certain is how many other baptisteries existed in Rome at this time, and how many of them were used for initiation in the Paschal season.  According to the Liber Pontificalis, Marcellus, who was pope in 308 and the year following, appointed twenty-five title churches in the city of Rome for the baptism and penance of the many who were being converted from paganism and for the burial of martyrs.  While the historical accuracy of this statement cannot be assumed, it at least shows that by the early sixth century when this book was published the practice of baptizing in the title churches was already long established.  Each title church it would appear, was used not merely for performance of scrutinies but also for the actual administration of baptism.  Now whatever may have been the situation in the early fourth century, there were twenty-five title churches in Rome in the time of Gregory I; and there is reason to suppose this number was maintained until the pontificate of Callistus III (1119-24).[56]

There were multiple locations in Rome where baptisms were taking place.  However, there was only one bishop of Rome - the pope presiding at the basilica of the Lateran (pictured above).  How then were the episcopal acts after baptism carried out in the other sites?  It was “apparently one of the pope’s suffragans, sent to the title church to ensure that the initiations there administered were complete.”[57]

This use of suffragan bishops on behalf of the pope had critical implications. Fisher goes on to say:

However, the liturgical evidence, so far as it goes, points to one conclusion, that, although owing to the numbers involved Paschal initiation could no longer be confined to one church, baptism in all normal cases was followed at once by presbyterial unction of the head and the episcopal hand-laying and signing of the forehead with chrism, and finally by the mass of the Paschal vigil, at which the candidates were all communicated. That is to say, except where initiation was required in sudden emergency such as rendered the presence of a bishop impossible, the Roman rite preserved its primitive unity during the sixth, seventh and eighth centuries, the period covered by the Gelasianum, the Hadrianum and Ordo XL.[58]

We have seen that in his letter Innocent I presents the second post-baptismal anointing by the bishop as if it an established custom in Rome which all western churches should follow, but that John the Deacon appears to be less than enthusiastic about the practice.  It is clear that Innocent exaggerated the situation, because Pope Gelasius (492-496) some eighty years later writes:

No less do we also prohibit presbyters from tending more than their duty—from taking boldly for themselves the things reserved to the episcopal degree: grasping for themselves the faculty of making chrism and of applying the episcopal consignation” (Letter 9.6).[59]   Clearly there were still more than a few presbyters who were performing the anointing/congsignation with chrism (presumably on the forehead, the place reserved for the bishop according to Innocent I).

More evidence of this is found one hundred years later (and almost two hundred years after Innocent I!) in Gregory the Great’s letter to Sardinia in which he writes: “It has also come to our attention that some people have been scandalized that we prohibite presbyters to trace with chrism those who need to be baptized. And indeed we have done this according to the ancient custom of our church. But if any are at all troubled by this matter, we concede that where bishops are absent, presbyters also ought to trace those needing to be baptized on their foreheads with chrism” (Letter 4.26).[60]  Two centuries after Innocent I there were those for whom the practice of reserving an anointing for the bishop was still not considered “normal practice.” What is more, Gregory the Great was even willing to concede the right to presbyters when there was no bishop present.

Gregory’s mention of situations where the bishop was absent brings us to the heart of the pastoral situation that would eventually generate Confirmation.  In an age of high infant mortality, there would be many instances where a child received baptism but died before it was possible to receive the episcopal acts (we have seen that this is probably the source of Senarius’ question).  These were unavoidable exceptions caused by emergency situations – even in Rome itself. 

In the normal situations of baptism in Rome, the pope or his suffragans would be present for the invocation of the Spirit and the second anointing.  However, a very different pastoral situation was found outside Rome where bishops cared for larger rural areas.  In these settings it was not possible for the bishop to be present for baptisms at every church.  The first anointing by the presbyter would take place, but the bishop’s acts would not.  It then became necessary for the bishop to go to the various churches in order to carry out what he had not been able to do at the time of the baptism.

Gregory the Great addresses this situation in a letter to Sicily in which he admonishes the bishops not to cause unnecessary convenience to the presbyters when they go out to consign the baptized.  He writes: 

Moreover, it has been reported to us that at the time of my predecessor of blessed memory, a deacon who then took care of an ecclesiastical patrimony had been appointed through the Servant of God, so that the bishops stationed throughout your diverse dioceses should be burdened less than usual to go out so often consigning infants. The completion, which ought to be given by the same bishops onto the work of the clergy, was added on, as I hear from you in agreement. And that which was acceptable then, as it is said now, is not at all protected. For this reason I admonish your fraternity that you not try to become severe with your subjects, but that you restrain if there are any difficulties, because you should not deviate from that which was once decided. For you provide for yourselves both in the future and in the present life, if you keep from difficulty those who have been entrusted to you (Letter 13.20).[61]

This situation would be even more common in the much larger areas of episcopal responsibility in Gaul.  The Roman insistence that the bishop himself had to consign the baptized  (rather than a presbyter using chrism blessed by the bishop as we was done in the eastern Church and parts of the west in this period) meant that baptism and the invocation of the Spirit/second anointing would become temporally separated.  This new pastoral situation would prompt theological reflection in order to explain what the now separated acts meant.

VII. The language of confirm/confirmation
The final subject to examine is the use of the vocabulary “confirm/confirmation” in Rome during this period.  We can observe at the outset that there is no evidence in this period that it was ever understood in a way that corresponded to Confirmation.  The earliest use of this language was applied to reconciliation of schismatics and heretics and this was “an important factor that influenced initiation liturgy, and confirmation in particular.”[62] 
Leo I wrote: “Those who received baptism from heretics, when they had not been previously baptized, must be confirmed with the explicit invocation of the Holy Spirit through the imposition of hands, because they received only the form of baptism without the strength of sanctification” (Letter 159.7).[63] The imposition of the hand and its basis in Acts 8 found similar application here as it did in baptism.  Austin comments about this, “While he probably was not using the term ‘confirmation’ in a technical sense, nevertheless the idea is that reconciliation bestows the Holy Spirit on those entering into the church, since the Spirit cannot work outside the church … All this is not to imply that the postbaptismal rites of initiation were the same thing. One could be distinguished from the other, but they followed the same lines of development since they both conferred the Holy Spirit.”[64]

We have already seen a second use of this vocabulary in Ordo XI which said, pontiff makes a prayer over them confirming them with an invocation of the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit” (XI.100) and then continued, “Great care must be taken that this is not neglected, because it is at this point that every baptism is confirmed and justification made for the name of Christianity” (XI.102).[65]  Fisher notes that here, “Evidently the bishops hand-laying and anointing are held to confirm the baptism, in the sense of completing, consummating, and sealing it.  So in Ordo XXXI perficitur is substituted for confirmatur.”[66]

Finally, around the same time as Ordo XI, “confirm” is used to mean “give communion from the cup.”  Thus we find in Ordo I:

The bishops receive Communion after the archdeacon, and the deacons confirm after them.
For when the bishop comes to receive Communion, the acolyte goes before him holding against his bent neck a cloth with which is held the paten with the holy elements. In the same way they follow the deacons with pitchers and goblets for pouring wine in the sacred vessels from which the people are confirmed. In doing this they go from the right side to the left.
But the presbyters, with the approval of the superior, by order of the bishop, give Communion to the people and themselves confirm them in turn (Ordo I.114-116).[67]

The development of the language “confirm/confirmation” so that it can be applied to the rite of Confirmation will take place in Gaul.


VIII. Rome before Confirmation
In conclusion, I would like to make three observations about this material.  The first is to recognize that like the western Church before Nicaea, there is no Confirmation in Rome at this time.  In the post-baptismal ritual structure, we do see the appearance of the second anointing which will become the focus of Confirmation in the medieval period.  However, in spite of what Innocent I claims, it is clear that this was not the uniform practice of the church at Rome from the beginning. It certainly wasn’t for the churches in the surrounding areas of southern Italy.  It was a practice that Rome had to persuade and pressure other churches to adopt.  Once again, we see that Confirmation was not instituted by Christ like Holy Baptism, Holy Absolution and the Sacrament of the Altar and so we do not find the entire early Church administering it from the beginning.

Confirmation does not exist in Rome at the terminological level.  There is no evidence that the language “confirm/confirmation” was being used in Rome during this period in a way that reflects the later meaning of Confirmation.  It did not exist at a conceptual level. Like the pre-Nicaea material, in Rome there was simply the single rite of Holy Baptism through which a Christian received rebirth and the gift of the Spirit.  The unique arrangement of the various title churches and the suffragan bishops in the city of Rome, allowed the entire baptismal rite to take place, with both anointings, at one time.  It is only in larger outlying areas that a separation of the second anointing from baptism was beginning to take place. The second anointing is the primary source that will generate Confirmation, but it had not yet done so.

IX. Roman material and the Lutheran Service Book Rite of Holy Baptism
The second observation pertains to how this early Roman material stands in relation to the Rite of Holy Baptism found in Lutheran Service Book.  We have seen that the Gelasian Sacramentary says of the first post-baptismal anointing:

Then when the infant has gone up from the font he is signed on the head with chrism by the presbyter, with these words:
The Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has made you to be regenerated of water and the Holy Spirit, and has given you remission of all your sins, himself anoints you with the chrism of salvation in Christ Jesus unto eternal life. R. Amen.

The language here is the source for the words in Lutheran Service Book which now are accompanied by a laying on of hands:

          The pastor places his hands on the head of the newly baptized while saying:
The almighty God and Father or our Lord Jesus Christ, who has given you the new birth of water and of the Spirit and has forgiven you all yours sins, strengthen you with His grace to life ╬ everlasting.[68]

We have seen that the standard interpretation for the first anointing was that of 1 Pet. 2:9’s “royal priesthood.”  There is a rich and valid biblical symbolism in this anointing and it was retained in Martin Luther’s 1523 Order of Holy Baptism.  As I have described elsewhere (Mark’s Thoughts: The Use of Chrism in the Lutheran Service Book Rite of Holy Baptism), the Lutheran Service Book Agenda makes provision for its use and this affords a wonderful opportunity to re-appropriate a practice that has a rich biblical, theological and historical basis.[69]  

X. Roman material and LCMS Rites
The third observation deals with how this early Roman material stands in relation to the Rites of Holy Baptism and Confirmation found in The Lutheran Agenda, Lutheran Worship and Lutheran Service Book.  The Gelasian Sacramentary contains the following for the invocation of the Spirit and second post-baptismal anointing:

Then the sevenfold Spirit is given to them by the bishop.  To seal them [ad consignandum], he lays his hand upon them with these words:
Almighty God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has made your servants to be regenerated of water and the Holy Spirit, and has given them remission of all their sins, Lord, send upon them you Holy Spirit the Paraclete, and give them the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and godliness, and fill them with the spirit of fear of God, in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ with whom you live and reign ever God with the Holy Spirit, throughout all ages of ages. Amen.

Then he signs them on the forehead with chrism saying:
The sign of Christ unto life eternal.[70]

Here the words of Isa 11:2 used as the bishop sends the Spirit upon the baptized.  The hand laying and prayer were taken up by the The Lutheran Agenda in the first of five options for the Benediction:

Then shall the Minister, laying his hands upon each one separately, pronounce the name of the Catechumen and the Benediction, adding a Scripture passage as a memorial of Confirmation, saying:
N., God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, give thee His Holy Spirit, the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge, of grace and prayer, of power and strength, of sanctification and the fear of God.[71]

A very similar version is found in the Lutheran Worship Rite of Confirmation:

The catechumens, in turn, give their right hand and kneel. The minister lays his hands upon the head of each one and gives the following blessing.  A confirmation text is then given to each.
    Name     , God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, give you his Holy Spirit, the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge, of grace and prayer, of power and strength, of sanctification and the fear of God.[72]     

It is very surprising that these were ever included in Lutheran rites.  When we reflect on what is actually being said, the theology of hand laying and the giving of the Spirit stands in the tradition of Tertullian, Cyprian and the Gelasian Sacramentary.  Yet as the previous post has indicated, when we look at its ultimate basis in Acts 8 we find that while the Scriptures speak about the water of baptism and the command and promises attached to it, they never say anything in regard to the laying on of hands in baptism in order to give the Spirit.  Moreover, when these words are spoken at Confirmation (an event removed in time from baptism) they invite the same kinds of questions that medieval theology generated and answered as it created Confirmation while trying to explain the second anointing that was now occurring at a time separate from baptism: What does it mean for the Spirit to be given again?  What new or additional gift does this bring? Why is this necessary?

If there is to be a Rite of Confirmation, then the wording found in the Lutheran Service Book Rite of Confirmation is a great improvement because it has removed the language about the giving of the Spirit and Isa 11:2. There we find:

The catechumens kneel to receive the confirmation blessing. The pastor places his hands on the head of each catechumen and makes the sign of the cross on the forehead while saying:
     Name    , the almighty God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has given you the new birth of water and of the Spirit and has forgiven you all your sins, strengthen you with His grace to life ╬ everlasting.[73]

LSB has modeled these words on those spoken after baptism, and in doing so seeks to ground Confirmation in baptism itself.  If there is to be Confirmation, this is the approach that is most appropriate.

Next in the series:
The weird and wacky history of Confirmation, Part 3: Milan and northern Italy

Previously in this series:




   







[1] A helpful introduction to this is: Theodor Klauser, A Short History of the Western Liturgy: An account and some reflections (2d ed.; Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1979).
[2] Eric Palazzo, A History of Liturgical Books: From the Beginning to the Thirteenth Century (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1998), 45.
[3] Palazzo, A History of Liturgical Books, 45-46.
[4] Palazzo calls attention to the small ivory plaques attached to the back cover of the Drogon Sacramentary which show, “nine scenes of the Eucharist celebrated by the bishop in the cathedral of Metz. The different scenes, presented with meticulous attention to detail (number and placement of officiants, gestures, liturgical objects, and so on), reflect the historical fact that Metz adopted ordines romani during the Carolingian period under the episcopacy of Chrodegang (742-766); this is incontrovertible proof of the romanization of the Gallican liturgy in one of its bastions, the cathedral of Metz” (A History of Liturgical Books. 185).
[5] Palazzo, A History of Liturgical Books, 46-47.
[6] On Roman liturgy before these changes, see Edmund Bishop’s classic essay “The Genius of the Roman Rite” (Edmund Bishop, “The Genius of the Roman Rite” in Liturgica Historica: Papers on the Liturgy and Religious Life of the Western Church [Oxford: Oxford Univeristy Press, 1918], 1-19).  On the liturgy in Gaul before large scale Roman influence, see: Yitzhak Hen, Culture & Religion in Merovingian Gaul, AD 481-751 (New York: Brill, 1995), 42-153; W.S. Porter, The Gallican Rite (London: A. R. Mowbray, 1958).
[7] Cyrille Vogel, Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources (Tran. and rev. by William Storey and Niels Rasmussen; Washington, D.C., 1986), 2.
[8] Palazzo, A History of Liturgical Books, 206.
[9] See the detailed discussion in Bradshaw, Johnson and Phillips, The Apostolic Tradition, 1-6. See also the summary of the weaknesses in Paul F. Bradshaw, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and Methods for the Study of Early Liturgy (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2002), 81-83.
[10] Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation 101-110; Bradshaw, Johnson and Phillips, The Apostolic Tradition, 108-125.
[11] Bradshaw, Johnson and Phillips, The Apostolic Tradition, 7-8. Bradshaw, Johnson and Phillps say it was made “sometime during the last quarter of the fourth century” (7).  Aidan Kavanagh cites a commonly held date when he says it was done ca. 350 (Aidan Kavanagh, Confirmation: Origin and Reform [Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1988], 47).
[12] Frank C. Quinn, “Confirmation Reconsidered: Rite and Meaning,” in Living Water, Sealing Spirit: Readings on Christian Initiation (ed. Maxwell E. Johnson; Collegeville, MN: 1995, 219-237, 224).
[13] Maxwell E. Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation: Their Evolution and Interpretation (rev. and exp.; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2007), 169.
[14] E.C. Whitaker, Documents of the Baptismal Liturgy (rev. and ed. Maxwell E. Johnson; Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2003), 180 (hereafter DBL).
[15] All translations of Apostolic Tradition 21 are from Bradshaw, Johnson and Phillips, The Apostolic Tradition, 118.
[16] DBL 181. Ambrose says something very similar in de Mysteriis 42 which dates to the same period: “Wherefore, recollect the spiritual seal, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and godliness, the spirit of holy fear, and preserve what you received. God the Father has sealed you. Christ the Lord has confirmed you, and has given the pledge of the Spirit in your heart, as you learned from the Apostolic lesson” (DBL 183).
[17] See the discussion in Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation, 170-175.
[18] G.W.H. Lampe, The Seal of the Spirit: A Study in the Doctrine of Baptism and Confirmation in the New Testament and Fathers (2d ed.; London: SPCK), 7.
[19] Lampe, The Seal of the Spirit, 8-9.
[20] Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation, 222.  Whitaker/Johnson says that the original of Vat. Regin. 316 
“is an edition of a rite which in its original Roman form was first drawn up in the early sixth century” (
DBL 212).
[21] DBL, 235.
[22] Martin F. Connell, Church and Worship in Fifth-Century Rome: The Letter of Innocent I to Decentius of Gubbio: Text with Introduction, Translation and Notes (Cambridge: Grove Books, 2002), 6-10.
[23] Connell, Church and Worship in Fifth-Century Rome, 19.
[24] Connell, Church and Worship in Fifth-Century Rome, 19.
[25] Connell, Church and Worship in Fifth-Century Rome, 20.
[26] Connell, Church and Worship in Fifth-Century Rome, 12.
[27] Connell, Church and Worship in Fifth-Century Rome, 15.
[28] Connell, Church and Worship in Fifth-Century Rome, 28.
[29] Connell, Church and Worship in Fifth-Century Rome, 29.
[30] Johnson comments, “This important letter may well be our first witness to the practice of an episcopal hand-laying and (second) postbaptismal anointing as parts of the Roman rite, with the laying on hands inferred from the reference to Acts 8” (Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation, 162; emphasis original).
[31] Bryan D. Spinks, Early and Medieval Rituals and Theologies of Baptism: From the New Testament to the Council of Trent (Surrey: Ashgate, 2006), 62.
[32] Aidan Kavanagh, Confirmation: Origins and Reform (New York: Pueblo Publishing Co., 1988), 58.
[33] J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (3d ed.; New York: Longman, 1972), 216.
[34] Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 338-344.
[35] Aidan Kavanagh, Confirmation: Origins and Reform, 58-62.
[36] J.D.C. Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West – A Study in the Disintegration of the Primitive Rite of Initiation (Chicago: HillenbrandBooks, 2004), 15
[37] DBL 179.
[38] DBL 235.
[39] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West, 15.
[40] “After that we come up from the washing and are anointed with the blessed unction, following that ancient practice by which, ever since Aaron was anointed by Moses, there was a custom of anointing them for priesthood with oil out of a horn” (On Baptism 7) (DBL 9).
[41] DBL 182.
[42] DBL 210.
[43] For example Pseudo-Maximus of Turin writes in a sermon about baptism: “When the baptism has been completed, we pour chrism, that is the oil of sanctification, on your head.  By this oil it is shown that the Lord confers on the newly baptized the dignity of royalty and priesthood. In the Old Testament those who were chosen for kingship or priesthood were anointed with holy oil, and they received power from the Lord by the anointing of the head … But in the Old Testament that oil conferred a temporary kingdom and a temporary priesthood which were to be exercised in this life and ended after the span of a few years.  But this chrism, that is, this anointing which was administered to you, conferred on you the full riches of the kingdom and priesthood of Christ, and once conferred it is never brought to an end” (Gordon P. Jeannes, The Origins of the Roman Rite Vol. 2 [Cambridge: Grove Books, 1998], 38).
[44] Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation, 164.
[45] DBL 210-211.
[46] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West, 17.
[47] Thomas M. Finn, Early Christian Baptism and the Catechumenate: Italy, North Africa and Egypt (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992, 89.
[48] Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation, 167-168.
[49] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West, 17.
[50] Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation, 222.
[51] DBL 251.
[52] DBL 251.
[53] Johnson, The Rites of Christian Initiation, 228.
[54] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West, 18.
[55] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West, 18.
[56] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West, 18.
[57] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West, 19.
[58] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West, 20 (emphasis added).
[59] Paul Turner, Ages of Initiation: The First Two Christian Millenia (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2000), CD-ROM source excerpts, 3.11. The Ministry of Presbyters.
[60] Turner, Ages of Initiation, CD-ROM source excerpts, 4.2. Baptism, Anointing, Eucharist: Supplementary Texts.
[61] Turner, Ages of Initiation, CD-ROM source excerpts, 4.2. Baptism, Anointing, Eucharist: Supplementary Texts.
[62] Gerald Austin, The Rite of  Confirmation: Anointing with the Spirit (New York: Pueblo Publishing Co., 1985), 15.
[63] Turner, Ages of Initiation, CD-ROM source excerpts, 3.12. Confirmation.
[64] Austin, The Rite of  Confirmation, 16.
[65] DBL 251.
[66] Fisher, Christian Initiation: Baptism in the Medieval West, 163.
[67] Turner, Ages of Initiation, CD-ROM source excerpts, 5.2.  “Confirm” as Communion.
[68] Lutheran Service Book (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006), 271.
[69] Lutheran Service Book Agenda (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006), 5, The Rite in Detail 9.
[70] DBL 235.
[71] The Lutheran Agenda (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, undated), 25.
[72] Lutheran Worship (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1982), 206-207.
[73] Lutheran Service Book, 273.