6. Appeal to apostolic laying on of hands is unfounded
aIndeed, they defend themselves with the example of the apostles, who, they judge, did nothing rashly.1
2 Quite true; nor would we blame them if they showed themselves followers of the apostles. But what did the apostles do? Luke tells in The Acts that the apostles who were at Jerusalem, when they had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, sent Peter and John thither; these apostles prayed for the Samaritans that they might receive the Holy Spirit, who had not yet come upon any of them, for they had been baptized in Jesus’ name only; when they had prayed, they laid their hands upon them, and through this laying on of hands the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit [
Acts 8:14–17, cf. Vg
.]. And he frequently mentions this laying on of hands [
Acts 6:6;
8:17;
13:3;
19:6].
I hear what the apostles did, that is, that they faithfully fulfilled their ministry. The Lord willed that those visible and wonderful graces of the Holy Spirit, which he then poured out upon his people, be administered and distributed by his apostles through the laying on of hands. I think that no deeper mystery underlies this laying on of hands, but my interpretation is that they made use of such a ceremony to signify by their gesture that they commended to God, and, as it were, offered him on whom they laid their hands.
If this ministry which the apostles then carried out still remained in the church, the laying on of hands would also have to be kept. But since that grace has ceased to be given, what purpose does the laying on of hands serve? Surely, the Holy Spirit is still present among God’s people, for the church cannot stand unless he is its guide and director. For we have an eternal and permanently established promise by which Christ calls to himself those who thirst, that they may drink living waters [
John 7:37; cf.
Isa. 55:1; also
John 4:10;
7:38]. But those miraculous powers and manifest workings, which were dispensed by the laying on of hands, have ceased; and they have rightly lasted only for a time. For it was fitting that the new preaching of the gospel and the new Kingdom of Christ should be illumined and magnified by unheard-of and extraordinary miracles. When the Lord ceased from these, he did not utterly forsake his church, but declared that the magnificence of his Kingdom and the dignity of his word had been excellently enough disclosed. In what respect, then, will these actors say they are following the apostles? They should have brought it about with laying on of hands, in order that the evident power of the Holy Spirit might be immediately expressed. This they do not accomplish. Why, then, do they boast that the laying on of hands is theirs, which we read was indeed in use among the apostles, but for a wholly different end?
a edition of 1536
12 Innocent III, in Decretals of Gregory IX, I. tit. xv,
“De sacra unctione” (Friedberg II. 133), citing
Acts 8:14f.; Eugenius IV, bull
Exultate Deo xi:
“secundum apostolum” (Mansi XXXI. 1055; Mirbt,
Quellen, 4th ed., p. 236). Chrysostom treats this passage without reference to confirmation:
Homilies on Acts, hom. xviii. 3 (MPG 60. 144; tr. NPNF XI.
114 f.).
Vg. Vulgate version of the Bible.