Opbouw, Vol. 9, No. 2 (9 April 1965), pp. 12-13
Translated by Jim Witteveen from the works of Gerard Visee.
Scripture or Tradition?
The question is simply this: in the case of so-called public profession of faith, are we dealing with a requirement of Scripture or of tradition? I believe it is the latter. Scripture is silent concerning the entire question that presently occupies us. And it is well established that public profession of faith came to take the place of the Roman Catholic sacrament of confirmation. The word derives from the Latin confirmatio—“confirmation.”
This “sacrament” is intended to confirm and strengthen the grace that was already “infused” at the administration of baptism. It is administered by the bishop. Only in cases of danger of death may it be administered by the parish priest. The administration takes place as follows: The bishop invokes the Holy Spirit upon all the confirmands; afterward he lays his hand upon each of them, anoints the forehead with chrism (holy anointing oil), and says: “I sign you with the sign of the cross and strengthen you with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”
Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Church administers confirmation immediately after, and in connection with, baptism. This is also related to the fact that children in the Eastern Church are admitted to communion immediately, whereas in the Roman Catholic Church they may commune only at the time of confirmation.
This confirmation is still recalled in the “Preface” to the first edition of the Heidelberg Catechism of January 1563: “This practice of holding catechetical instruction remained in the Christian church for so long, until wretched Satan, through the Antichrist, the Pope, destroyed it, just as he did all other good institutions, and put in its place his anointings, slaps on the cheek, and other abominations, which he calls Confirmation.”[i]
The direct connection between this confirmation (confirmatio) and the so-called public profession of faith is still evident from the fact that the act of admission to the Lord’s Supper in the German Lutheran churches is still designated as Konfirmation, while the instruction preceding it is called Konfirmandenunterricht. Even in Dutch usage this terminology survived, where the public act of admission to the Lord’s Supper was referred to as “the confirmation of members.”
Article 61 of the Church Order
Admission to the Lord’s Supper is specifically addressed in Article 61 of the Church Order of Dordt: “No one shall be admitted to the Lord’s Supper except those who, according to the custom of the church to which they attach themselves, have made confession of the Reformed religion, and who are also known to lead a godly life; without such testimony, those coming from other churches shall likewise not be admitted.” By the latter category, “those coming from other churches,” the article does not mean those coming from non-Reformed churches.
Several things are noteworthy in what this article prescribes concerning admission to the Lord’s Supper. First, there is no mention whatever of public profession of faith. Secondly, considerable room was left for different ways of proceeding: admission was to take place according to the custom of the local church. There was no uniform regulation such as was introduced among us in 1923. The Synod of Dordrecht (1574) merely determined:
“The reception and examination of those who present themselves to the congregation shall take place before one minister and two elders, or before two ministers alone, who shall appoint a time according to their circumstances. The confession of faith and submission to church discipline shall take place publicly, in such a place as everyone may enter, whether in the consistory or in the church building, and there the names of those who are received shall be announced in an edifying manner. It has been decided that the confession of faith of those who have previously been examined, in this youthful stage of the church, shall be made by means of a simple affirmative answer.”[ii]
In this decision of the Synod of Dordrecht (1574), there is mention of an examination before a small committee consisting of one minister and two elders, or two ministers. There is also mention of a public confession made by means of a simple “Yes.” But by this public confession one must not think of a confession made during a public worship service of the congregation. Rather, it means a confession made in a public place accessible to everyone—the consistory room or the church building.
At this public profession, a simple affirmative answer was considered sufficient because of “the youthful state of the church.” One naturally thinks here of what the Church Order of the Palatinate (1563) says: that some children, out of timidity, were unable to recite such lengthy portions accurately word for word. Among the Reformed—again one thinks of the Palatinate Church Order of 1563—that examination of children took place publicly. It was a custom that also continued to exist in the Niederländisch Reformierte Gemeinde of Elberfeld, where the well-known Hermann Friedrich Kohlbrügge served as minister during the previous century. However that may be, among the Reformed there was considerable freedom concerning the manner of admission, and the age at which that admission took place was generally childhood. Be that as it may, this special act lacks any biblical foundation.
One may judge that there is nothing objectionable about such a public profession in the midst of the congregation; that where this custom of admission to the Lord’s Supper exists, it ought not lightly to be abolished; that a church wishing to adopt another manner of proceeding would do well to consult with its sister churches about the matter—but no one can say that a church following another custom thereby acts contrary to God’s Word. Nor is it at all impossible to imagine a situation in which the children of the congregation simply ask for admission to the Lord’s Supper, or—as was customary in the church of the Heidelberg Catechism—in which father and mother do so on their behalf, and in which, provided these children are above reproach, their request is granted with the quiet approval of the congregation.
The principal thing is that these matters also be conducted everywhere honestly and in good order. For God is a God of order. Above all, one must take care not to equate an ecclesiastical custom—even one that is good in itself and venerable because of its age—with the truth of God.
Anabaptism?
In connection with the participation of children in the Lord’s Supper, I once heard the word “Anabaptism.” I believe it was used wrongly, for it is precisely from the Anabaptist standpoint—from the sixteenth-century Anabaptists down to the present-day Pentecostal groups and the Barthian opponents of infant baptism—that one must reject not only infant baptism but, even more so, the participation of children in the Lord’s Supper.
Indeed, the very grounds advanced by the Reformed in support of infant baptism make the question of children’s participation highly relevant: since they, as well as the adults, are included in God’s covenant and in His church; and since to them, no less than to the adults, the forgiveness of sins through Christ’s blood and the Holy Spirit, who works faith, are promised. On this unfailing foundation we baptize the children of the congregation. On this foundation we earnestly and sincerely place upon their lips—because the LORD has promised it to them—the only comfort: that I belong, body and soul, always and under every circumstance, both in life and in death, to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ.
We teach this to our children not merely as something to be memorized, not as an “objective truth” which we then hope the LORD may someday “apply to their hearts.” No. On the basis of God’s commands and according to His promises we impress this upon our children: This is our faith. This is what you too may believe of the LORD. This is what you too must believe. The LORD has promised it.
And after our children have received the sign and seal of baptism—notice well: after they have been baptized—we teach them: “How are you admonished and assured in holy baptism that the one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross benefits you?” If we understand what we are doing with our children, then we understand that by this question we are not merely presenting them with an “objective” doctrine that must perhaps later be “subjectively” applied and appropriated. Rather, we are preaching and teaching the gospel to them. Not merely that the LORD has promised to them, together with the whole congregation of Christian believers, the forgiveness of sins and eternal life by grace, and that they may confidently rely upon that promise.
And on that very same foundation we teach the children of the congregation, with Answer 75: “…that Christ has commanded me and all believers to eat of this broken bread and to drink of this cup…” We have already referred to this answer earlier. I have treated this question and answer from Lord’s Day 28 with my catechism students in the following way:
Question: What has Christ commanded? Do not answer in your own words, but in the words of the Catechism.
Answer: To eat of this broken bread and to drink of this cup.
Question: To whom has Christ given this command?
Answer: To believers.
Question: Will you read it exactly as it stands in the Catechism?
Answer: “To me and all believers.”
Question: Who is meant here by “me”?
Answer: Me.
Question: Then Christ has commanded you, and all other believers, to eat of this broken bread and to drink of this cup. Why, then, do you not do it?
Answer: I am not yet allowed to.
Question: Not allowed by whom? Is it not permitted by the Lord Jesus?
Answer: The elders do not permit it.
Question: Have you ever asked the elders?
Answer: No. But first you have to make profession of faith, don’t you?
Question: Then why haven’t you made profession of faith yet?
Answer: You have to be older first, don’t you?
Question: How old must you be before you may believe in and love the LORD?
Answer: There isn’t any age prescribed for that.
Question: Exactly!
Answer: But you still don’t know everything that is in the Catechism, and you don’t yet know the whole Bible.
Question: Where does it say that you must know everything in the Catechism and know the whole Bible?
Answer: (There was no answer.)
Then I told the younger, the older, and the oldest catechism students how matters were conducted in the church of Heidelberg and the Palatinate. I told them that there fathers and mothers brought their children with them to the Lord’s Supper. There, profession of faith consisted in the children reciting the Apostles’ Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer, and answering a few questions about the Lord’s Supper. I also told them how kindly and mercifully the children were treated.
For when some of those children, out of timidity, were unable “to recite such lengthy portions accurately word for word,” they were not sternly sent away. Rather, the minister explained the matter to them once again clearly, and the following day they were permitted to come with the rest to the Lord’s Table. To be sure, they still did not know “everything,” nor did they yet know “the whole Bible.” But they continued, together with the adults, with father and mother, in catechism instruction. They attended it every Sunday afternoon throughout their lives.
Among other things, they came in order to receive further instruction concerning… the Lord’s Supper. And they celebrated the Lord’s Supper at least once every month, so that they might continually behold “the visible preaching” of the suffering and death of the Lord. I encouraged my catechism students to think carefully about these things and to discuss them at home with their father and mother.
(To be continued).
G. Visee
[i] The Heidelberg Catechism, ed. Bremmer–Visee, 6th ed. (1963), pp. 14–15.
[ii] Reitsma and Van Veen, Acta der provinciale en particuliere synoden, vol. II, p. 137, nos. (70) and (72).
