INAUGURAL ISSUE - AUGUST 2003
ISSN 1448 - 6326
BAPTISM IN THE PATRISTIC PERIOD Everett Ferguson Every Christian group has some form of a rite they call baptism. This rite serves as an initiation into the group. Its initiatory significance is indicated by the word used in some churches that practice infant baptism for that ceremony—“ christening,” literally “to make a Christian.” Only secondarily has christening come to mean “to give a name to,” and this as a consequence of the practice at earlier times (and some places now) in adult conversion of taking a new name on becoming a Christian. Different denominations may have different ceremonies, different ways of administering baptism, differences about to whom baptism is administered, and differences in the interpretation of the significance of the rite. But all have something they call baptism. This being the case, it is of interest to study how baptism was done in the early formative centuries of Christian history. For this presentation I am going to focus on the fourth century, the center of the Patristic period, but with some reference to earlier centuries, and primarily on Greek authors. A single, general presentation will have a somewhat synthetic result. I will try to be sensitive to major differences between various geographical locations and changes over time, but if I tried to make careful nuances between authors, this lecture would have to extend to a full term--and that without the students earning any credit! There are two major kinds of literary evidence from the fourth century for our subject:
Ceremony
At the beginning of the calendar year a candidate turned in his or her name to be enrolled for baptism at the coming paschal season (Basil, Exh. bapt. 7; Gregory of Nyssa, Eos diff. bapt. [PG 46.417B]). This enrollment began the immediate preparation for baptism. The third-century Apostolic Tradition (17.2) had prescribed that admission to enrollment for baptism be preceded by a three-year period as hearers of the word, and this provision is repeated in the fourth-century Apostolic Constitutions (8.32.16), but both documents qualify the requirement with the statement that it is not the time but the manner of life that is determinative of one’s readiness for baptism. The long period of probation was likely a product of the time of persecution when the church wanted assurance of the commitment and readiness of new converts, for it had too much experience with those who fell away in the face of persecution. During the forty days leading up to the Pasch the candidates came several times a week to receive instruction from the bishop or a presbyter in the Scriptures and in the Christian faith. These teachings are well represented in the surviving catechetical lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem on the creed of the Jerusalem church, delivered about 350. The contents of such instruction was summarized in the Apostolic Constitutions: “Let those who are to be taught the truth in regard to piety be instucted before baptism in the knowledge of the unbegotten God, in the understanding of his only begotten Son, in the assured acknowledgment of the Holy Spirit. Let them learn the order of the several parts of the creation, the series of providence, the different dispensations of the divine laws. Let them be instructed why the world was made, and why the human being was appointed to be a citizen therein; let them also know their own nature; let them be taught how God punished the wicked with water and fire and glorified the saints in every generation. . . and how God took care of and did not reject humanity but called them from their error and vanity to the acknowledgment of the truth from eternal death to everlasting life” (7.39). The instruction thus was to be in Christian doctrine and the main points of biblical history. The elaboration of ceremonies surrounding administration of the baptism itself served to heighten the importance of the occasion, enhance the experience for the candidates, and ritualize the meaning of the act. The week preceding the baptism on Easter Sunday saw a concentration of activity. Details differed at different cities, but we shall note some common features. When a person enrolled to receive baptism, witnesses attested the person’s manner of life and readiness to become a full member of the church. These sponsors continued in close contact with the candidates as the time for the baptism approached. Exorcisms were the part of the ritual that are most foreign to our religious experience today. Their frequency during the baptismal preparation varied from place to place, as did the person perfoming them, whether a member of the clergy or an individual Christian. Exorcism involved the calling on evil spirits to depart from a person by the authority of the name of Jesus. John Chrysostom spoke of “those frightening and horrible words” of the exorcist (Baptismal Instructions 10.16). The invocation might be accompanied by laying on of hands, making the sign of the cross, anointing with oil, and breathing or spitting on the person. The purpose of the baptismal exorcisms was to further the process of removing the candidate from the realm of evil and cleansing him or her in preparation for baptism. The entire Lenten season saw the observance of fasting, the duration and intensity of which depended on one’s strength and health. The rigor of the fast increased in the days immediately preceding the baptism. Time spent in prayer and attendance at Scripture readings and teaching also increased during the week prior to the baptism. The candidates were delivered the creed (traditio symboli) and taught to memorize it in anticipation of repeating it as part of the baptismal ceremonies themselves. The climax of the preparation for baptism came on Saturday evening in the context of the paschal vigil. The waters of the baptismal pool were consecrated through prayer. By the fourth century specially constructed baptismal fonts were common. When natural sources of water were no longer used, the symbolism of “living water,” that is running or flowing water (Didache 7.1), was no longer evident, so the Holy Spirit was invoked to come on the water and impart to it life-giving power. The candidates for baptism made a verbalized repentance by renouncing the pagan way of life. According to John Chrysostom’s Baptismal Instructions (2.20) the renunciation was made with these words: “I renounce you Satan, your pomps, your service, and your works.” The “pomps” referred to the religious processions of paganism, “service” to pagan worship, and “works” to the pagan life style. The renunciation was made facing west; the candidate then turned to the east and declared an association with Christ; the wording used in Chrysostom’s church was, “I enter into your service, O Christ” (2.21). At some point the creed was recited individually (redditio symboli), and this was done in the presence of all the congregation. We read of both pre-baptismal and post-baptismal anointings. The anointings constitute one of the knottier problems in the history of liturgy and sacramental doctrine, one that I will not attempt to untie but will only present the major alternatives. Anointing for some symbolized the bestowal of the Holy Spirit; for others it was the means of the bestowal of the Spirit. A major difference between Syrian and other baptismal rites was that the earliest sources for the Syrian liturgy know only a pre-baptismal anointing, and major significance was given to it. Ephraem the Syrian says of the pre-baptismal anointing: “The oil is the dear friend of the Holy Spirit .... With it the Spirit signed priests and anointed kings: for with the oil the Holy Spirit imprints his mark on his sheep. Like a signet ring whose impression is left on wax, so the hidden seal of the Spirit is imprinted by oil on the bodies of those who are anointed in baptism; thus they are marked in the baptismal mystery” (Hymns on Virginity 6). Nevertheless, in spite of this importance of the pre-baptismal anointing with oil, the Syrian tradition viewed the oil and the water as parts of one actin which the Spirit was active. In other churches the pre-baptismal anointing was more a preparatory act, and the post-baptismal anointing came to be associated with the bestowal of the Holy Spirit. Tertullian of Carthage in the early third century was the starting point for what developed much later as the separate sacrament of confirmation in the western church. He affirmed, “Not that in the waters we obtain the Holy Spirit, but in the water . . . we are cleansed and prepared for the Holy Spirit” (On Baptism 6). He associated the post-baptismal anointing with entering the priesthood (7) and the laying on of a hand and prayer with the coming of the Holy Spirit (8). He elsewhere analyzed the actions in the initiation by associating the washing with cleansing, the anointing with consecration, the signing (with the cross) with strengthening the soul, and the imposition of hands with the illumination by the Holy Spirit (On the Resurrection of the Flesh 8). In the Greek church, although anointing represented the Holy Spirit, some (most?) identified the actual imparting of the Spirit with baptism. This is true for Chrysostom, who says that you go down into the sacred waters, bury the old person, raise up the new person, and “It is at this moment that, through the words and the hand of the priest, the Holy Spirit descends upon you” (Baptismal Instructions 2.26; cf. Homilies on Matthew 12.4). After the baptism it was by now early Sunday morning and the newly baptized person was led into the church to share in the eucharist, his or her “first communion.” In addition to the usual bread and cup of wine for the redemptive body and blood of Jesus, there might also be a cup of water to represent the saving baptism and a cup of milk and honey, the traditional food of the newborn infant and symbolizing further the entrance into the promised land characterized as flowing with milk and honey. What of the central act, the bpatism itself? That brings us to the second division of our study.
Action The usual practice was a triple immersion, The earliest explicit attestation of a triune immersion comes at the beginning of the third century from Tertullian, who mentions this among other traditional practices that had no express scriptural warrant and describes it as “making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel” (On the Crown 3). If we may accept Tertullian’s evidence that the practice was already traditional in his time but lacked express apostolic authorization, we may inquire of reasons for its origin. Possible influences on adoption of the practice are the triune formula in Matthew 28:19, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” or an effort to contrast Christian baptism with Jewish proselyte baptism, or the trinitarian controversies of the second century. If the trinitarian formula was not the occasion for triune immersion, there was certainly a close association between the practice of triple immersion and the trinitarian confession. In the Apostolic Tradition (21.12-18) each immersion is preceded by a confession, in turn of God the Father, Christ Jesus the Son of God, and the Holy Spirit--the confession of the Holy Spirit was joined with the holy church and the resurrection. Another association, although not a causal factor but a result of the practice, was seeing in the triple immersion a symbol of Jesus’ three days in the tomb before his resurrection (e.g., Cyril, Cathechetical Lectures 20.4; Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Oration 35). That the practice was full immersion is attested by numerous express written statements. Gregory of Nyssa in preaching On the Baptism of Christ declares baptism to be an imitation of the burial of Christ. “We in receiving baptism, in imitation of our Lord . . . are not indeed buried in the earth, . . . but coming to the element akin to earth, to water, we conceal ourselves in that as the Savior did in the earth” (PG 46.585B), Gregory makes the same comparison in his Catechetical Oration 35, where he speaks of being “laid and hidden” in the earth, to which the water is parallel. However, he proceeds twice to speak of the baptizand being “poured over with water three times” (35). I understand these two passages as saying that just as in burial the body is lowered into the grave and earth “poured” over it, so in baptism the person is lowered into the water, which comes over the body. Therefore, the pouring does not refer to what the administrator does with the water but to what the water does when the administrator plunges the body into the water. Whatever the exact meaning, the result was that the body was covered with water in imitation of a dead body buried in the earth. The interpretation of this passage is relevant to the contention of some Greek Orthodox theologians that there is a difference between submersion (putting the body under the water) and immersion (the body being covered with water however it comes to be applied); hence the usual practice in modern Greek Orthodox churches of holding the baby in the water up to the shoulders and scooping water over the head three times. The same approach is applied to the interpretation of some early artistic evidence, namely that water was channeled to flow over the person standing in a pool or font. Whether such a distinction between submersion and immersion is valid, the result would seem to be the same - the body was covered with water. John Chrysostom, on the other hand, if we are to make a distinction between immersion and submersion, is explicit about a submersion, “[The priest] puts your head down into the water three times and three times he lifts it up again” (Baptismal Instructions 2.26). Many more literary sources could be cited. Moreover, the early baptismal fonts were clearly designed for something more than a sprinkling or pouring.
Just prior to entering the water the candidates removed their clothes, for the baptism was received nude. This surprises moderns, for we wonder about modesty. This may be a consideration in the instructions of the Apostolic Tradition (21.4-5) to baptize the small children first, the grown men next, and finally the women. In order to observe decency women deacons assisted at the baptism of women according to the third-century Didascalia (16), repeated in the 4th century Apostolic Constitutions (3.15-16). In the baptism of a woman, the male presbyter anointed the forehead, pronounced the formula, and dipped the head, but the female deacon anointed the body and received the woman as she came out of the water. Some baptisteries may have had curtains. Another factor is that the ancient world seems to have had a more relaxed attitude toward nudity. The nudity expressed the idea of new birth- hence in art the baptizand is shown not only nude but smaller than the baptizer. This manner of representation is not an indication of infant or child baptism but follows artistic convention. The newly baptized person put on a white garment, symbolizing purity. Ancient sources provide two circumstances when alternatives to immersion were allowed. One exception to the rule is included in the present form of the text of our earliest non-canonical description of baptism. The Didache (7) allows, in the absence of sufficient water for an immersion, the pouring of water three times over the head of a person. There are some internal grammatical and stylistic indications that this passage is a later insertion in the original document, in which case we cannot date the exception. The description of baptismal water is either passed over in the fourth-century rewriting of the Didache in Apostolic Constitutions 7 as outdated, or perhaps it was absent from the compiler’s copy. The other exception is a circumstance that drew a great deal more comment: sickbed or clinical baptism. In this case the persons’ illness or weakness confined them to bed, and proximity to death prevented the usual baptismal ceremony. One of the earliest pieces of evidence for the practice and a defense of it comes from Cyprian of Carthage in the mid-third century. He responds to an inquiry as to whether persons who have received sickbed baptism are to be considered legitimate Christians because instead of being washed they had water poured or sprinkled on them (Epistle 75 [691.12]). Cyprian defended such “divine abridgements” or “accommodations” (his words) in cases of necessity when done in the context of sound faith by both the giver and the receiver.
This emphasis on a verbal confession of faith raises a question about infant baptism. In the case of clinical baptism, even if the person was now unable to speak, that person was a catechumen or otherwise could be presumed to believe and to desire baptism although having failed to submit to it as yet. What about small children? That brings us to the topic of the subjects of baptism.
Subjects The early accounts of baptism all have to do with persons who “believed that the things taught by [Christians] are true and promised to live accordingly” (Justin, 1 Apology 61). This emphasis on faith and repentance continued consistently in the early literature relevant to the practice of baptism. The liturgies for baptism were clearly designed for people able to speak and act for themselves, and this remained the liturgical norm, not infant baptism. Given the inherent conservatism of liturgical language and practice, not surprisingly a liturgy presupposing those of accountable age continued until long after infant baptism became normal. Baptismal fonts too were for a long time designed for persons of some years. However, accomodation began early, while continuing to follow the same liturgy, by providing for parents or other family members to speak for those too young to speak for themselves (Apostolic Tradition 21,4). Our earliest unambiguous evidence for infant baptism once more comes from Tertullian (On Baptism 18). Unlike his treatment of triple immersion, however, he does not defend it as a traditional practice but opposes it and seems to imply it was a relatively recent development in North Africa. He responds to the justification for infant baptism thar was made by appealing to the words of Jesus in Matthew 19:14, “Do not forbid [the children] to come to me,” by saying: “Let them ‘come’ while they are growing up, while they are learning, while they are instructed why they are coming. Let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ. In what respect does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins?” Tertullian’s passage refers to cases of “necessity.” I have elsewhere argued on the basis of inscriptions that mention the time of baptism and the time of one’s death that infant baptism had its origin in emergency situations where death was imminent and a family, convinced of the necessity of baptism for salvation, did not want their child to die without baptism (“Inscriptions and the Origin of Infant Baptism,” Journal of Theological Studies, n.s. 30 [1979]: 37-46). Emergency situations have a way of giving rise to routine practices (we may compare the new security measures in the wake of the terrorist attacks of 9-11), and that, I think, is what happened in the development of infant baptism. An emergency practice tended to become a normal practice, in view of the uncertainties of life. Infant baptism spread during the third century and became fairly common in the fourth, but not as rapidly or as widely as is often assumed. It is striking that nearly all the prominent church leaders of the fourth century, including those from strong church families, the date of whose baptism we know, were baptized as adults. (David F. Wright, “At What Ages Were People Baptized in the Early Centuries?” Studia Patristica 30 [1997]: 389-394). This is true of the three Cappadocian fathers on whom I am relying to a great extent. The brothers Basil and Gregory of Nyssa came from one of the prominent Christian families, whose Christianity went back to the conversion of the region a century earlier by Gregory the Wonderworker and included martyrs in their ancestry, and Gregory of Nazianzus was son of a bishop. The Cappadocians themselves, however, did not oppose infant baptism. Gregory of Nazianzus said any age is suitable for baptism and if one has an infant child, let the child “be sanctified . . . and consecrated by the Spirit from the very tenderest age” (Oration 40.17). He offers some support for my argument for the origins of infant baptism in emergency situations when in answer to a question about baptizing children, he responds: “Certainly, if any danger presses, for it is better that they should be unconsciously sanctified than that they should depart unsealed and uninitiated.” He proceeds, then, to consider other children who are not in danger, and he recommends three years of age as suitable, “when they are able to listen and to answer something about the mystery,” for “at that time they begin to be responsible for their lives, when reason is matured” (40.28). Gregory was more optimistic than I would be about the maturity of reason in a three-year old, and we do not know that his recommendation had any following in his own time. His proposal was something of a compromise between the urge to baptize early because of the “sudden dangers that befall us” and his own convictions about a person being able to verbalize answers to the baptismal interrogations. The practice of infant baptism became an important argument for Augustine on behalf of original sin in his controversy with Pelagius. Pelagius accepted the church’s practice of infant baptism, so Augustine could reason that since baptism was for the remission of sins, and infants had no sins of their own, yet the church baptized infants, therefore the sin forgiven in baptism must be the sin inherited from Adam and Eve (On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.23, 28, 39; 3.2, 7). The connection of infant baptism with original sin is a result of Augustine’s influence. It was not originally a feature of the eastern church fathers’ reasoning. Gregory of Nazianzus in the passage from which quotation was made (40.28) acknowledged that infants had no sins of their own and were not conscious of loss nor of need for grace, so he spoke of the benefit of baptism in terms of sanctification and being “fortified by the font.” John Chrysostom too defended infant baptism without resort to an argument from forgiveness of sin. He said that although many think the only gift conferred in baptism is remission of sins, he could count ten gifts. Hence, baptism is appropriate for infants, although they have no sins. He proceeded to list six items in addition to remission of sins: sanctification, righteousness, filial adoption, inheritance, brothers and sisters and members of Christ, and a dwelling place of the Spirit (Baptismal Instructions 3.5-10; cf. Homilies in Matthew 11 that includes these and adds pardon and redemption). Purpose
The necessity of baptism for salvation, if not always stated so plainly, was a uniform view. Yet there was one exception or qualification, and Cyril himself makes it in the remainder of the sentence just quoted, “If anyone receives not baptism, that person does not have salvation; except only martyrs, who even without the water receive the kingdom.” Those who live in times of peace are baptized in water, but in times of persecution in their own blood, he says (3.10). Persecution often caught catechumens in its net before they had received baptism. It obviously did not make any sense to tell such who were preparing for baptism to deny Christ before the authorities so that they could go get baptized and then wait for the authorities to come again. The martyr’s confession was considered equivalent to the baptismal confession (13.21). Hence, the assurance was offered that martyrdom, a “baptism of blood,” was equivalent to water baptism and brought forgiveness of sins; it also brought a forgiveness of postbaptismal sins for those who had been baptised (Origen, On Martyrdom 30). In addition to the forgiveness of sins, the two predominant images for the meaning of baptism were drawn from the Gospel of John 3:5--rebirth--and from Romans 6:1-11--death and resurrection. Gregory of Nyssa’s treatment of baptism in his Catechetical Oration may be taken as representative. He takes up in turn three motifs connected with baptism. The first is new birth: here he parallels the effects of baptism with the incarnation of Christ. He draws an analogy between physical birth and spiritual birth. One cannot perceive a connection between the moist seed (the sperm) and the resulting human person endowed with reason, yet if divine power can change that visible underlying matter into a human being, it is nothing marvellous for the divine power to use water to bring about a “new birth through this sacramental dispensation” (33; cf. On the Baptism of Christ [PG 46.584B-D-I). The second motif is death and resurrection. In this regard, the effectiveness of baptism derives from its imitation of the death and resurrection of Christ. The Pioneer of our salvation experienced death for three days and then came to life again. In a similar manner one is plunged under the water three times and raised in imitation of the grace of the resurrection (35; cf. Against Apollinaris (GNO 3.1.227, 4-9]). This connection of baptism with the resurrection makes baptism necessary for salvation: “It is not possible apart from the rebirth in the bath for a person to be in the resurrection” (35). The third motif Gregory introduces is that of cleansing, that is forgiveness. “It is impossible for one not thoroughly cleansed of every evil spot to enter the divine presence” and “this salvation becomes effective through the cleansing in water,” he says (36). In extolling baptism patristic authors often give lists of its benefits. Cyril called baptism “a ransom to captives, a remission of offenses, a death of sin, a new birth of the soul, a garment of light, a holy indissoluble seal, a chariot to heaven, the delight of paradise, a welcome into the kingdom, the gift of adoption” (Procatechesis 10; repeated by Basil, Exhortation to Baptism 5). Gregory of Nyssa says that at the Paschal baptism we “call strangers to adoption, those in need to participation in grace, those filthy in transgressions to the cleansing of sins” (To Those Who Defer Baptism [PG 46.416C]). Gregory of Nazianzus outdoes John Chrysostom, doubling his total of ten benefits: “Illumination [the baptismal ceremony] is the splendor of souls, the conversion of the life, the pledge of a good conscience to God. It is the aid to our weakness, the renunciation of the flesh, the following of the Spirit, the fellowship of the Word, the improvement of the creature, the overwhelming of sin, the participation of light, the dissolution of darkness. It is the chariot to God, the dying with Christ, the bulwark of faith, the perfecting of the mind, the key of the kingdom of heaven, the exchange of life, the removal of slavery, the loosing of chains, the remodelling of the whole person ... the greatest and most mangificent of the gifts of God” (Oration 40.3).
With all their emphasis on baptism and its necessity, the Patristic authors include something as its corollary often neglected in the history of the church for its connection with baptism. That is, the moral consequences of baptism. Perhaps the disjuncture is perpetuated by historians of Christian thought putting sacraments and ethics in separate categories. The very catechetical practices in which the fourth-century preachers were involved may have unintentionally contributed to a failure in the intended moral regeneration. There was a place in the catechetical curriculum for doctrinal instruction, for teaching about the sacraments and liturgy, and to some extent for the contents of scripture. But there was no set place or set content for moral instruction. All the preachers included moral teaching, but it tended to be lost on the hearers by not having a separate place or set text to be followed. However, let us see how some bishops drew the moral consequences of their baptismal instruction. Gregory of Nazianzus devotes a long section toward the close of his sermon to an exhortation that the whole self is to be sanctified (Oration 40.38-41). Basil of Caesarea offers a description of the “Gospel way of life”: “vigilance of eyes, control of tongue, enslavement of body, humble thinking, purity of thought, extinction of wrath; being pressed into service, do more; being defrauded, do not go to court, being hated, love; being persecuted, forbear; being blasphemed, comfort” (Exhortation to Baptism 7). Gregory of Nyssa in his sermon To Those Who Defer Baptism begins and ends with the phrase “life according to the Gospel” (PG 46.421A-B; 429B; 432A). He concluded his Catechetical Oration by pointing out that his instruction was not complete if it did not result in a changed life by his hearers. If the one baptized is the same after as before baptism and there is no change in the one who was washed, then “what you have not become, you are not” (40). According to Gregory, salvation is given in the water but does not come from the water, for it is not automatically assured unless accompanied by genuine faith and repentance. The Roman Catholic church recently adopted a revised liturgy for baptism that takes seriously the faith and practice of the early church as the norm for the administration of baptism. Other denominations would do well to do likewise.
|
I
begin with some discussion of the ceremony involved in the administration
of baptism.
In
early Christian art the hand of the baptizer uniformly rests on the head
of the baptizand. Thus it was in position to guide the head under the
water as the person stood in the font. The gesture had more than a functional
significance, however. According to the Apostolic Tradition (21.12-18),
it was with his hand on the candidate’s head that the administrator
asked for the confession of faith in each of the three divine persons.
The art in depicting the baptizer in this way is alluding to the confession
of faith made in baptism. Accordingly, Chrysostom explains that the eye
of flesh sees water, but the eye of faith sees the Spirit. Bodily eyes
see the priest lay his right hand on the person’s head; spiritual
eyes see the heavenly High Priest touch the head with his invisible hand.
Hence, the priest does not say, “I baptize so and so,” but
“so and so is baptized,” because the three divine names that
are invoked actually do the baptizing (Baptismal Instructions
11.11, 14; also 2.10 and 26).
Misgivings
continued to be expressed about clinical baptism, as much or more because
of the circumstance of waiting this long to receive baptism as because
of the method of applying water to the recipient. The three great Cappadocians
of the fourth century--Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory
of Nazianzus--all spoke negatively of the practice but without an outright
denial of its validity. Their negative words occur in their exhortations
to get catechumens to enroll for baptism and so are shaped in part by
the hortatory purpose, but imply doubts about sickbed baptism (Basil,
Exhortation to Baptism 5, 7; Gregory of Nyssa, To Those Who
Defer Baptism [PG 46.425A]; Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration
40.11-12). They warn against the delay of baptism because of the “tumult
and confusion” (the words of John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instructions
9.8) attending the person’s last hours. They do not say anything
about the manner of the baptism, but something other than an ordinary
immersion seems implicit in their description of the surrounding circumstances.
What I find notable is their indication of what they considered essential
to the efficacy of the rite. All the statements emphasize the importance
of the candidate being able to speak the confession of faith. Basil speaks
of the danger of an ill person not being able “to utter the saving
words” (Exhortation to Baptism 5; cf. Gregory of Nyssa,
To Those Who Defer Baptism [PG 46.425A; Gregory of Nazianzus,
Oration 11). John Chrysostom in a similar manner seems to consider
the renunciation of Satan and the covenant with Christ essential even
in clinical cases; he asks, “When a person cannot make the responses
[is this the baptismal confession?], what benefit does he get from his
initiation?” (Baptismal Instructions 9.9-10).
From
the earliest Christian writers accounted as orthodox there was an association
between baptism and the forgiveness of sins. This continued to be true
in the fourth century. Even those Greek authors who supported infant baptism
did not deny that baptism brought forgiveness of sins; they rather chose
to emphasize baptism’s other benefits in reference to infants. Representative
of fourth-century church leaders is Cyril of Jerusalem, speaking with
reference to Acts 2:37-38, “What can be a greater sin than to crucify
Christ? Yet even of this, baptism can purify” (Catechetical
Lectures 3.15). Commenting on John 3:5, he says, “The one baptized
with water but not found worthy of the Spirit [because of lack of faith
and repentance--3.2] does not receive the grace in perfection; nor if
a person be virtuous in deeds but does not receive the seal by water shall
he enter into the kingdom of heaven” (3.4). Hence. Cyril can declare,
“If anyone receives not baptism, that person does not have salvation”
(3.10).
The
significance of baptism was further emphasized by the names given to it.
Gregory of Nazianzus follows his listing of baptism’s benefits with
a list of its names: “We call it gift, grace, baptism, illumination,
anointing, clothing of immmortality, bath of regeneration, seal, and everything
that is honorable” (Oration 40.4). Favorite terms with
him were illumination, grace, gift, and seal. Gregory of Nyssa in the
Catechetical Oration preferred the term bath or washing (loutron),
taken from Titus 3:5, “the bath of regeneration.” In his sermon
On the Baptism of Christ he preferred regeneration (palingenesia)
and new birth (anagenesis), terms which he seems to have used
interchangeably, the former derived from Titus 3:5 and the latter from
John 3:5 and 1 Peter 1:23.