Chemnitz wrote Part II of the Examination, which treats
confirmation, in 1566.[2] In his consideration, Chemnitz hammers home
the point that what is attributed to confirmation minimizes baptism.[3] As
expected, he emphasizes that confirmation lacks divine command and promise.[4] He criticizes the Roman practice, because
while Scripture and church fathers speak about laying on of hands, the Romans
define the material of confirmation to be chrism.[5] He is aware that church fathers such as
Tertullian and Cyprian said the Spirit is given in baptism through hand
laying. In general, he deals with this
and other patristic witnesses that ascribe the giving of the Spirit to hand
laying or anointing by noting that Scripture does not teach this and that the
rule of Augustine should be observed, namely: “The authority of the statements
of the fathers ought to be not greater than the quality of the arguments which
they bring forward from the canonical Scriptures.”[6]
Specifically he maintains that Tertullian and Cyprian said this because of Montanus’
influence.[7]
Chemnitz is well aware that originally, the rite of baptism consisted of a continuous ceremony that included hand laying and anointing.[8] He argues: “Afterward, in order that the number of sacraments might be increased, they separated it from the act of Baptism. And in order that a separate sacrament might be made of it, they willed that some measure of time should lie between them.”[9] However, the separation was never an intentional act, but was instead an accident of practice that then produced a theology to explain it. In addition, church leaders repeatedly admonished that there should be as little delay as possible (see pages 3-10 of “The Rite of Confirmation: Teaching Lutherans to be Lutheran for Life?”).[10]
Chemnitz is convinced that there was originally a practice that we
can identify as “confirmation,” and that over time “traditions that are
useless, superstitious, and in conflict with Scripture” were added.[11] He states that originally, when those who had been baptized
as infants “arrived at the years of discretion” (ad annos discretionis),
they were instructed, and when they displayed comprehension, they were brought
to the bishop and the church for examination, exhortation, and public prayer accompanied
by the laying on of hands.[12]
Yet the evidence Chemnitz cites in support of this claim does not
withstand scrutiny. He points to the
examination of doctrine and laying on of hands in Acts 19:1-7, but this hardly
provides a typical example of church practice.[13] He cites texts about the church’s exhortation
to persevere in true doctrine (Acts 14:22; 15:30-32; 18:11), but these are
nothing more than general statements. They do not in any way indicate the
practice just described.[14] Chemnitz
refers to the examination and profession of faith described in Canon 7 of the
Council of Laodicea and Canon 8 of the Council of Arles, but he himself has
just noted earlier that these describe the process used in the reception of
heretics and schismatics and not that of baptized Christians.[15]
He cites the Council of Orleans and its reference to a “ripe age” (perfectatem
aetatem) to support the idea that confirmands were examined; however,
earlier he used the text of the Council to condemn confirmation since it says
that no one will be a Christian unless he had been anointed in confirmation by
the bishop. More importantly, the text that refers to a “ripe age” says nothing
about examination.[16] Finally
he cites Pseudo-Dionysius 7:11 to support his
argument, but this says nothing more than that baptized children can and should
receive instruction.
Because a church practice called “confirmation” existed at the start of the sixteenth century that was plagued with theological problems, Chemnitz assumes that this practice must have been present in a pure form at the beginning of the of the Church. Nothing better illustrates this than the way that Chemnitz deals with Jerome, Against the Luciferians, 9, which states: “I do not deny that it is the practice of the Churches in the case of those who living far from the greater towns have been baptized by presbyters and deacons, for the bishop to visit them, and by the laying on of hands to invoke the Holy Ghost upon them.”[17] Chemnitz comments on this:
It was without a doubt a good and useful custom for retaining and preserving purity of doctrine and faith that the bishop himself interrogated and examined those who had been baptized by others concerning the doctrine and faith, and when he understood that they believed rightly and had been baptized legitimately, he confirmed them with the Word, and with the laying on of hands invoked the Holy Spirit on them in order that they might persevere in the faith.”[18]Yet none of this is stated by Jerome (the entire point is about bishops giving the Spirit). This is all a product of Chemnitz’s own mind about “what must have happened.”
Chemnitz’s version of “confirmation” is a pious fantasy that never existed. He is by no means alone in this view among sixteenth century writers (Martin Bucer and Philip Melanchthon had similar positions). However, Chemnitz's authority carried great weight among Lutherans. It is this deeply flawed account of the “true history” of confirmation that legitimized it for Lutherans in the generations to come.
This is an excerpt from the paper, “The Rite of Confirmation: Teaching Lutherans to be Lutheran for Life?” that considers the
history and practice of confirmation in the Lutheran church.
[1] Frank W.
Kloss, Confirmation and First Communion: A Study Book (St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1968), 65.
[2] Paul Turner, The
Meaning and Practice of Confirmation: Perspectives from a Sixteenth-Century
Controversy (New York: Peter Lang, 1987), 57, nt. 68.
[3] Martin
Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent: Part II (tr. Fred Kramer;
St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1978), 183, 185, 196.
[4] Examination
of the Council of Trent: Part II, 187, 194.
[5] Examination
of the Council of Trent: Part II, 205-206.
[6] Examination
of the Council of Trent: Part II, 205.
[7] Examination
of the Council of Trent: Part II, 199.
This is a very weak argument, since “On Baptism” derives from
Tertullian’s pre-Montanist stage, and the accusation of Cyprian with Montanism
is unique to Chemnitz. Bellarmine
rightly critiques Chemnitz on this point (Turner, The Meaning and Practice
of Confirmation, 248).
[8] Examination
of the Council of Trent: Part II, 206, 208.
Chemnitz does not believe that these were all objectionable because,
“the efficacy of Baptism is signed and proclaimed by these superadded signs”
(200).
[9] Examination
of the Council of Trent: Part II, 207.
[10] For a more
extensive presentation, see: Weird and wacky history of Confirmation – complete list of links.
[11] Examination
of the Council of Trent: Part II, 212.
[12] Examination
of the Council of Trent: Part II, 212. Latin text cited from Martin
Chemnitz, Examen Concilii Tridentini (ed. Preuss; Berlin: Gust.
Schlawitz, 1861), 297 (hereafter referred to as Preuss).
[13] Examination
of the Council of Trent: Part II, 212-213
[14] Examination
of the Council of Trent: Part II, 213.
[15] Examination
of the Council of Trent: Part II, 213; see 208.
[16] Examination
of the Council of Trent: Part II, 219; Preuss 297. See, Examination of
the Council of Trent: Part II, 184.
The text itself is not from the Council of Orleans as cited by Gratian.
Instead: “The first half of this canon appears in the Carolingian Herardi
Turonensis Capitula (858) as cap. 75. The end of the canon, which makes
confirmation constitutive of being a Christian, is added several centuries
later in Ivonis Carnontensis Decretum (1117), 1:254, where the canon is
attributed to the Council of Orleans” (Turner, The Meaning and Practice of
Confirmation, 262-263). Turner notes that Chemnitz, Calvin, and Bellarmine
all refer to it as cited by Gratian (263).
[17] NPNF2,
6:324; A Select Library of the Christian Church: Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers. Series 2. ed. Philip Shaff; 14 vols. New York: The Christian
Literature Series, 1890-99; repr, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1952, 1961.
[18] Examination
of the Council of Trent: Part II, 210.
No comments:
Post a Comment