The Sacrament of Confirmation

The name Confirmation comes from the Latin confirmare, to make firm or to
strengthen. By Baptism we receive the life of grace. By Confirmation that life is
strengthened so that we may be better able to resist evil and to live as good
Christians. It is strengthened by the power of the Holy Spirit who comes to dwell in
our souls in a special way. Pope John Paul II in one of his weekly catechesis explains:
The grace conferred by the Sacrament of Confirmation is more specifically a gift of
strength. This gift corresponds to the need for greater zeal in facing the 'spiritual
battle' of faith and charity in order to resist temptation and give the witness of
Christian word and deed to the world with courage, fervor and perseverance. This
zeal is conferred by the Holy Spirit.1
Confirmation is one of the Sacraments of the Church whose sacramental status
was rejected by the Protestant Reformers in the sixteenth century, and till this day it
is not regarded as a true Sacrament by the majority of those who belong to that
heritage (i.e. of the Reformers) and some of them do not even perform it. For
instance, Reform theologian Loraine Boettner in his book Roman Catholicism,
objecting to the Catholic doctrine of Confirmation, says: In the so-called sacrament
of confirmation the bishop lays his hands on the head of a person who previously
has been baptized, for the purpose of conveying to him the Holy Spirit. But no
apostle or minister in the apostolic church performed that rite, and no man on earth
has the Holy Spirit at his command. Roman theologians are uncertain as to the time
when this so-called sacrament was instituted. The ritual leads those confirmed to
think they have received the Holy Spirit, whereas all they have received is the word
and ritual of fallible priests. Confirmation is also practiced in the Protestant
Episcopal Church, but they regard it only as a church ordinance, not as an institution
established by Christ.2Boettner says no apostle or minister in the apostolic church
performed that rite. Is he unaware of the two texts in the Acts of the Apostles which
Catholics point to as reference to the Sacrament of Confirmation? In one of the texts
we read: Now when the Apostles who were in Jerusalem had heard that Samaria
had received the Word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. And when they
had arrived, they prayed for them, so that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For he
had not yet come to any among them, since they were only baptized in the name of
the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy
Spirit(Acts 8:14-17). In the other: Upon hearing these things, they were baptized
in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the
Holy Spirit came over them. And they were speaking in tongues and
prophesying(19:5-6). Here In these two NT texts we see the Apostles performing a
rite consisting of imposition of hands and prayer which confers the Holy Spirit. 3 Now,
If as Boettner says (and we agree with him here) no man on earth has the Holy
Spirit at his command then he must recognize that the Apostles could only have
1 .L'osservatore Romano, 8 Apr 92. Summa Theol. III, q.72, a.5
2 .Loraine Boetter, Roman Catholicism
3 .According to Acts 8:18, a causal connection existed between the imposition of
hands and the communication of the Spirit.

received the power to perform that rite which confers the Holy Spirit from the GodMan Himself, Jesus Christ, since only God could institute such a sign. But this is
exactly part of the reason why Catholics believe that that rite performed by the
Apostles is a true and proper Sacrament. In Catholic theology a Sacrament is
understood as a thing perceptible to the senses, which on the ground of Divine
institution possess the power both of effecting and signifying sanctity and
righteousness.4 Thus, there are three elements in the concept of Sacrament: ()
perceptible to the sensesthe outward sign () the conferring of sanctifying grace
() the institution by God or, more accurately, by the God-Man Jesus Christ. From
the little discussion we have made so far one can see that all three elements are
present in that rite described by St. Luke in the passages cited above. 5 Catholic
tradition understands that rite to be Confirmation. So rather than argue that no
apostle or minister in the apostolic church performed that rite, what Boettner
should have done is to try and demonstrate that the rite which the Apostles
performed in those NT texts either is not Confirmation or is not meant to be
perpetuated. Boettner never attempted any of this. But there are other Protestant
authors who think they can. One of them is John M. Brenner.
In a paper which was delivered to the joint Metro conference meeting in Pt.
Washington, John M. Brenner says at length concerning those texts:
Do these accounts teach that Christians can expect an outpouring of the
Holy Spirit subsequent to baptism? Note that we have no command to
repeat this ceremony of laying on of hands. Nor is there any promise given
us that the act of laying on of hands will impart the Holy Spirit in the future.
We have only an apostolic example which cannot even be demonstrated to
have been a consistent apostolic practice. Descriptive passages of
Scripture do not determine binding practices. Only prescriptive passages
can. Rome falls into the same theological error as Pentecostalism which
draws binding principles from scriptural examples rather than from divine
commands. These two accounts are best understood in the light of a similar
phenomenon recorded in Acts 10 and the gift of the Holy Spirit given to
Cornelius during Peters visit. This miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit was
evidenced by Corneliuss speaking in tongues and was given prior to
baptism (Ac 10:44-48). In each of these accounts we have an outpouring of
the Holy Spirit as the gospel is brought to a new group of people. In Acts 8
the outpouring of the Holy Spirit signified that it was appropriate for the
gospel to be proclaimed to the Samaritans, a people whom the Jews
considered to be inferior. In Acts 10 the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on
Cornelius was a demonstration to Peter and the other Jews that the gospel
was meant for Gentiles, too (Ac 10:34-36, 47; 15:7-9). Acts 19 records
another outpouring of the Holy Spirit at a crucial juncture in the early

4 .The Roman Catechism, II, I, 8.

5 .() its performance was by a procedure perceptible to the senses, consisting in
laying on of hands and prayer () the effect of this outward rite was the
communication of the Holy Spirit, i.e., the Principle of inner sanctification () Only
God, or the God-Man Jesus can by virtue of His Own authority, link up the
communication of Divine grace with an outward rite. The Apostles regarded
themselves merely as ministers of Christ, and dispensers of the mysteries of God
(I Cor 4:1).

history of the church. On his second missionary journey Paul had been
prevented by the Holy Spirit from preaching the Word in the province of
Asia. God directed him instead to Europe through a vision of a man begging
him to come to Macedonia (Ac 16:6-10). On his third missionary journey,
however, Paul conducted an extensive ministry in Ephesus where he met a
group who had not been properly instructed or baptized. Paul gave them
instruction, baptized them, and laid his hands on them. They received a
special gift of the Holy Spirit which enabled them to speak in tongues (Ac
19:1-7). This was a demonstration that God was approving Pauls ministry
in Asia. Ephesus subsequently became an important center of Christianity
in that area of the world. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit recorded in Acts
happened at important turning points in the history of Christianity. They
gave Gods stamp of approval to the preaching of the gospel to different
ethnic groups and geographical areas according to the pattern Jesus
revealed before he ascendedYou will receive power when the Holy Spirit
comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea
and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth (Ac 1:8). On other occasions
there is no evidence of a laying-on-of-hands ceremony for the reception of
the Holy Spirit following baptism. To claim divine institution for confirmation
or to give an impression that the rite of confirmation or the laying on of
hands conveys the Holy Spirit is contrary to Scripture.6

Brenner understanding of the texts from the Acts of the Apostles is similar to
those expounded by the sixteenth century Reformer John Calvin in his opposition to
the Catholic understanding of Confirmation. John Calvin commenting on Acts 8:16
wrote:
We must note this, therefore, because, while the Papists will set up their
feigned confirmation, they are not afraid to break out into this sacrilegious
speech, that they are but half Christians upon whom the hands have not
been as yet laid. This is not tolerable now because, whereas this was a sign
which lasted only for a time, they made it a continual law in the Church, as
if they had the Spirit in readiness to give to whomsoever they would. We
know that when the testimony and pledge of Gods grace is set before us in
vain, and without the thing itself, it is too filthy mockery; but even they
themselves are enforced to grant that the Church was beautified for a time
only with these gifts; whereupon it followeth that the laying on of hands
which the apostles used had an end when the effect ceased. I omit that,
that they added oil unto the laying on of hands, [Mk 6:13] but this, as I
have already said, was a point of too great boldness, to prescribe a
perpetual law to the Church, that that might be a general sacrament, which
was peculiarly used amongst the apostles, [Gal 3:7; Rom 6:6] that the sign
might continue still after that the thing itself was ceased; and with this they
joined detestable blasphemy, because they said that sins were only
forgiven by baptism, and that the Spirit of regeneration is given by that
rotten oil which they presumed to bring in without the Word of God. 7

6 .John M. Brenner, A Brief Study of Confirmation: Historical Development,

Theological Considerations, and Practical Implication, P.17-18.
7 .John Calvin, Commentary on Acts of the Apostles 8:116). Cf. Calvin's
Commentaries, Vol. 36: Acts, Part I, tr. by John King, [1847-50], at sacred-texts.com.

Calvin is not denying that the rite of laying on of hands described in Acts 8:1617 is a Sacrament. He agrees with us that its a Sacrament but he would not allow
that such a rite is meant to be continued after the Apostles time. And the argument
he used to support this position is that the rite of laying on of hands mentioned in
that passage confers the charismata only and since according to him the bestowal
of the charismata ceased after the Apostles time, the Sacrament used to convey it
would also have ceased about that time. He takes up this position again while
commenting on Acts 19:1-7:
Furthermore, as I confess that this laying on of hands was a sacrament, so
I say that those fell through ignorance who did continually imitate the
same. For seeing that all men agree in this, that it was a grace which was
to last only for a time, which was showed by that sign, it is a perverse and
ridiculous thing to retain the sign since the truth is taken away. There is
another respect of baptism and the supper, wherein the Lord doth testify
that those gifts are laid open for us, which the Church shall enjoy even until
the end of the world. Wherefore we must diligently and wisely distinguish
perpetual sacraments from those which last only for a time, lest vain and
frivolous visures [semblances] have a place among the sacraments.
Whereas the men of old time did use laying on of hands, that they might
confirm the profession of faith in those who were grown up, I do not mislike
it; so that no man think that the grace of the Spirit is annexed to such a
ceremony, as doth Jerome against the Luciferians8

Calvin had felt that the importance of baptism had been weakened by the
Catholic understanding of Confirmation. He then proposed an alternate and radically
different understanding of Confirmation whereby this Sacrament is merely seen as a
catechizing of adults who were baptized in infancy. In this way Calvin attempt to
answer the historical challenge faced by the Reformers. He had claimed that
Confirmation was a Sacrament in the Apostolic period and that it was not meant to
be continued beyond that period but he was full aware of the fact that the Church
from time immemorial continue to administer this Sacrament. Hence, he suggested
that what is regarded as a continuation of the Sacrament of Confirmation was at
first merely a rite whereby the faith of those who were baptized as infants were
later confirmed when they had reached adulthood. This simple understanding of
Confirmation, the claim continues, was later in the course of the years eroded and
corrupted by the Catholic understanding of Confirmation. See, for instance, his
commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, while commenting on Hebrews 6:2 Of
the doctrine of baptisms, and imposition of hands:
With baptism he connects the laying on of hands; for as there were two
sorts of catechumens, so there were two rites. There were heathens who
came not to baptism until they made a profession of their faith. Then as to
these, these, the catechizing was wont to precede baptism. But the
children of the faithful, as they were adopted from the womb, and belonged
to the body of the Church by right of the promise, were baptized in infancy;
but after the time of infancy, they having been instructed in the faith,
presented themselves as catechumens, which as to them took place after
baptism; but another symbol was then added, the laying on of hands. This
one passage abundantly testifies that this rite had its beginning from the
Apostles, which afterwards, however, was turned into superstition, as the
world almost always degenerates into corruptions, even with regard to the
best institutions. They have indeed contrived the fiction, that it is a

8 .Ibid,

sacrament by which the spirit of regeneration is conferred, a dogma by

which they have mutilated baptism for what was peculiar to it, they
transferred to the imposition of hands. Let us then know, that it was
instituted by its first founders that it might be an appointed rite for prayer,
as Augustine calls it. The profession of faith which youth made, after having
passed the time of childhood, they indeed intended to confirm by this
symbol, but they thought of nothing less than to destroy the efficacy of
baptism. Wherefore the pure institution at this day ought to be retained,
but the superstition ought to be removed.9

Thus, Calvin wants the rite of Confirmation to be retained in the Reformed

tradition but wants it to be stripped off all its Catholic elements and be understood
in a new sense. This new sense he thinks was the original sense. The older sense
which he himself before now had known he claims was not only a corruption of the
new sense he was proposing but a distortion of the doctrine of Baptism.
Another Reformer, Martin Luther, took the same line of argument only that he,
unlike Calvin, did not admit that Confirmation was a Sacrament even in the period
of the Apostles. In his treatise the Babylonian Captivity, written in the year 1520, he
says:
I do not say this because I condemn the seven sacraments, but because I
deny that they can be proved from the Scriptures. Would that there were in
the church such a laying on of hands as there was in apostolic times,
whether we chose to call it confirmation or healing! But there is nothing left
of it now but what we ourselves have invented to adorn the office of
bishops, that they may not be entirely without work in the church. For after
they relinquished to their inferiors those arduous sacraments together with
the Word as being beneath their attention (since whatever the divine
majesty has instituted must need be despised of men!) it was no more than
right that we should discover something easy and not too burdensome for
such delicate and great heroes to do, and should by no means entrust it to
the lower clergy as something common, for whatever human wisdom has
decreed must be held in honour among men!10

Luther in the above passage admits that a rite such as Confirmation was
practice in the apostolic times but that the original understanding of that rite was
later corrupted with the Catholic understanding of that rite; and that this was done
in order to adorn the office of bishops, that they may not be entirely without work
in the church. But Luther did not believe that Confirmation was a Sacrament even
while it was being observed in the times of the Apostles and understood in what he
considered as the original understanding. He appears not to have perceived that
there were different impositions of hands in the NT but conflates Confirmational
imposition of hands with other imposition of hands mention in Scripture: It is
amazing that it should have entered the minds of these men to make a sacrament
of confirmation out of the laying on of hands. We read that Christ touched the little
children in that way [Mk 10:16], and that by it the apostles imparted the Holy Spirit
[Acts 8:17; 19:6], ordained presbyters [Acts 6:6], and cured the sick [Mk 16:18]; as
the Apostle writes to Timothy: Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands [I Tm
9 .Ibid, Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (6:2). Cf. Calvin's Commentaries,
Vol. 44: Hebrews, tr. by John King, [1847-50], at sacred-texts.com.
10 .Martins Luther, Babylonian Captivity. Cf. Three Treatises from the American
Edition of Luthers Works. Pp. 218-219.

5:22]. Why have they not also made a confirmation out of the sacrament of bread?
For it is written in Acts 9 [:19]: And he took food and was strengthened, and in Ps.
104 [:15]: And bread to strengthen mans heart. Confirmation would thus include
three Sacramentsthe bread, ordination, and confirmation itself. But if everything
the apostles did is a sacrament, why have they not rather made preaching a
sacrament?11His rejection of Confirmation as a Sacrament is based solely on
Protestant principles, i.e. the Reformers concept of Justification and their principle of
sola Scriptural. This can be seen from the following statement made by him in that
same work:
But instead of this we seek sacraments that have been divinely instituted,
and among these we see no reason for numbering confirmation. For to
constitute there must be above all things else a word of divine promise, by
which faith may be exercised. But we read nowhere that Christ ever gave a
promise concerning confirmation, although he laid hands on many and
included the laying on of hands among the signs in the last chapter of Mark
[16:18]: They will lay their hands on the sick; and they will recover. Yet no
one has applied this to a sacrament, for that is not possible. For this reason
it is sufficient to regard confirmation as a certain churchly rite or
sacramental ceremony, similar to other ceremonies, such as the blessing of
water and the like. For if every other creature is sanctified by the Word and
by prayer [I Tm 4:4-5], why should not man much rather be sanctified by
the same means? Still, these things cannot be called sacraments of faith,
because they have no divine promise connected with them, neither do they
save; but the sacraments do save those who believe the divine promise. 12

Like Calvin, Luther felt that Confirmation should be retained as long as it is

stripped of all its Catholic elements and understood in what he felt was the original
sense. Thus, we find him in the year 1522 saying: I would permit confirmation as
long as it is understood that God knows nothing of it, and has said nothing about it,
and that what the bishops claim for it is untrue. They mock our God when they say
that it is one of Gods sacraments, for it is a purely human contrivance. 13His
understanding of confirmation which he felt was the original understanding is
somewhat similar to that expounded by Calvin. This can be seen in one of his
sermons belonging to the year 1523: Confirmation should not be observed as the
bishops desire it. Nevertheless we do not find fault if every pastor examines the
faith of the children to see whether it is good and sincere, lays hands on them, and
confirms them.14Philip Melanchthon, a close associate and friend of Luther, in his
Apology for the Augsburg Confession written in the year 1530, would follow Luthers
lead and thus classify Confirmation in the following terms: Confirmation and
Extreme Unction are rites received from the Fathers which not even the Church
11 .Ibid, p. 218.
12.Ibid, p. 219.
13 .Ibid, The Estate of Marriage, Luther's Works 45: The Christian in Society II, ed.
J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 2425.
14 .Ibid,

requires as necessary to salvation, because they do not have God's command.

Therefore it is not useless to distinguish these rites from the former, which have
God's express command and a clear promise of grace. 15
From what we have said so far about the Reformers it could be seen that
Brenner is not presenting anything new in his opposition to the Catholic
understanding of Confirmation but rather repeating and recycling the arguments of
the Reformers. Brenner had asked an interesting question regarding the texts from
the Acts of the Apostles: Do these accounts teach that Christians can expect an
outpouring of the Holy Spirit subsequent to baptism? And to this he replied: Note
that we have no command to repeat this ceremony of laying-on of hands. Nor is
there any promise given us that the act of laying on of hands will impart the Holy
Spirit in the future. We have only an apostolic example which cannot even be
demonstrated to have been a consistent apostolic practice. Descriptive passages of
Scripture do not determine binding practices. Only prescriptive passages can.
Brenner is trying to be clever here. He does not really provide an answer to the
question he poses but tries to sidestep it by saying we have no command to repeat
this ceremony of laying on of hands. But one could simply counter him by pointing
out that we have no command of not repeating that ceremony of laying-on of hands
either. And if in the earliest days of the life of the Church there existed a rite of
laying-on of hands which conferred the Holy Spirit as we find in the Acts of the
Apostles, then where is it stated that such a rite is not meant to be performed until
the end of time? If the rite of laying-on of hands as Brenner admits is an apostolic
example, then why is this example given if the Church in subsequent ages is not
meant to continue the performance of that rite? The Acts of the Apostles was
written in the last quarter of the first century several decades after the events
described in it and at what time most of the Apostles had passed away. Now if, as
Brenner wants us to think, the rite of laying-on of hands which conferred the Holy
Spirit was not meant to be continued then is it not strange that St. Luke writing at a
later date says nothing about this when describing that rite? Those two texts from
the Acts indeed demonstrate that a rite distinct from Baptism by which the Holy
Spirit was conferred on the faithful was in existence even at the time of the
Apostles. In Act 8:16 it is clearly pointed out that although the Samarian had
received Baptism, the Holy Spirit had not yet come to any among them. Hence
the Apostles Peter and John were sent to them. The Apostles prayed for them, so
that they might receive the Holy Spirit (v.15) then they laid their hands on them,
and they received the Holy Spirit. In Acts 19:6, the performance of that rite is
mentioned again. Here too it is an Apostle (i.e. St. Paul) that administered that rite:
when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came over them. St.
Luke deemed it fit to mention that rite on two separate occasions in the Acts yet for
Brenner this is not consistent enough. Would he have the Evangelist repeat himself
numerous times before granting that it is a consistent apostolic practice? 16 Yes the
15 .The Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article XIII, para. 6, Concordia: The
Lutheran Confessions, ed. P. T. McCain (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House),
2005.
16 .What John Gwynn said many years ago about Protestant opposition to the
Catholic interpretation of Mt 16:16-19 applies here. Reacting to Dr Edersheim, who
at a point in time lectured on Scripture in the University of Oxford, assertion that

rite consisting of the laying on of hands was not mentioned in the description of the
Baptism of the jailer and his household (16:33), of Lydia and her household (16:15),
and of the Corinthians (18:8). But so also did St. Luke on these occasions omit the
fact that the Baptism these men received was Baptism in the name of Jesus
(compare 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5).17 Yet it cannot be concluded from this that the
Baptism which was administered to the Jailer and his household or to Lydia and her
household or to the Corinthians was not understood as Baptism in the name of
Jesus; or was different from Baptism in the name of Jesus. Thus, that argument is
weak which states that the rite consisting of the laying-on of hands and prayer
mentioned in 8:16 and 19:6 cannot be a consistent apostolic practice because it is
not mentioned in some other instances in the Acts of the Apostles which speak of
the administration of Baptism to certain individuals.
It is well enough to remind men like Brenner that the Reformers approach in
denying the sacramental status of Confirmation is no less different from that taken
today by rationalist in denying the sacramental status of those other rites (i.e.
Baptism and the Holy Eucharist) which are accepted as Sacraments in both
Reformed and Lutheran traditions. Look at Baptism for example. The rationalists
deny that the Baptism of the Church was instituted by Jesus. Working from the
premises that there are several stages of traditional developments in the NT, they
Its [i.e. the text Mt 16:16-19] absence in the Gospel of St. Mark and in the Gospel
of St. Luke proves that it could never have been intended as the foundation of so
important a doctrine as that of the permanent supremacy of St. Peter. Gwynn says
So the fact that God says or reveals an important doctrine only once is a proof
proves that He did not intend us to believe Him. To give credence to it, they
would have him to repeat it, three or four times. A very strange canon from one who
represent those who have such respect for the Word of God. If that text has not the
meaning we Catholics ascribe to it, then if it were repeated fifty times it could not
be interpreted in that sense. Did the learned professor wish his readers to
understand that if that text were repeated in the Gospels of St. Luke and St. Mark,
then they would have sufficient ground to hold that Peter was first Pope and Vicar
of Christ? Let us see does he and those for whom he speaks use this implied canon
in treating of other doctrines. I read in St. Matthew xxvi. 26: This is My Body. I read
in the Gospel of St. Mark xiv. 22, those same identical words uttered by Christ: This
is My Body. I read them again in St. Luke xxii. 19: This is My Body. I read them
once more in St. Pauls Epistle to the Corinthians xi. 24: This is My Body. Yet this
fourfold repetition of a Catholic doctrine does not gain the credence of the Oxford
professor and his co-religionists. Is it unfair to conclude that if the text in St.
Matthew were found too in the other Evangelists it would meet the same fate.
Hence we find the Protestant position, at least as put forward by the Oxford
professor, one which it would be hard to describe as logical. They do not believe the
text for the Primacy of Peter, giving as a proof that it is only stated once. They do
not believe the doctrine of the Real Presence, though it is stated expressly four
timesAll this I put before you, not from any controversial spirit, but to show you to
what absurdities the rejection of truth leads, that you may the more highly value
the truth you possess. Why I am a Catholic, (Dublin: 1909), pp. 65-66.

claim the early stages of these developments contain no specific directive from
Jesus about baptism. For them, texts like Mt 28:19 belong to a later stage of
development and the words placed there on the lips of Jesus could not have been
said by Him. Support for this is sort in the claim that if that statement were made
immediately after the resurrection in precisely those words, the Book of Acts would
become almost unintelligible, for then there would be no reason why Jesus
followers should have had any doubt that he wanted disciples made among the
Gentiles. But it is well known that the debate over the acceptance of Gentiles
dragged on for the first twenty years of Christianity (e.g. Acts 10-11:18; 15:1-31
etc.). It is also said that if, as suggested by the Matthean text, such a developed
baptismal form as in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
was known from the immediate days of the resurrection, the common expression
that we find elsewhere in the NT of baptizing in the name of Jesus (e.g. Acts 8:16;
10:48; 19:5; Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27 etc.) becomes very hard to understand. 18 So, they
conclude that the words ascribe to Christ in Mt 28:19 is a reflection of the Liturgical
practices of the Matthean Church at the second half of the first century when the
universal mission of the Church had been fully understood and that these practices
were read back into the life of Christ. Mk 16:16, on the other hand, is said to be an
addition by a later copyist to the book of Mark and that the book originally ended
abruptly with Mk 16:8 or that the original ending was lost. Evidence for this is sort in
the ancient mss. of the Gospel of St. Mark which bears witness to three different
endings. So, Mk 16:16 like Mt 28:19 are not words actually said by the historical
Jesus but contain later developed beliefs which were read back into the life of Christ.
Having set aside those two NT texts, they then argue from the silentness of other
NT texts on an explicit statement of Christ on the commission to baptize, that the
Baptism of the Church does not owe its origin from Christ.
One could note the similarities between the position of the rationalists on the
subject of Baptism described above and those of the Reformers on the subject of
Confirmation. Both stem from distrust on the role played by the Church in
expounding the deposit of faith, and from the principle of sola Scriptural. The
17 .Note the progress the Church made in her expansion in the context of those
passages which speak of Baptism in the name of Jesus: The day the Church was
born and the Gospel of the risen Christ was first preached publicly to the Jewish
people (Acts 2:1-47); the Church has begun to spread to other regions outside
Jerusalem and the Gospel of the risen Christ was preached to the inhabitants of
those regions (8:1-40);the first time the Church preached the Gospel of the risen
Christ to the Gentiles and received them in her communion (10:1-48); the first time
the Gospel of the risen Christ was preached to the disciples of John the precursor of
Jesus Christ (18:24-19:6). These are special events during the Churchs expansion
and it was only in these cases that St. Luke referred to the Baptism administered by
the Church as Baptism in the name of Jesus and it is only in these cases that he
stressed that the grace of Pentecost is meant to be perpetuated in the Church; and
on two of these occasions (i.e. 8:17 and 19:6) he was clear about the ordinary
means used to convey that grace.
18 .Cf. Raymond E. Brown, Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible, Q.81, p. 108.

rationalists, like the Reformers, believe that the Church does not in every instance
faithfully represent the mind of Christ. According to both of them, she could err and
even distort the actual message of Christ. But while the Reformers limit this
distortion to the centuries immediately succeeding the apostolic era, the rationalist
extends it to the apostolic era. But both build their arguments on the principle of
sola Scriptural.
Actually, what the Reformers and modern rationalists fail to understand is that
the NT authors never intended to give a complete and exhaustive list of the
doctrines and practices of the Church (see II Jn 12-13; III Jn 13-14; Jn 20:30-31 etc.).
Their writings were called into existence by particular events and circumstances,
and it was those doctrines and practices of the Church that related to the events
and circumstances that prompted them to write that they mainly touched on. And
even in this case, some of the practices and doctrines they touched on were only
said in passing without elaborating on them fully, and this is so because the people
the various documents of the NT were addressed to already have knowledge and
were familiar with the doctrines and practices of the Church. These doctrines were
preached to them when they embraced the faith, these doctrines are preached
when they meet each time for communal worship, they behold before their very
eyes the rites and practices of the Church as it was done in their own day. So there
is no rationale in demanding that the NT authors should repeat themselves or even
provide full details on any particular doctrine or practice of the Church most
especially when that doctrine or practice was never challenged or misinterpreted by
anyone in their time. Hence, the distinction between prescriptive and descriptive
passages which men like Brenner attempt to introduce in Scripture is unwarranted
and even dangerous. What if one of the NT authors was merely commenting in
passing on a fundamental doctrine of the Church on a particular passage and that
was the only time in the entire NT that that doctrine was mentioned. Is this not the
kind of passages in Scripture those like Brenner would love to term descriptive
passages? What if some parts of the teachings of Christ were at first only expressed
in the liturgical life of the Church and were at a much later date put down in writing.
Is this not the kind of later developments that the rationalists like to see as a
distortion? The fact is that the NT documents were written by men who belong to a
living historical community, the Church. Thus, it is in that same community that the
NT should be read. Joseph Ratzinger said something about this in the preface of his
book Jesus of Nazareth:
The [scriptural] author does not speak as a private, self-contained subject.
He speaks in a living community, that is to say, in a living historical
movement not created by him, nor even by the collective, but which is led
forward by a greater power that is at workNeither the individual books of
Holy Scripture nor the Scripture as a whole are simply a piece of literature.
The Scripture emerged from within the heart of a living subjectthe pilgrim
People of Godand lives within the same subject. One could say that the
books of Scripture involve three interacting subjects. First of all, there is the
individual author or group of authors to whom we owe a particular
scriptural text. But these authors are not autonomous writers in the
modern sense; they form part of a collective subject, the people of God,
from within whose heart and to whom they speak. Hence, this subject is
actually the deeper author of the Scriptures. And yet likewise, this people
does not exist alone; rather, it knows that it is led, and spoken to, by God

himself, whothrough men and their humanityis at the deepest level the
one speaking.19

Therefore, not only should one not read each of the books contained in the NT in
isolation when investigating a particular doctrine or practice of the Church but the
books contained in the NT should be read within the living Tradition of the Church.
With this in mind, we shall examine those two NT text again and other early
Christian writing which presuppose the existence of the rite of Confirmation or at
least seem to allude to it. From these sources we shall be able to gain an insight on
how that rite was understood in the first centuries of the Churchs life.
In Acts 8:14-17 and 19:1-6 mentions were made of a rite consisting of the
imposition of hands and prayer which confers the Holy Spirit on the subject of that
rite. These texts were not what introduced that rite. The Acts of the Apostles was
written between the years 70 and 90 A.D but the events which St. Luke narrated in
those two passages occurred sometime in the 30s and in the 60s. In the case of the
Samarians which event took place in the 30s of the first century, it is made clear
that although Baptism have been administered to them the Holy Spirit had not yet
come down on any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus (8.16). There is nothing in the Acts or elsewhere in the NT or in Christian
tradition which suggest that visible signs of charism always accompany the
administration of Baptism and so the preposition cannot be made that it was
because visible signs of charism did not accompany the Baptism administered to
the Samarians that was why Ss. Peter and John were sent to them. There is nothing
in the passage that suggests that the Baptism of the Church was not properly
administered to them. In fact, Ss. Peter and John who came to visit them did not rebaptize them. Therefore, it is not a question here of the grace of Baptism. The grace
of Baptism was fully received when the Samarian were baptized by the deacon
Phillip. It follows from this that the grace of the Spirit here spoken off is distinct from
the grace of Baptism and that it is not by Baptism itself that this grace of the Spirit
is bestowed.20 Thus, a separate rite for its reception must have been in existence
then. We see Ss. Peter and John during their visit administering such a rite to the
Samarians: Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy
Ghost. (v.17). In Acts 19:1-6, we find another mention of the administration of that
rite. In that passage the Apostle initially took it for granted that the Ephesians he
had come across with had already become believers, i.e. members of the Church
through Baptism21, and thus asked if they had been bestowed with the gift of the
Holy Spirit (Have you received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? 19:2a). This
question would not have risen if the grace of the Spirit St. Paul had in mind here was
19 .Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth, forward: From the Baptism in the Jordan to
the Transfiguration, xx-xxi. He takes up this theme again elsewhere: We read
scripture in the living community of the church, and therefore on the basis of the
fundamental decisions thanks to which it has become historically efficacious,
namely, those that laid the foundations of the church. One must not separate the
text from this living context. In this sense, scripture and tradition form an
inseparable whole, and it is this that Luther, at the dawn of the awakening of
historical awareness, could not see. He believed that a text could only have one
meaning, but such univocity does not exist, and modern historiography has long
since abandoned the idea. The Essential Pope Benedict XVI, John F. Thornton and
Susan B. Varenne, p.145.

none other than the grace we receive when we are incorporated into the Church
through Baptism. The question clearly implies two graces, though closely associated
with each other but yet distinct. The question also indicates that in the apostolic era
it was not every member of the church that had this grace of the Spirit bestowed
upon them at the time of reception into the Church through Baptism; that some had
this grace given to them later during their encounter with one with the Apostolic
Office (see already the situation with the Samarians above, 8:14-17). Upon close
inquiry St. Paul learns that this Ephesians had not even received the Baptism of the
Church. They had been baptized only with the baptism of John (19: 2b-3). But since
the Baptism of the Church is different from the baptism of John, St. Paul first had the
Baptism of the Church administered to them and, immediately after this, he then
administered to these same persons the rite for the given of the grace of the Spirit:
And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them. (19:6a).
It is important to consider in these two events the sense in which St. Luke speak
of the baptized as having received the Holy Spirit through the rite performed by the
laying on of hands. St. Luke pointed out in the two NT books written by him that
Christ promised to give His followers the Holy Spirit for the special purpose of
strengthening them in the profession of their faith: And when they will lead you to
the synagogues, and to magistrates and authorities, do not choose to be worried
about how or what you will answer, or about what you might say. For the Holy Spirit
will teach you, in the same hour, what you must say(Lk 12:11-12); But you shall
receive the power of the Holy Spirit, passing over you, and you shall be witnesses
for me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the ends of the
earth.(Acts 1:8; see also in Jn 14:16-17; 7:38-39). In Acts 2:1-4, we are informed
about the fulfillment of that promise on the Feast of Pentecost: And when the days
of Pentecost were completed, they were all together in the same place. And
suddenly, there came a sound from heaven, like that of a wind approaching
violently, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. And there appeared
to them separate tongues, as if of fire, which settled upon each one of them. And
they were all filled with the Holy Spirit. And they began to speak in various
languages, just as the Holy Spirit bestowed eloquence to them. But neither did St.
Luke nor the early Church conceived that the grace of Pentecost granted through
the reception of the Holy Spirit was something peculiar to those gathered in the
upper room and was never to be perpetuated in the Church (see already Peters
statement in Acts 2:38ff).22 It was for this purpose that the events in Acts 8:14-17,
10:44-48 and 19:1-6 are narrated to show that the grace of Pentecost is meant to
20 .For convenient sake we have here used the phrase grace of the Spirit to
designated the grace produced by this rite, later called Confirmation, so as to
differentiate it from the grace produced by Baptism. This is not to say that the Spirit
is not given at Baptism. More explanation on this would be provided later on where
we would then abandon the term grace of the Spirit for a more unambiguous
phrase grace of Pentecost for the same purpose.
21 . The phrase since ye believed means since you received the Baptism of the
Church; Cf. Rom 13:11: Now our salvation is nearer than when we believed, i.e.
than at the time of our baptism.

be perpetuated in a certain way in the Church (See also Jn 7:38-39), 23and in two of
those texts St. Luke points to a rite consisting of the laying on of hands and prayer
as the ordinary means used by the Church to bestow the grace of Pentecost on
future generation of believers. Thus, the impression we get from the Acts of the
Apostles is that in the 30s of the first century there was a rite already in existence
that was used by the Church to bestow the grace of Pentecost on future generation
of believers (Acts 8:14-17); that this rite was still being administered in the Church
and understood in this sense in the 60s (Acts 19:1-6); that this rite consist of the
laying on of hands and prayer (8:17; 19:6); that it is distinct and separable from the
rite of Baptism but was closely connected to it (8:16; 19:2); and that only those of
certain ranks in the Church leadership can administer it (8:14; 19:6).
Now we know that the Church in this period understood the supernatural event
(i.e. rebirth, cleansing of sins, entrance into the Church) which occur during the
reception of Baptism as the work of the Spirit. There are several passages in the
Pauline corpus and Johannine corpus that testifies to this (e.g. Jn 3:5-6, I Jn 5:6-7; Tit
3:5, I Cor 6:11, 12:13; Heb 10:22). But this does not mean that the Church in that
same period could not have connected the working of the Spirit to some other
rite(s) of the Church (see already in I Cor 12:13). 24 St. Luke in those two passages in
the Acts was not concerned with the effect of the Spirit during Baptism. It is the
effect of the Spirit in that other rite of the Church, later called Confirmation or
Unction or Chrismation in Christian tradition, which consists of the laying on of
hands and prayer and which is administered along with Baptism that he is
concerned about.25 And because the effect of the Spirit in Baptism is indeed
different from that in Confirmation and because at Confirmation the Spirit comes to
dwell in the soul of the baptized in a special way, St. Luke could say of the
Samarians prior to Ss. Peter and John visit He [the Holy Spirit] had not yet come
down on any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus
(8:16). He had not yet come down on any of them, i.e. in the sense that the Holy
Spirit had not yet come to dwell in their souls to effect the grace of Pentecost. 26
They had received Baptism from the deacon Philip but that is not the rite by which
the grace of Pentecost is given (they had only been baptized in the name of the
Lord Jesus, v.16b). That grace is given by another rite of the Church consisting of
prayer and imposition of hands (they laid their hands on them, and they received
22 .But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the
name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of
the Holy Ghost. For the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are
far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call. (Acts 2:38-39)
23 .Its like St. Luke in recollecting those events was saying the grace of Pentecost
is not meant only for the Jews in Jerusalem and the people that were present in the
upper room but is also meant for everyone that will embrace the faith of the Church,
whether they are living outside Jerusalem (8:14-17) or are Gentiles (10:44-48) or are
coming over from another faith which worships the living God (19:1-6). Hence, the
mention of the charisms by him in each of those events to underscore that fact. See
the explicit statement of the Prince of the Apostles in Acts 15:8-9: God, who
knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to
us; and put no difference between us and them.

the Holy Spirit, v.17). That is all St. Luke or those who handed down the tradition
recorded in that passage intended to point out.
St. Luke, as we have already pointed out, was not the one who invented the rite
consisting of the laying on of hands and prayer which was shown in Acts of the
Apostles as conferring the grace of Pentecost. That rite as the texts from the Acts of
the Apostles themselves indicate was well known and was already being
administered in the Church even before St. Luke wrote about it. Further proof of this
is found in the Epistle to the Hebrews written by another Churchman sometime in
the 60s and which predates the composition of the Acts of the Apostle. There we
read: Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to
24 .Some commentators take the phrase and in one Spirit we have all been made
to drink (I Cor 12:13b) as a reference to the Eucharist. But there are still some both
ancient and modern like the Jesuit theologian Fernand Prat who understands that
phrase as a reference to Confirmation. As he explains: Four reasons makes us think
that this infusion of the Spirit denotes the sacrament of Confirmation: the aorist
() indicates neither a permanent state nor an action often repeated, but
a transitory rite analogous and parallel to that of baptism.Further, we cannot think
of baptism itself, which has just been mentioned, nor of drinking the Eucharist,
which cannot be recognized under this figure.Pauls words describe the formation
of the mystical body: by baptism the neophyte is grafted on to Christ, immersed in
Christ, incorporated into Christ; then intervenes the Holy Spirit, the soul of the
Church, in order to infuse a new life into it; the gift of the Holy Spirit completes the
incorporation of baptismIn the Old Testament as well as in the New, the mission of
the Spirit of God is usually presented under the symbol of an outpouring, a rain, or
an exhalation [Is 12:3; 32:15; 44:3; Jer 2:13; Ez 47:1; Zach 12:10; 14:8; Joel 2:28,
etc.Jn 7:39.40; Acts 2:17.18.33; Tit 3:6, etc.], and can there be a more appropriate
figure than this by which to designate the sacred rite which renews and perpetuates
in the bosom of the Church the miracle of Pentecost? The Theology of St. Paul, Vol.
II, P. 263. See also quotation from the Greek father St. John Chrysostom later.
Whether the phrase refers to the Eucharist or Confirmation, the point we are making
here still stand. And it is the fact that the connection of the Spirit to Baptism did not
prevent the Early Church from connecting that same Spirit to other rite(s) of the
Church.
25 .Even when in Acts 2:38, we read: Yet truly, Peter said to them: Do penance;
and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of
your sins. And you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The statement and you
shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit probably refer to the effect of the Holy Spirit
in Confirmation (which as we have pointed out is closely connected to Baptism in
that period) and not to the effect of the Holy Spirit in Baptism.
26 .In the Gospel of John it is narrated that the risen Christ breathed on the Apostles
and said Receive the Holy Spirit. (Jn 20:22). Yet St. Luke informs us that the risen

maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith
toward God, and of instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, the
resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits.
For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have
tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the
goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come (Heb 6:1-5).
Here a distinction between Baptism and a rite consisting of the laying on of hands is
made (instruction about washings, the laying on of hands, v. 2a). This laying on of
hands like Baptism is understood as something that is experienced by all the faithful
in their journey of the Christian life. Thus it cannot refer to the laying on of hands
during ordination (cf. Acts 6:6; I Tim 4:14; II Tim 1:6) or during healing (cf. Mk 6:5;
16:18; Lk 4:40; Acts 28:8; 9:12) or during reconciliation (I Tim 5:22?) as these rites
are not administered to all the faithful.27 It must be identified with that rite which
Christian tradition would later refer to as Confirmation since it is the only rite of the
Church consisting of the laying on of hands which was closely associated with
Baptism in Christian antiquity and like Baptism was administered to all the faithful. 28
And although the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews did not clearly connect the
communication of the gift of the Holy Spirit with this rite as we find in Acts 8:17 and
19:6, he was not unaware of the fact that the Church communicates the gift of the
Holy Spirit to all those she embrace in her fold (have shared in the Holy Spirit v.
4c). It is taken for granted that the audience of the Epistle were already familiar
with this rite considered alongside Baptism, the resurrection of the dead, and the
final judgment as belonging to the fundamental principles of Christian doctrine
Christ said to the Apostle: And I am sending the Promise of my Father upon you.
But you must stay in the city, until such time as you are clothed with power from on
high. (Lk 24:49). There is no contradiction or confusion here if it is understood that
the way of acting of the Holy Spirit or the purpose for which the Holy Spirit is given
in the event described in John 20:22 is different from the event that occurred at
Pentecost.
27 .Note how the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews in enumerating these six
fundamental principles of Christian doctrine group them in pair: the first pair,
Repentance and Faith; the second pair, the doctrine of Baptism and the Laying on
of hands; and the third pair, the doctrine of the Resurrection of the dead and of
eternal judgment. The first are conditions before entry into the Messianic
community, the second are rites of initiation into the messianic community, and the
third are events on the last day. No one can say that repentance and faith are not
distinct acts even though they are prerequisites for entry into the Church. So also is
the Resurrection of the dead distinct from eternal judgment although both are
events of the last day. Therefore, Baptism and the laying on of hands must have
been understood as two distinct rites even though they are both performed
together during initiation.
28 .This would be later seen.

(v.1a). Thus, the rite must have been well known about the time this Epistle was
being composed in the 60s of the first century.
Elsewhere in the First Epistle of St. John written between the years 90 to 100
A.D, we read: You have the anointing of the Holy One, and you know everything
let the Anointing that you have received from him abide in you. And so, you have no
need of anyone to teach you. For his Anointing teaches you about everything, and it
is the truth, and it is not a lie. And just as his Anointing has taught you, abide in
him (I Jn 2:20.27). St. John here says his Christian audiences have an anointing, a
term used to symbolize the giving of the Holy Spirit. For he says the anointing
abide in them, imparts knowledge of the truth (v. 21) and teaches them about
everything (v. 27b). Here we should recall the promise of Jesus to His followers
found elsewhere in the Johannine corpusthat He would send the Paraclate, the
Spirit of Truth (Jn 14:17; 15:26; 16:13) who would abide with them for eternity
(Jn 14:16) and would teach them all things (Jn 14:26; 16:13). In the present
passage from the First Epistle the Christian audiences are reminded that they are in
possession of that Spirit (you have abide in you it has taught you). And
although, unlike St. Luke, St. John did not mention the time of the fulfillment of the
promise of the Holy Spirit or the means by which his audience originally received
the Holy Spirit, it could at least be gathered from the First Epistle of St. John that
over 60 years after the event at Pentecost the Church was still communicating the
grace of Pentecost to all she welcomes into her fold.
In some of the early documents the Christian authors spoke of members of the
Church as those who have received the gifts of the Spirit without clearly
distinguishing the grace received at Baptism from the grace received at
Confirmation or without directly hinting whether it is the grace received at Baptism
or that received at Confirmation that is meant. See for example St. Clement of
Rome who wrote between the years 80 and 90 A.D: Why are there quarrels and ill
will and dissensions and schism and fighting among you? Do we not have one God
and one Christ, and one Spirit of Grace poured out upon us? And is there not one
calling in Christ? [Eph 4:4-6] Why do we wrench and tear apart the members of
Christ, and revolt against our own body, and reach such folly as to forget that we
are members one of another?29 See even in the NT documents, i.e. St. Pauls
Epistle to the Ephesians: And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God: whereby you are
sealed unto the day of redemption (Eph 4:30, cf. 1:13); and the First Epistle of St.
Peter: If you are insulted for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of
glory and of God rests upon you. (I Pt 4:14) 30This is understandable since in the
early period both Baptism and Confirmation were usually performed together in a
single ceremony of Christian initiation (see already in Acts 19:1-6). Thus, all who
had the Sacrament of Baptism administered to them also had the Sacrament of
Confirmation administered to them. Except of course in cases where a legitimate
minister for Confirmation is lacking (see already in Acts 8:14-17). But even in such
rare cases the Sacrament of Confirmation was administered to the baptized as soon
as possible when the legitimate minister is available so as to complete the process
29 .St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 46, 5-7.
30 . Compare with Christ words to His disciples in Mt 10:19-20; Lk 12:11-12 where it
is stated that one of the roles of the Holy Spirit which would be bestowed upon
them is to strengthen them in the face of trail.

of Christian initiation (cf. Acts 8:16-17; also see St. Pauls question in 19:2 to the
Ephesians). Thus, all who have been made Christian in that period have received
the Holy Spirit in Baptism and in Confirmation. It is one and the same Divine Spirit
that is received in those two distinct rites administered together even though the
way of acting of that Spirit in one rite is different from the way of acting of that
same Spirit in the other rite. Hence, the general statements that Christians are in
possession of the Spirit which are made by Christian authors of this period cannot
and should not be understood as reference to the reception of the Divine Spirit
during Baptism to the exclusion of Confirmation or vice versa. The fact that the two
Sacraments were conferred together may also be a contributing factor to the reason
why we do not often find Christian authors in this period making any explicit
mention of Confirmation as distinct from Baptism. However, a theology of the
Sacrament of Confirmation began to take shape as early as the second half of the
second century when theologians of the Church began to reflect on the nature of
this rite, its effect, and its relation to Baptism. Thus, Tertullian, in his treatise on
Baptism written between the years 200 A.D and 206 A.D says: Then, leaving the
bath we are anointed all over with blessed unction according to the primitive
practice by which priests were wont to be anointed with olive oil from a horn. This
custom obtained ever since Aaron was anointed by Moses, whence he is called
anointed from the chrism, which is anointing. This adapted the name to the Lord,
when it became spiritual. For He was anointed with the spirit by God the Father, as
is stated in Acts: For they were really gathered together in this city against Thy holy
Son, whom Thou didst anoint. So also in us the anointing takes its course in a
material sense, but it confers spiritual benefit, just as also the material act of
Baptism itself, the fact that we are sunk in the water, becomes spiritual, in that we
are freed from our sins. Thereafter, a hand is laid on us by way of blessing,
summoning and inviting the Holy Spirit.31 Earlier on in the same treatise Tertullian
had said: I do not mean to say that we obtain the Holy Spirit in the water, but
having been cleansed in the water, we are being prepared under the angel for the
Holy Spirit.32 Again, in another treatise written between the years 208 and 212
where he names the following initiation rites: No soul whatever is able to obtain
salvation unless it has believed while it was in the flesh. Indeed, the flesh is the
hinge of salvation. . . . The flesh, then, is washed [baptism] so that the soul may be
made clean. The flesh is anointed so that the soul may be dedicated to holiness.
The flesh is signed so that the soul may be fortified. The flesh is shaded by the
imposition of hands [confirmation] so that the soul may be illuminated by the Spirit.
The flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ [the Eucharist] so that the soul too
may feed on God. They cannot, then, be separated in their reward, when they are
united in their works.33 Tertullian clearly distinguishes Baptism from the laying on of
hands. He is likewise clear that the Holy Spirit is given through the laying on of
hands and prayer.

31 .Tertullian, On Baptism, 7-8.

32 .Ibid, 6.
33 .Tertullian, The Resurrection of the Dead, 8, 2-3.

There are some who have found Tertullian theology here a bit confusing
because, according to these men, he seems to deny that the Spirit is received in
Baptism. But those who hold on to such views about Tertullian are not being fair to
him.34 For Tertullian the rebirth of man takes place through Baptism: Happy
mystery of our water, because the sins of our former blindness are washed away
and we are freed for everlasting life!...we little fish, like our Fish Jesus Christ, are
born in water, and it is only by remaining in water that we are safe 35; Once and
once only, therefore, we enter the bath, once for all are sins washed away, because
they must not be repeatedHappy water, which once for all cleanses, which is not a
sport for sinners, which not being stained by continual experience of filth, does not
stain again those whom it washes! 36He nowhere ascribes the rebirth to the laying
on of hands but only to Baptism. But the rebirth is the work of the Holy Spirit. 37
Thus, from Tertullians theology it can be deduced that the Holy Spirit is received
during Baptism. But he understands the working of the Spirit in the rite of the laying
on of hands to be of a special kind, different from that received at Baptism. Hence,
the form of expression in the sixth chapter of the treatise On Baptism (see above),
which is somewhat similar to that earlier encounter in Acts 8:16. Such form of
expression used to explain the difference between Baptism and the laying on of
hands in the early years of the life of the Church can also be found in the letter of
Pope St. Cornelius to bishop Fabius of Antioch written in the year 251 where the
following complain was made about Novatian: As [Novatian] seemed about to die,
he received Baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouringif, indeed such a man can
be said to have received it at all. And when he recovered from his illness he did not
receive the other things which, in accord with the law of the Church, it is necessary
to have; nor was he sealed by the Bishop. And since this was not done, how could
he have the Holy Spirit? 38 Here we should remember that those who had been
baptized in illness (i.e. clinical Baptism) were considered in those times as unfit for
34 .These men fail to perceive that the same Spirit can be conceived as working in
various ways .Their thinking is that the means used to convey the Holy Spirit is
either Baptism or Confirmation. Thus, they find it confusing when an early Church
author on one occasion attest that the Spirit is given in Baptism, and on another
occasion that the same Spirit is conferred through Confirmational imposition of
hands.
35 .Tertullian, On Baptism, 1
36 .Ibid, 15.
37 .The present author is fully aware that quite a few numbers of ancient authors
understood the statement in Jn 3:5 as referring not only to Baptism but to Baptism
and Confirmation which in those times were celebrated together. These ancient
authors sometimes speak of Christian being born in these two Sacraments but by
this they do not mean to deny the fact that Baptism is the work of the Spirit or that
these rites are separable. See below the train of thoughts of some of authors during
the Baptism controversy in the third century.

the clerical state. But the method in which such persons received Baptism (i.e.
infusion or aspersion) was recognized as valid. This is evident in the fact that such
persons were never re-baptized and there is no evidence in Christian antiquity of
anyone raising the argument that Baptism should be repeated for such persons
when they recover from their illness. But from St. Cornelius statement we can see
that although Baptism and Confirmation were usually conferred together, in cases
where the candidate for Baptism was seriously ill Baptism could separately be
conferred (certainly by a Presbyter or even a layman) on the candidate as a matter
of urgency and if it so happens that he/she later recovers from that illness it was
necessary that such person receives Confirmation which was administered by the
bishop.
St. Hippolytus of Rome, who wrote before St. Cornelius, also attests to the
Roman view on this point. In his Commentary on Daniel written about 204 A.D, St.
Hippolytus says:
And she said to her maids, Bring me oil.[Dan 13:17; or in LXX, Sus 1:17]
Indeed, faith and love prepare oil and cleansing unguents for those who are
washed. But what were these unguents if not the commands of the Holy
Word? And what was the oil, if not the power of the Holy Spirit? It is with
these, after the washing [i.e. Baptism], that believers are anointed as with
a sweet-smelling oil. All these things were prefigured through the blessed
Susanna for our sakes, so that we of the present time who believe in God,
might not regard as strange the things which now are done in the Church,
and that we might believe that all of them have been set forth in figures by
the patriarchs of old, as the apostle also says: Now these things happened
unto them for ensamples: and they were written for our instruction, on
whom the ends of the world are come.39

Hippolytus here connects an anointing after Baptism with the working of the
Spirit. That this anointing was accompanied by an imposition of hands can be seen
elsewhere in another work, his Church order written around 215 A.D, where
Hippolytus provides a more detailed report on the rite of Confirmation. He informs
us that after Baptism the individual is anointed with the consecrated oil; and the
presbyter says: I anoint you with the holy oil in the name of Jesus Christ. And so
each one then drys himself; and immediately they put on their cloths. Then they
come into the church. The bishop, imposing his hand on them, shall make an
invocation, saying, O Lord God, who made them worthy of the remission of sins
through the Holy Spirits washing unto rebirth, send into them your grace so that
they may serve you according to your will, for there is glory to you, to the Father
and the Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, both now and through the ages
of ages. Amen. Then, pouring the consecrated oil into his hand and imposing it on
the head of the baptized, he shall say, I anoint you with holy oil in the Lord, the
Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Signing them on the forehead,
he shall kiss them and say, The Lord be with you. He that has been signed shall
say, And with your spirit. Thus shall he do to each. 40
The passages from the fathers which we have quoted so far shows that at the
time these men wrote apart from the imposition of hands and prayer, the
38 .St. Cornelius of Rome, Letter to Fabius of Antioch, fragment in Eusebius History
of the Church, 6, 43, 14-15.
39 .St. Hippolytus, Commentary on Daniel, 6, 18.

Sacrament of Confirmation was understood as also consisting of an anointing with

Chrism, a special perfumed oil. The gesture of the anointing with Chrism no doubt
was meant to symbolize the fact that by means of this sacrament (i.e. Confirmation)
the Holy Spirit is communicated to the individual. 41 According to the Gospel
tradition, after Jesus was baptized in the Jordan, He experienced the Holy Spirit
descending upon Him in the form of a dove (cf. Mt 3:16; Mk 1:10; Lk 3:21-22). In St.
Peters description of this event found in the Acts of the Apostles, the descent of the
Holy Spirit on Christ is spoken of as an anointing: For beginning from Galilee, after
the baptism which John preached, Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the
Holy Spirit and with power, traveled around doing good and healing all those
oppressed by the devil. For God was with him (Acts 10:37-38). The text from Acts
and the use of anointing as a metaphor for the giving of the Holy Spirit has an OT
background. In the book of Isaias we read concerning the coming Messiah: The
Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for the Lord has anointed me (Is 61:1; cf. 11:1-2). In
the Gospel of Luke, also written by the author of the Acts of the Apostles, the words
of the prophet Isaias were explained as a reference to Jesus (Lk 4:18-21). But it is
also foretold in the OT that the Spirit of God would be communicated to all the
messianic people (cf. Joel 2:28f; Is 44:3-5; Ez 36:25-27; 39:29). In the Acts of the
Apostles, we find St. Peter interpreting the outpour of the Holy Spirit which they, the
believing community of the Messiah, experienced on the day of Pentecost as the
fulfillment of such OT promises (Acts 2:17:18 the prophecy of Joel is explicitly cited).
Thus, it is not surprising that the oil of anointing would become an element of the
rite by which the grace of Pentecost is perpetuated. Has it been so always and
everywhere? Certain NT texts demonstrate that the sacred rite which perpetuates in
the Church the grace of Pentecost consist of the laying on of hands and prayer (see
Acts 8:14-17; 19:1-6; Heb 6:2). There is in them no explicit mention of an anointing
with chrism as a constituent part of that sacred rite. But, it has been argued that it
is possible the metaphorical use of the term unction or anointing in the NT to
underline the fact that Christians are in possession of the Spirit (see I Jn 2:20. 27; 2
Cor 1:21) and the language/choice of those Biblical texts cited above, could have
been influenced by an actual usage of the oil of anointing in the liturgical
celebration of Confirmation. To be sure, this argument can be made the other way
as well. Thus, it may, with equal probability, be argued that the existence of these
metaphorical terms in the NT suggested, and rendered easy, the introduction of a
40 .Ibid, Apostolic Tradition, 21, 19-24.
41 .Chrism or Myron is a mixture of oil of olives and balsam, a fragrant ointment
extracted from certain trees. Anointing with oil of olives was a common ceremony in
the Old law for the consecration of priests and the coronation of kings. Balsam was
used to preserve from corruption whatever was anointed with it. We can see how
suitable that these two ingredients should be used in the anointing of confirmation.
Oil of olives is used as a food and also as a healing and strengthening ointment. It
spreads over and penetrates anything to which it is applied. It therefore aptly
signifies the inward effect of the Holy Spirit on our souls, filling and strengthening
them with grace, The balsam signifies the sweetness of virtue which flows from
grace and the power of the sacrament to preserve our souls from sin.

literal rite of anointing at a very early date in the history of the Church. 42Whatever
the case may have been we know from the apologetic work titled To Autolycus
written in the year 181 A.D by St. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, that the use of
material oil in the initiatory ceremony of the Church was already in vogue in his
time:
And about your laughing at me and calling me Christian, you know not
what you are saying. First, because that which is anointed is sweet and
serviceable, and far from contemptible. For what ship can be serviceable
and seaworthy, unless it be first caulked [anointed]? Or what castle or
house is beautiful and serviceable when it has not been anointed? And
what man, when he enters into this life or into the gymnasium, is not
anointed with oil? And what work has either ornament or beauty unless it
be anointed and burnished? Then the air and all that is under heaven is in a
certain sort anointed by light and spirit; and are you unwilling to be
anointed with the oil of God? Wherefore we are called Christians on this
account, because we are anointed with the oil of God."43

And when other Churchmen, like Tertullian and St. Hippolytus, that are
contemporaries of St. Theophilus, clearly made mention of it in the context of
Confirmation their testimonies demonstrate that the use of oil of anointing in the
context of Confirmation was already an old aged custom in the second half of the
second century.
In the the Didascalia Apostolorum, a Church order which originated from Syria
and which was written in the first decades of the third century, we find the following
exhortation to the faithful:
For what hope at all is there for him who speaks evil of the bishop, or of
the deacon? For if one call a layman fool, or raca, he is liable to the
assembly [Mt 5:22], as one of those who rise up against Christ: because
that he calls 'empty' his brother in whom Christ dwells, who is not empty
but fulfilled; or (calls) him 'fool' in whom dwells the Holy Spirit of God,
fulfilled with all wisdom: as though he should become a fool by the very
Spirit that dwells in him! If then one who should say any of these things to
a layman is found to fall under so great condemnation, how much more if
he should dare to say aught against the deacon, or against the bishop,
through whom the Lord gave you the Holy Spirit, and through whom you
have learned the word and have known God, and through whom you have
been known of God [cf. Gal 4.9], and through whom you were sealed [cf.
Eph 1:13; 4:30], and through whom you became sons of the light [cf. Jn
12:36; I Thess 5:5], and through whom the Lord in baptism, by the
imposition of hand of the bishop, bore witness to each one of you and
uttered His holy voice, saying: Thou art my son: this day have begotten
thee [Ps 2:7 (Lk 3:22)]44

42 .Pope John Paul II of blessed memory, says: Since apostolic times the full communication
of the gift of the Holy Spirit to the baptized has been effectively signified by the laying on of
hands. An anointing with perfumed oil, called chrism, was added very early, the better to
express the gift of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, through Confirmation Christians, consecrated by
the anointing in Baptism, share in the fullness of the Spirit with whom Jesus is filled, so that
their whole life will spread the aroma of Christ (2 Cor 2:15). The Holy Spirit and the
Sacrament of Confirmation, 3 (September 30, 1998).

43 .St. Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, 1, 12.

The above text shows that the Syrian tradition knows of an imposition of the
bishops hands which was closely connected with Baptism. The author elsewhere
associates an anointing with an imposition of hands when describing the role of a
deaconess in Christian initiation:
Wherefore, O bishop, appoint thee workers of righteousness as helpers
who may co-operate with thee unto salvation. Those that please thee out
of all the people thou shalt choose and appoint as deacons: a man for the
performance of the most things that are required, but a woman for the
ministry of women. For there are houses whither thou canst not send a
deacon to the women, on account of the heathen, but mayest send a
deaconess. Also, because in many other matters the office of a woman
deacon is required. In the first place, when women go down into the water,
those who go down into the water ought to be anointed by a deaconess
with the oil of anointing; and where there is no woman at hand, and
especially no deaconess, he who baptizes must of necessity anoint her who
is being baptized. But where there is a woman, and especially a deaconess,
it is not fitting that women should be seen by men: but with the imposition
of hand do thou anoint the head only. As of old the priests and kings were
anointed in Israel, do thou in like manner, with the imposition of hand,
anoint the head of those who receive baptism, whether of men or of
women; and afterwardswhether thou thyself baptize, or thou command
the deacons or presbyters to baptizelet a woman deacon, as we have
already said, anoint the women. But let a man pronounce over them the
invocation of the divine Names in the water. And when she who is being
baptized has come up from the water, let the deaconess receive her, and
teach and instruct her how the seal of baptism ought to be (kept) unbroken
in purity and holiness. For this cause we say that the ministry of a woman
deacon is especially needful and important.45

It has been argued by some scholars that the sequence here is:
anointing/imposition of hands, washing with water, Eucharist. But the text is far
from being unambiguous on this matter. Should in the first place be understood as
meaning before the washing with water or should it be read in conjunction with the
preceding statement (because in many other matters the office of a woman deacon
is required) and thus be understood as meaning the foremost reason why the
office of a deaconess is required? The later seems to me the most likely. 46 Hence,
the author, after elaborating on the role which a deaconess plays during the
Baptism of women, could say: For this cause we say that the ministry of a woman
deacon is especially needful and important. Another point that is not too clear is
whether the statement let a man pronounce over them the invocation of the divine
Names in the water, refers to the pronouncement of the Trinitarian baptismal
formula or to the prayer said during the anointing with oil which include an
invocation of the Trinity. We know from other documents which dates from this
period that the prayer said during the anointing with oil in the context of Christian
44 .Didascalia, II, 32.
45 .Didascalia, III, 12.
46 .The authors purpose in the entire passage was to present a case for the
usefulness of a deaconess in the service of the Church.

initiation included an invocation of the divine names. See, the passage from St.
Hippolytus cited above. Also see, the Acts of Thomas: And the apostle took the oil
and pouring it on their heads anointed and chrismed them, and began to say:
Come, holy name of Christ that is above ever nameCome, Holy Spirit, and purify
their reins and their heart. And give them the added seal in the name of the Father
and Son and Holy Spirit.47 For me I feel that the author in that statement was not
referring to the pronouncement of the Baptismal formula but to the prayer said
during the anointing with oil. He takes it for granted that the ordinary ministers of
the rites of the Church are male members of the clergy. But he argues that females,
like males, should be appointed to assist the bishop in his pastoral duties. One area
where he finds the usefulness of females in assisting the bishop is during the
celebration of Christian initiation. In a case where the candidate for baptism was a
woman, the author advice that deaconess should for modestys sake be allowed to
carry out part of the anointing which occurred in the Baptismal pool (it is not fitting
that women should be seen by men). But even in such cases, he still maintains that
the prescribed prayer for the anointing should be said by a male. Those who argue
that that statement refers to the pronouncement of the baptismal formula fail to
observe that the discussion was never about the washing with water in the
baptismal pool but the anointing with oil in the baptismal pool. Unlike the anointing
with oil, the author nowhere allowed that women including deaconess could perform
the act of washing with water.48How could it then be assumed that he was clarifying
that the forms of words (baptismal formula) said during the application of the water
should be recited by a male person alone when he had not in the first instance
implied that the application of the water can be performed by a female person? The
application of the water and the Baptismal formula go hand in hand. It is the same
minister who does bothhe recites the baptismal formula as he is applying the
water on the whole body of the candidate. Confusion on who would recite the
baptismal formula would only have risen if it was suggested or in any way implied
that the application of the water on the body of the candidate should and can be
done by two different persons. But the author of the Didascalia nowhere implied this
in the case of the washing with water. It was in the case of the anointing with oil
that he did suggest such. Hence the need for clarifying that the prayer which
accompanies the anointing should be said by male ministers still. 49
Now, if one looks back at that passage with the position we have adopted the
following understanding of that passage would be arrived at: That the author in this
instance was speaking of one anointing with oil. This anointing was usually
performed by male ministers of the Church in the baptismal water. But in a situation
47 .Acts of Thomas, 27.
48 .Elsewhere the author disapproves of the practice of women baptizing: That a
woman should baptize, or that one should be baptized by a woman, we do not
counsel, for it is a transgression of the commandment, and a great peril to her who
baptizes and to him who is baptized. For if it were lawful to be baptized by a
woman, our Lord and Teacher Himself would have been baptized by Mary His
mother, whereas He was baptized by John, like others of the people. Do not
therefore imperil yourselves, brethren and sisters, by acting beside the law of the
Gospel. Didascalia, III, 9.

where the candidate for Baptism was a woman, the male minister still performs this
anointing on the woman (he who baptizes must of necessity anoint her who is
being baptized) but only now he anoints the head only (with the imposition of hand
do thou anoint the head only) and the completion of the anointing on the rest of
the naked body was left for the deaconess (and afterwards let a woman deacon,
as we have already said, anoint the women) for the sake of modesty (it is not fitting
that women should be seen by men). 50 But even in such situation, a deaconess was
not allowed to offer the prescribed prayers said during the anointing. This was the
privilege of male ministers alone.51 Whether this one anointing the author was
concerned about precedes the washing with water or was done immediately after
the washing with water we cannot tell from the present text (There could even have
been another anointing which is not related to the role of deaconess and so the
author did not make mention of it). 52 What is clear is that this anointing like the
washing occurs in the water. 53 Again, the author connects this anointing with the
washing in such a way that it is hard to determine whether the anointing was simply
part of the baptismal rite or whether it constitutes a separate sacrament. Again, it
seems that in the Syrian tradition no small importance was placed on the imposition
of hand associated with Baptism since it was distinctively referred to as the
imposition of hand of the bishop: through whom the Lord in baptism, by the
imposition of hand of the bishop. The fact that it was so named also seems to
imply that it was performed by the bishop alone and was considered as a rite
49 . See Theodore of Mopsuestia statement a century later: After you have taken
off your garments, you are rightly anointed all over your body with the holy
ChrismWhile you are receiving this anointing, the one who has been found worthy
of the honour of priesthood begins and says: So-and-so is anointed in the name of
the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And then the persons appointed
for this service anoint all your body.(Catechetical Homilies) Note While you are
receiving this anointing, the one who has been found worthy of the honour of
priesthood begins and says. This indicates that the anointing on the whole body
could be done by another minister but the prayer which accompanies such
anointing is reserved for one who has been found worthy of the honour of
priesthood.
50 .We should remember that in early period the candidates for Baptism were
usually naked inside the baptismal pool, a symbolism which highlights the fact that
in the baptismal waters the baptizand is stripped off the old man and puts on the
new (cf. Col 3:9f).
51 .It seems to me that in the earliest times the performance of this anointing in the
baptismal pool was the privilege of the bishop alone. But in later times the task of
anointing the whole body was delegated to either a presbyter or a deacon while the
anointing on the forehead was reserved for the bishop. It was this later change that
gave rise to the preposition that the same privilege should be extended to
deaconess in a situation where the candidate for Baptism was a woman. The author
of the Didascalia supports this standpoint.

distinct from the washing with water. But should we identify this imposition of hand
which accompanied Baptism with the imposition of hand which accompanied the
anointing in water or were there two impositions of hands? 54 This is quite difficult to
tell from the present text. All we could safely say is that there was an imposition of
hands connected with the one anointing the author chose to discuss about in
relation with the deaconess. Whether it was the same with that connected to the
bishop we cannot tell. However, one could see that the tradition represented by the
Didascalia like other traditions we have considered so far had an imposition of
hands that was closely connected with Baptism just as is found in the Acts of the
Apostles but whether or not the tradition represented by the Didascalia vary from
those other traditions in performing the imposition of hand before the washing 55and
not after it, is a question that cannot be answered from the present text. Also, we
cannot tell from the present text the significance which was ascribed to the
52 .Theodore of Mopsuestia mentions two anointing, pre-baptismal anointing and
post-baptismal anointing, in his Catechetical Homilies (see below) and he connects
the later with the gift of the Holy Spirit. The pre-baptismal anointing in Theodore is
similar to that which the author of the Didascalia was here discussing. The tradition
presented by Theodore is quite reconcilable with that presented by the author of the
Didascalia.
53 .A sequence cannot be deduced from the following statement: do thou in like
manner, with the imposition of hand, anoint the head of those who receive baptism,
whether of men or of women; and afterwardswhether thou thyself baptize, or thou
command the deacons or presbyters to baptizelet a woman deacon, as we have
already said, anoint the women. The point of discussion here is that the bishop
should anoint the head of the candidate of Baptism in regardless of the sex and the
completion of this anointing should be left for the deaconess in a case where the
candidate was a woman. The statement whether thou thyself baptize, or thou
command the deacons or presbyters to baptize, was merely introduced to stress
the fact that this should be the rule even when the bishop delegates the act of
washing with water to other male ministers. With the imposition of hand, anoint the
head of those who receive baptismthis only highlights the fact that the imposition
of hand was connected with the anointing and that both actions was the privilege of
the bishop. Whether the washing comes before or after these acts (i.e. the anointing
and the imposition of hand) is not clear. The sequence could have been any of the
following: (A)if it is accepted that the author knows only one anointing and there
was only one imposition of hands: (i) washing with water, anointing of the head/ of
the body, imposition of hand of the bishop or (ii) anointing of the head/ of the body,
imposition of hand of the bishop, washing with water. (B)If there were two
impositions of hands and another anointing the author did not mention as it was not
part of his scope: (i) anointing of the head/ of the body, imposition of hand of the
bishop ,washing with water, anointing of the head, imposition of hand of the bishop
or (ii) anointing of the head, imposition of hand of the bishop, washing with water,
anointing of the head/ of the body, imposition of hand of the bishop.

imposition of hands. However, from the first text which we cited from the
Didascalia, the imparting of the Holy Spirit was connected with a sacramental action
performed by the bishop: the bishop, through whom the Lord gave you the Holy
Spirit. The same thought was again expressed by the author a few lines away:
Wherefore, O man, know thy bishops, through whom thou wast made a son of God,
and the right hand, thy mother; and love him who is become, after God, thy father
and thy mother: for whosoever shall revile his father or his mother, shall die the
death [Ex 21:17; Mt 15:4]. But do you honour the bishops, who have loosed you
from sins, who by the water regenerated you, who filled you with the Holy Spirit,
who reared you with the word as with milk, who bred you up with doctrine, who
confirmed you with admonition, and made you to partake of the holy Eucharist of
God, and made you partakers and joint heirs of the promise of God. 56 We can here
discern the sacramental acts in Christian initiation as understood in other traditions:
Baptism (who by the water regenerated you); Confirmation (who filled you with
the Holy Spirit); and Eucharist (made you to partake of the holy Eucharist of God).
But whether the author of the Didascalia had already taken time to reflect on this
matter like his contemporaries had done and thus understood confirmation as a
separate Sacrament, we cannot tell.
Origen, the great Alexandrian Ecclesiastical writer, in his Commentaries on
Romans written after 244 A.D., says: All of us may be baptized in the visible water
and in a visible anointing, in accordance with the form handed down to the
Churches.57This passage shows that Origen was aware of an anointing that was
closely connected with Baptism. Elsewhere in his Homilies on Leviticus, he
comments:
Moreover, see that here in the fifth purification flour is not taken, but this
one who is cleansed from sins already has fine wheat flour. Fine wheat
flour is ascribed to him, whence he already has a clean loaf and this is
covered with oil. But his oil is also separated into two uses: one with
which the fine wheat flour is covered; the other from which the priest
takes a full measure of the measure, [Lev 14:10] as it said. In this, as I
perceive, his loaf is made fat for mercy and the oil, with which true light
and the fire of knowledge are lit, is poured on his head by the hand of the
priest. [Cf. Lev 14:18] For thus it says, And the priest who cleanses him
will establish him in the sight of the Lord at the door of the Tent of
Witness.[Lev 14:11] See that it is for the priest to establish the one who is
converted from sin so that he can be steadfast and not waver further nor

54 .See comments in 52 above. Also see text from Theodore and the Apostolic
Constitution below.
55 .Some have suggested that Acts 10:44-48where the gift of the Holy Spirit
precedes and leads to Baptismis an earlier form of such tradition. But as we shall
show later even that text suggest that in the normal sequence of things the
bestowal of the Holy Spirit comes after the baptismal bath.
56 .Didascalia, II, 33.
57 .Origen, Commentaries on Romans, 5, 8, 3.

be moved by every wind of doctrine. [Cf. Eph 4:14] Therefore, he

established him not only within the camp but at the door itself of the Tent
of Witness before the Lord. And, according to the things which were said
above, after the offerings for purification are offered, it says, he also brings
a measure of oil and divides that before the lord. [Cf. Lev 14:10-11] And
the priest will take some of the blood and will place it upon the end of his
right ear and on the end of his right hand and on the end of his right foot.
[Lev 14:14] And after this, it says the priest will take not the ladle itself of
oil, but from it and will pour it into his left hand, and the priest will dip his
finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and he will sprinkle it seven times
before the Lord. [Lev 14:15-16] And again, From what remains in his left
hand, he will place some upon the right ear of him who is cleansed and
upon the end of his right hand and upon the end of his right foot. [Lev
14:17] And next, what was left from the oil, the priest will place from his
hand upon the head of the one who is cleansed.[Lev 14:18] You see how
by the last and highest purification the ear is to be purified that the hearing
may be kept pure and clean; and the right hand, that our works may be
clean and nothing unclean and sordid mixed with these. But the feet must
also be purified that they may be directed only to a good work and not
commit farther the lapses of youth. Moreover, the priest sprinkles some of
the oil before the Lord seven times.[Cf. Lev 14:16] For after all these rites
which were celebrated for purification, after he was converted and
reconciled to God, after the sacrifices of offerings, the order was that he
call the sevenfold virtue of the Holy Spirit upon him, as he said, Return to
me the joy of your salvation and strengthen me with a princely spirit. [Ps
50:14] Or at least since the Lord in the gospel testifies that the hearts of
sinners are besieged by seven demons,[Lk 11:26] the priest
appropriately sprinkles seven times before the Lord in purification that the
expulsion of the seven evil spirits from the heart of the person purified
may be shown by the oil shaken seven times from the fingers. Thus
therefore, to those converted from sin, purification is indeed given through
all this which we said above, but the gift of the grace of the Spirit is
designated through the image of oil that this one who is converted from
sin, not only can attain cleansing but also be filled with the Holy Spirit by
whom he can receive the best robe and ring[Cf. Lk 15:22] and, having
been reconciled with the Father, can be restored to the place of a son,
through our Lord Jesus Christ himself, to whom is glory and power forever
and ever. Amen. [Cf. I Pt 4:11; Apoc 1:6]58

One can deduce from the imagery in the above passage that Origen was
familiar with a rite of anointing performed immediately after Baptism, and that he
attributes to this rite the gift of the Holy Spirit. Its seems that this rite in the
Alexandrian tradition also consist of an imposition of hands because in dealing with
the texts from the Acts of the Apostles he interpreted it as implying that the Holy
Spirit was conferred through the imposition of hands after Baptism: The Holy Spirit
was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles hands after the grace and
renewal of baptism.59Again: Philip baptized in water those being regenerated from
water and the Holy Spirit, but Peter [baptized] in the Holy Spirit. 60
St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, writing between the years 254 and 256 assert
that the laying on of hand, i.e. Confirmation, confers the Holy Spirit:
Some, however, say in regard to those who were baptized in Samaria, that
when the apostles Peter and John came there only hands were imposed on
them so that they might receive the Holy Spirit, and that they were not,

58 .Ibid, Homilies on Leviticus, 8, 11, 11-15.

however, re-baptized. But we see, dearest brother, that this situation in no

way pertains to the present case. Those in Samaria who had believed had
believed in the true faith, and it was by the deacon Philip, whom those
same apostles had sent there, that they had been baptized inside, in the
Church, which is one, and in which alone it is permitted to give the grace of
Baptism and to absolve sins. For the reason, then, they had already
received a legitimate and ecclesiastical baptism, it was not necessary to
baptize them again. Rather, that only which was lacking was done by Peter
and John. The prayer having been made over them and hands having been
imposed upon them, the Holy Spirit was invoked and was poured out upon
them. This is even now the practice among us, so that those who are
baptized in the Church then are brought to the prelates of the Church; and
through our prayer and the imposition of hands, they receive the Holy Spirit
and are perfected with the seal of the Lord.61

Here we find earlier strands of the teaching that the effect of the Holy Spirit in
Confirmation is the perfection of the supernatural life. Elsewhere in another letter:
[A]re not hands, in the name of the same Christ, laid upon the baptized persons
among them, for the reception of the Holy Spirit? 62Again: [O]ne is not born by the
imposition of hands when he receives the Holy Ghost, but in baptism, that so, being
already born, he may receive the Holy Spirit, even as it happened in the first man
Adam. For first God formed him, and then breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life. For the Spirit cannot be received, unless he who receives first has an existence.
But . . . the birth of Christians is in baptism. 63Here St. Cyprian distinguishes
Baptism from Confirmation. It is the former and not the latter that effects the rebirth
into the supernatural life. This passage should not be interpreted in an exclusive
sense as denying the fact that the Holy Spirit is received in Baptism. Rather, that
passage demonstrates that St. Cyprian understood the working of the Spirit in
Confirmation to be different from that received at Baptism. See, his treatise to
Donatus, which demonstrates that St. Cyprian, understood that it is the Holy Spirit
which effects the rebirth in Baptism: But afterwards, when the stain of my past life
had been washed away by means of the water of re-birth, a light from above poured
59 .Ibid, First Principles, 1, 3, 7. See also 1, 3, 2: Through the laying on of the
apostles hands the Holy Spirit was given in Baptism. On Matthew, frag. 52 on Mt
3:13: The one baptizing is not always superior to the one being baptized. Ananias
was not superior to Paul, and although Philip baptized, Peter gave the Holy Spirit
through the laying on of hand. Cf. Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, P.
427.
60 .Ibid, Commentary on I Corinthians 1:17.Cf. Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the
Early Church, P. 408.
61 .St. Cyprian, Letter, 73 [72], 9.
62 .Ibid, 74[73], 5.
63 .Ibid, 74 [73], 7.

itself upon my chastened and now pure heart: afterwards through the Spirit which is
breath from heaven, a second birth made of me a new manThus it had to be
acknowledge that what was of the earth and was born of the flesh and had lived
submissive to sins, had now begun to be of God, inasmuch as the Holy Spirit was
animating it.64
That there was a firm conviction that the imposition of hands which accompany
Baptism was separable and distinct from it can be seen from the controversy over
the Rebaptism of heretics which ensued in this period. Two letters, both dating from
the year 255 A.D, were written by Pope St. Stephen in the course of this
controversy. The first to the Bishops of Asia minor threatened to excommunicate
those who re-baptize converts from heresy. The second to St. Cyprian of Carthage
dealt with the same question. The African hierarchy under the guidance of St.
Cyprian held the sacrament invalid, if administered by dissidents, and insisted upon
reconferring it upon converts. St. Stephen repudiates this stand in the strongest
terms as erroneous and against the faith, and declared that those baptized by
heretics were obliged merely to submit to penance. His words in this regard were:
If, therefore, someone comes to you from any heresy whatsoever, let nothing be
renewed except that which has been handed down, namely, that hand be imposed
on him in penance.65Note St. Stephen did not say the imposition of handsfor the
receiving of the Holy Spirit, but rather, let nothing be renewed exceptthat the
hand is to be imposed on him in penance. Thus, St. Stephen not only does not
advise repetition of Confirmational imposition of hands but expressly forbids it by
forbidding that anything of the baptismal rite (remember Confirmation was closely
connected with Baptism in this period) be renewed, while at the same time he
orders the penitential imposition of hands for reconciliation. However, this matter of
imposition of hands was then misunderstood by some of his contemporaries. Some,
not thinking of the imposition of hands which was part of the penitential rite but
that which was part of the rite of Confirmation, understood St. Stephen as implying
that the imposition of hands which accompanied Baptism was to be renewed while
Baptism itself was not to be renewed. This misunderstanding would not have
occurred if there was not already in this period a firm belief that Baptism and the
imposition of hands which accompanied it are two separate and distinct
Sacraments. See, for example, St. Cyprian statement in the letter which he wrote
against St. Stephen:
Or if they attribute the effect of baptism to the majesty of the name, so
that they who are baptized anywhere and anyhow, in the name of Jesus
Christ, are judged to be renewed and sanctified; wherefore, in the name of
the same Christ, are not hands laid upon the baptized persons among
them, for the reception of the Holy Spirit? Why does not the same majesty
of the same name avail in the imposition of hands, which, they contend,
availed in the sanctification of baptism? For if any one born out of
the Church can become God's temple, why cannot the Holy Spirit also be
poured out upon the temple? For he who has been sanctified, his sins being
put away in baptism, and has been spiritually reformed into a new man,
has become fitted for receiving the Holy Spirit; since the apostle says, As

64 .ibid, On Donatus 4.
65 .St. Stephen of Rome, Letter to St. Cyprian of Carthage, fragment in St. Cyprians
letters 74 [73], 1.

many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ [Gal
3:27]. He who, having been baptized among the heretics, is able to put
on Christ, may much more receive the Holy Spirit whom Christ sent.
Otherwise He who is sent will be greater than Him who sends; so that
one baptized without may begin indeed to put on Christ, but not to be able
to receive the Holy Spirit, as if Christ could either be put on without
the Spirit, or the Spirit be separated from Christ. Moreover, it is silly to say,
that although the second birth is spiritual, by which we are born
in Christ through the layer of regeneration, one may be born spiritually
among the heretics, where they say that the Spirit is not. For water alone is
not able to cleanse away sins, and to sanctify a man, unless he have also
the Holy Spirit. Wherefore it is necessary that they should grant the Holy
Spirit to be there, where they say that baptism is; or else there is
no baptism where
the Holy Spirit is not,
because
there
cannot
be baptism without the Spirit.66

Also, see Firmilian of Caesarea statement in the letter he wrote against St.
Stephen in the year 255 A.D:
And as Stephen and those who agree with him contend that putting away
of sins and second birth may result from the baptism of heretics, among
whom they themselves confess that the Holy Spirit is not; let them consider
and understand that spiritual birth cannot be without the Spirit; in
conformity with which also the blessed Apostle Paul baptized anew with
a spiritual baptism those who had already been baptized by John before
the Holy Spirit had been sent by the Lord, and so laid hands on them that
they might receive the Holy Ghost. But what kind of a thing is it, that when
we see that Paul, after John's baptism, baptized his disciples again, we are
hesitating to baptize those who come to the Church from heresy after their
unhallowed and profane dipping. Unless, perchance, Paul was inferior to
the bishops of these times, so that these indeed can by imposition of hands
alone give the Holy Spirit to those heretics who come (to the Church),
while Paul was not fitted to give the Holy Spirit by imposition of hands to
those who had been baptized by John, unless he had first baptized them
also with the baptism of the Church.67

This passage from Firmilian shows that third century Christians from the
Palestinian tradition were already familiar with the rite of the imposition of hands
after Baptism for the giving of the Holy Spirit. Elsewhere in the same work, the
Catholic bishop wrote: Moreover, what is the meaning of that which Stephen would
assert,
that
the
presence
and holiness of
Christ is
with
those
who
are baptized among heretics? For if the apostle does not speak falsely when he
says, As many of you as are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ [Gal
3:27], certainly he who has been baptized among them into Christ, has put
on Christ. But if he has put on Christ, he might also receive the Holy Ghost, who was
sent by Christ, and hands are vainly laid upon him who comes to us for the
reception of the Spirit; unless, perhaps, he has not put on the Spirit from Christ, so
66 .Ibid, Letters 74 [73], 5. This passage confirms what we have been saying all this
while that the Church authors of this period believed that the Rebirth in Baptism is
the working of the Holy Spirit. Note the last statement: there cannot
be baptism without the Spirit.
67 .Firmilian of Caeserea, Letter to St. Cyprian, in St. Cyprians Letters, 75 [74],8

that Christ indeed may be with heretics, but the Holy Spirit not be with
them.68Again: But, says he, the name of Christ is of great advantage to faith and
the sanctification of baptism; so that whosoever is anywhere so-ever baptized in the
name of Christ, immediately obtains the grace of Christ: although this position may
be briefly met and answered, that if baptism without in the name of Christ availed
for the cleansing of man; in the name of the same Christ, the imposition of hands
might avail also for the reception of the Holy Spirit; and the other things also which
are done among heretics will begin to seem just and lawful when they are done in
the name of Christ; as you have maintained in your letter that the name of
Christ could be of no avail except in the Church alone, to which alone Christ has
conceded the power of heavenly grace.69
Again, at the Carthaginian council of eighty-seven bishops (256 A.D), who
supported St. Cyprian in his attitude on the question of the re-baptism of heretics,
Secundinus Bishop of Carpi said: Whence it appears plain that upon strange
children, and on the offspring of Antichrist, the Holy Ghost cannot descend only by
imposition of hands, since it is manifest that heretics have not baptism.70 On the
same occasion Nemesianus Bishop of Thubuni comments: In the Gospel our Lord
Jesus Christ spoke with His divine voice, saying, unless a man be born again of
water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. [Jn 3:5] This is the Spirit
which from the beginning was borne over the waters; for neither can the Spirit
operate without the water, nor the water without the Spirit. Certain people therefore
interpret for themselves ill, when they say that by imposition of the hand they
receive the Holy Ghost, and are thus received, when it is manifest that they ought
to be born again [initiated] in the Catholic Church by both sacraments.71Still in that
council, Successus of Abbir Germaniciana said: Heretics can either do nothing, or
they can do all. If they can baptize, they can also bestow the Holy Spirit. But if they
cannot give the Holy Spirit, because they have not the Holy Spirit, neither can they
spiritually baptize. Therefore we judge that heretics must be baptized.72
Again, in the treatise on Re-Baptism, written around 256 A.D by an unknown
prelate probably of African origin we read: that it has been asked among the
brethren what course ought specially to be adopted towards the persons of those
who, although baptized in heresy, have yet been baptized in the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and subsequently departing from their heresy, and fleeing as
supplicants to the Church of God, should repent with their whole hearts, and only
now perceiving the condemnation of their error, implore from the Church the help of
68 .Ibid,75 [74], 12.
69 .Ibid, 75 [74], 18.
70 .Acts of the Council of Carthage, September 256.
71 .Ibid.
72 .Ibid. This argument is meant to be a rebuttal of St. Stephens position which
they understood as implying that heretics can baptize but cannot confer the Holy
Spirit through the imposition of hands.

salvation. The point is whether, according to the most ancient custom and
ecclesiastical tradition, it would suffice, after that baptism which they have received
outside the Church indeed, but still in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, that only
hands should be laid upon them by the bishop for their reception of the Holy Spirit,
and this imposition of hands would afford them the renewed and perfected seal of
faith; or whether, indeed, a repetition of baptism would be necessary for them, as if
they should receive nothing if they had not obtained baptism afresh, just as if they
were never baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. 73Elsewhere in the same work we
read: by imposition of the bishop's hands the Holy Spirit is given to everyone that
believes, as in the case of the Samaritans, after Philip's baptism, the apostles did to
them by laying on of hands; in this manner also they conferred on them the Holy
Spirit.74Again: If a man be not baptized by a bishop, so as even at once to have
the imposition of hands, and should yet die before having received the Holy Spirit,
should you judge him to have received salvation or not? Because, indeed, both the
apostles themselves and the disciples, who also baptized others, and were
themselves baptized by the Lord, did not at once receive the Holy Spirit, for He had
not as yet been given, because that Jesus had not as yet been glorified. And after
His resurrection no small interval of time elapsed before that took place,even as
also the Samaritans, when they were baptized by Philip, did not receive the gift until
the apostles invited from Jerusalem to Samaria went down to them to lay hands
upon them, and conferred on them the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands.
Because in that interval of time any one of them who had not attained the Holy
Spirit, might have been cut off by death, and die defrauded of the grace of the Holy
Spirit. And it cannot be doubted also, that in the present day this sort of thing is
usual, and happens frequently, that many after baptism depart from this life without
imposition of the bishop's hands, and yet are esteemed perfected
believers.75Again: if indeed baptism shall be given by us, let it be conferred in its
integrity and with solemnity, and with all those means which are written; and let it
be administered without any disconnection of anything. Or if, by the necessity of
the case, it should be administered by an inferior cleric, let us wait for the result,
that it may either be supplied by us, or reserved to be supplied by the Lord. If,
however, it should have been administered by strangers, let this matter be
amended as it can and as it allows. Because outside the Church there is no Holy
Spirit, sound faith moreover cannot exist, not alone among heretics, but even
among those who are established in schism. And for that reason, they who repent
and are amended by the doctrine of the truth, and by their own faith, which
subsequently has been improved by the purification of their heart, ought to be
aided only by spiritual baptism, that is, by the imposition of the bishop's hands, and
by the ministration of the Holy Spirit. 76It is true that the author of the treatise on
Re-Baptism, from which several passages are cited above, in an attempt to fortify
73 .Psuedo-Cyprian, On Re-Baptism, 1.
74 .Ibid, 3.
75 .Ibid, 4.
76 .Ibid, 10.

the position of those opposed to the re-baptizing of converts from heresy and
schism, used inadequate expressions to distinguish Baptism from Confirmation. But
even with these deficiencies, it can still be gathered from that treatise that it was
understood that the laying on of hands which was closely associated with Baptism
in this period was a rite separable and distinct from Baptism; that it confers the Holy
Spirit; and that the bishop is the ordinary minister of the rite.
From the testimonies of the African and Asians during the Baptism controversy
which we have cited above one could deduce from them that in the period under
discussion the rite of laying-on of hands and the anointing of candidates for Baptism
was performed not only within the Catholic Church but was also in vogue among
heretics.77 That this was in fact the case is confirmed by various documents of
heretical character from that period and actual testimonies by early ecclesiastical
writers in this regards. See, for instance, St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons, statement of
certain Gnostic sects in his masterpiece Against Heretics written between 180/185
A.D: Others, again, lead them to a place where water is, and baptize them, with the
utterance of these words, Into the name of the unknown Father of the universe
into truth, the mother of all thingsinto Him who descended on Jesusinto union,
and redemption, and communion with the powers. Others still repeat certain
Hebrew words, in order the more thoroughly to bewilder those who are being
initiatedAfter this they anoint the initiated person with balsam; for they assert
that this unguent is a type of that sweet odour which is above all things. 78See also
in the Gospel of Philip, a work of Syrian origin written by a member of the
Valentinian Gnostic sect probably in the second half of the 2 nd century: Through the
Holy Spirit we are born again. But we are born through Christ - (in baptism) with the
two. We are anointed with the Spirit. When we were born, we were united. No one
can see himself either in water or in a mirror, without light; nor can you on the other
hand see in the light without water or mirror. Because of this it is necessary to
baptise with the two, with the light and the water. But the light is the chrism. 79
Elsewhere in the same work Through water and fire the whole place is purified 77 .The question which the Africans and Asians all fall back on to support their
position of re-baptizing heretics against St. Stephen was that if it is granted that
heretics could validly baptize for spiritual regeneration then it also should be
granted that they could validly impose hands for the communication of the Spirit.
But if it is accepted that they cannot validly impose hands for the communication of
the Spirit then it also should be accepted that they cannot validly baptize. Behind
such line of reasoning is the thinking that the laying-on of hands (the means used
by the Church for the communication of the Holy Spirit during Christian initiation)
was administered to heretics because they have not the Holy Spirit. But if they have
not the Holy Spirit how could they possibly perform valid Baptism which is the work
of the Spirit? The Africans and Asians of course were wrong in their position of
rebaptizing heretics and like we have pointed earlier they even seem not to have
grasped St. Stephens position correctly but their argument demonstrates that like
the washing with water, the imposition of hands and anointing was practiced among
the heretics.
78 .St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1, 21, 3.

the visible through the visible, the hidden through the hidden. There are some
things which are hidden through what is visible. There is water in water; there is fire
in a chrism.80 In the above passages, the Valentinian author was speaking of the
rites of initiation as understood by the Gnostic sect he belongs too. Although, the
water and the anointing are connected with the Holy Spirit in one of those passages,
the Valentinians seem to have placed greater emphasis on the anointing as is
evident from the following passages: The chrism is superior to baptism. For from
the chrism we were called 'Christians', not from the baptism. Christ also was (so)
called because of the anointing. For the Father anointed the Son. But the Son
anointed the apostles. And the apostles anointed us. - He who is anointed possesses
all things. He has the resurrection, the light, the cross 81; again :(So) it is fitting for
those who have not only obtained the names of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit, but have obtained these very things <for themselves>. If anyone does not
obtain them for himself, the name also will be taken from him. - But one receives
them in the chrism with the bals[am] of the power of the cr[oss]. Th[is] (power) the
apostles called '[the r]ight and the left'. Such a one is no longer a [Christ]ian, but a
Christ.82The Chrism seem to be after the Baptism but there were other rites like the
Eucharist in their initiation process as the following passage makes clear: The Lord
[did] everything in a mystery: baptism, chrism, eucharist, redemption and bridal
chamber.83In another document of Syrian origin, the Acts of Thomas written in the
first half of the third century probably by a member of the sect of Bardesanes, we
read of Baptism being administered to certain persons. The sequence in these cases
is usually anointing, washing with water, Eucharist. For example, the Baptism of
Mygdonia:
Mygdonia stood before the apostle with her head bare; and he taking the oil
poured it on her head, saying: Holy oil given to us for sanctification, hidden
mystery in which the cross was shown to us, thou art the straightener of the
<crooked>limbs; thou art the humbler of hard works; thou art he who shows
the hidden treasures; thou art the shoot of goodness. Let thy power come;
let it be established upon thy servant Mygdonia; and heal her through
this<unction>! And when the oil had been poured out he bade the nurse
unclothe her and gird a linen cloth about her. Now there was there a spring
of water, and going to it the apostle baptized Mygdonia in the name of the
Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And when she was baptized and
clothed, he broke bread and took a cup of water, and made her partake in
the body of Christ and the cup of the son of God, and said: Thou hast
received the seal, and <obtained> for thyself eternal life. 84

Also, the Baptism of Vazan and certain women:

79 .Gospel of Philip, 74-75.
80 .Ibid, 25.
81 .Ibid, 95.
82 .Ibid, 67d.
83 .Ibid, 68.

When the apostle had thus prayed for them, he said to Mygdonia:
Unclothe thy sisters! And she unclothed them, girded them with girdles,
and brought them. But Vazan had come forward before, and they came
after him. And Judas took oil in a silver cup, and spoke thus over it: O fruit
fairer than the other fruits, with which no other con be compared at all;
thou altogether merciful; fervent with the force of the word; power of the
tree which if men put on they conquer their adversaries; thou that crownest
the victors; symbol and joy of the weary; who has brought to men glad
tidings of their salvation; who dost show light to those in darkness; who in
thy leaves art bitter, <but in thy fruit most sweet>; who in appearance art
rough, but soft to the taste; who seemest weak, but by the greatness of thy
power dost carry the power that sees all things; <> Jesus, let <thy>
victorious power come, and <let it settle> in this oil as then it settled in the
wood that is its kin <> and they who crucified thee did not endure its
word; let the gift also come by which, breathing upon <thine> enemies,
thou didst make them draw back and fall headlong, and let it dwell in this
oil, over which we name thy holy name! And when the apostle had said
this, he poured it first on Vazans head, then on the heads of women,
saying: In thy name, Jesus Chtist, let it be to these souls for remission of
sins, and for the turning back of the adversary, and for salvation of their
souls! And he commanded Mygdonia to anoint them [the women], but he
himself anointed Vazan. And when he had anointed them he led them down
to the water in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
But when they had come up from the water he took bread and a cup and
blessedAnd breaking [the bread of] the Eucharist he gave to Vazan and
Tertia and Mnesara and Siphors wife and daughter.85

There are some who have argued from the picture presented in the Acts of
Thomas that this was the general situation of things in the Syrian tradition in the
period under discussion. Thus, they conclude that the practice of unction before
Baptism was in general use among Syriac-speaking Christians. Some even go as far
as suggesting that the post-baptismal anointing/imposition of hands was absent
from the very first among the Syrians. But there is need for caution here. St.
Irenaeus who was a native of Asia Minor in describing the rites of initiation practiced
among the various Gnostics sects informs us that the unction was after Baptism but
he adds:
But there are some of them who assert that it is superfluous to bring
persons to the water, but mixing oil and water together, they place this
mixture on the heads of those who are to be initiated, with the use of some
such expressions as we have already mentioned. And this they maintain to
be the redemption. They, too, are accustomed to anoint with balsam.
Others, however, reject all these practices, and maintain that the mystery
of the unspeakable and invisible power ought not to be performed by
visible and corruptible creatures, nor should that of those [beings] who are
inconceivable, and incorporeal, and beyond the reach of sense, [be
performed] by such as are the objects of sense, and possessed of a body.
These hold that the knowledge of the unspeakable Greatness is itself
perfect redemption...Others still there are who continue to redeem persons
even up to the moment of death, by placing on their heads oil and water,
or the pre-mentioned ointment with water, using at the same time the

84 .Acts of Thomas, 121.

85 .Ibid, 157-158. See the Baptism of Siphor in 131-133 as well.

above-named invocations, that the persons referred to may become

incapable of being seized or seen by the principalities and powers, and that
their inner man may ascend on high in an invisible manner, as if their body
were left among created things in this world, while their soul is sent forward
to the DemiurgeBut since they differ so widely among themselves both
as respects doctrine and tradition, and since those of them who are
recognised as being most modern make it their effort daily to invent some
new opinion, and to bring out what no one ever before thought of, it is a
difficult matter to describe all their opinions86

Thus, the picture presented in the Acts of Thomas in those chapters cited above
could have been one among the diverse Gnostic traditions regarding that matter
even in Syria.87This diversity can be detected in the Acts of Thomas itself. For
instance, there is a text from the Greek of that same work which makes mention of
the laying-on of hands as an element of the rites of initiation. The Eucharist comes
after the laying on of hands and no mention of the water was made: But the
woman besought him, saying: Apostle of the Most High, give me the seal, that that
enemy may not return to me again! Then he made her come near to him, and
laying his hands upon her sealed her in the name of the Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit. And many others also were sealed with her. And the apostle
commanded his servant [deacon] to set a table before them; and he set out a stool
which they found there, and spreading a linen cloth upon it set on the bread of
blessing.88See also, chapter 26-27 which has no reference of water in relation with
the oil.
Being now well disposed to the apostle, King Gundaphorus and his brother
Gad followed him, departing from him not at all and themselves supplying
those who were in need, giving to all and refreshing all. And they besought
him that they also might now receive the seal of the word, saying to him:
Since our souls are at leisure and we are zealous for God, give us the seal!
For we have heard thee say that the God whom thou dost preach knows his
own sheep by his seal. But the apostle said to them: I also rejoice and
pray you to receive this seal, and to share with me in this eucharist and
[feast of] blessing of the Lord, and be made perfect in it. For this is the Lord
and God of all, Jesus Christ whom I preach, and he is the Father of truth in
whom I have taught you to believe. And he commanded them to bring oil,
that through the oil they might receive the seal. So they brought the oil,
and lit many lamps; for it was night. And the apostle arose and sealed
them. But the Lord was revealed to them by a voice, saying: Peace be
with you, brethren! But they heard his voice only, but his form they did not
see; for they had not yet received the additional sealing of the seal. And
the apostle took the oil and pouring it on their heads anointed and
chrismed them, and began to say:
Come, holy name of the Christ that is above every name;
Come, power of the Most High and perfect compassion;

86 .St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1, 21, 4-5. Italic mine.

87 .See above the quotations from the Gospel of Philip another document of Syrian
origin which shows a different understanding in the matter from that presented in
the Acts of Thomas.
88 .ibid, 49.

Come, thou highest gift;

Come, compassionate mother;
Come, fellowship of the male;
Come, thou [fem.] that dost reveal the hidden mysteries;
Come, mother of the seven houses, that thy rest may be in the eighth
house;
Come, elder<messenger S>of the five members, understanding
thought, prudence, consideration, reasoning,
Communicate with these young men!
Come, Holy Spirit, and purify their reins and their heart.
And give them the added seal, in the name of the Father and Son and
Holy Ghost.
And when they had been sealed there appeared to them a young man
carrying a blazen torch, so that the very lamps were darkened at the onset
of its light. And going out he vanished from their sight. But the apostle said
to the Lord: Beyond our comprehension, Lord, is thy light, and we are not
able to bear it; for it is greater than our sight. But when dawn came and it
was light, he broke bread and made them partakers in the eucharist of
Christ. And they rejoiced and were glad. And many others also, believing,
were added [to the faithful] and came into the refuge of the Saviour.

Thus, the Acts of Thomas merely demonstrates that the initiation ceremony of
Christian Gnostics was similar to that of the Christian Church. But what was the
actual sequence of the rite of Christian initiation in the Syrian Church is something
that should not be deduced from any of the diverse traditions found in Gnostic
documents.
There are some, on the other hand, who have argued that the Churchs concept
of Confirmation developed from those Gnostic traditions. To support this position,
these men point to early Christian writings such as the Didache and the first
Apology of Justin Martyr which both contains a detailed description of the early
Christian liturgy of Baptism with no reference to a rite like Confirmation that the
Church in this period knew nothing of any rite such as the imposition of hands or
unction or both that was associated with Baptism. In refuting the argument of these
men it should be remembered that at the time men like St. Justin and the author of
the Didache wrote, the doctrine of the Church on all the Sacraments were still in
their early stages of development, and the rites of Christian initiation were
performed together in a single ceremony. There was yet no technical term to
designate the postbaptismal rite or what we now call confirmationterms like seal
sign were at first used broadly to designate the whole process and were not limited

to the washing with water alone. 89 This can be seen from the fact that in the second
and third century when reflection on the nature of the Sacraments and their
relationship with each other was at the fore, those terms were still being used
interchangeably for the washing with water 90 and for other acts (i.e. the sign of the
cross, the anointing, imposition of hands etc.)91 closely associated with it. In order
words, these other acts could have been around in the earliest years when those
terms were still used broadly to designate the washing with water and other acts
closely associated with it which would explain why when we began to find clearer
evidence for these other acts in later years those terms were still being used to
designate them.92 But the use of those terms in connection with the transformation
that occurs during Christian initiation goes back to the very beginnings of the
Christian religion. See, in the Pauline corpus which belong to the 50s of the first
century, the Second Epistle to the Corinthians: Now he that confirmeth us with you
89.Some, like Aidan Kavanagh, makes a somewhat similar case for the term
Baptism in this period. See his statement: This should alert one to the probability
that when the New Testament texts refer, especially in passing, to baptism they
mean something ritually larger and increasingly more sophisticated and complex
than the water bath alone. If this is not presumed, then it becomes impossible to
account for how rites particularly related to the Spirit and in closer ritual contact
with the water bath than proclamation prior to it, suddenly appear as though from
nowhere during the second and third centuries. Nor does it explain why these rites
quickly become accepted as traditional in churches obsessed with fidelity to the
gospel and apostolic tradition. The Shape of Baptism: The Rite of Christian
Initiation (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1991), P. 26. (Italic original).
90 . In an ancient homily which dates from the first half of the second century we
read: For, concerning those who have not kept the seal, He says: Their worm shall
not die, and their fire shall not be extinguished, and they shall be a spectacle to all
flesh [Ish 66:24; Mk 9:44]. Psuedo-Clement, Second letter to the Corinthians, 7, 6.
Compare: With what confidence shall we enter into the palace of God, if we do
not keep our baptism pure and unspotted? (6, 9) Keep the flesh pure and the seal
undefiled that we may receive eternal life. (8, 6). See also the story of the Apostle
St. John and the robber narrated by St. Clement of Alexandria in his treatise Who is
the Rich Man that is saved?: After that he [i.e. Apostle St. John] departed to
Ephesus; but the presbyter took home the youth who had been handed over to him,
and brought him up, made a companion of him, cherished him, and finally
enlightened him by baptism. After this he relaxed his special care and guardianship,
thinking that he had set over him the perfect guard, the seal of the Lord. (42). See
again, Tertullian, during his years as a Montanist: Security in sin is likewise an
appetite for it. Therefore the apostate withal will recover his former garment, the
robe of the Holy Spirit; and a renewal of the ring, the sign and seal of baptism; and
Christ will again be slaughtered; and he will recline on that couch from which such
as are unworthily clad are wont to be lifted by the torturers, and cast away into
darkness,much more such as have been stripped. On Modesty, 9.

in Christ, and that hath anointed us, is God: Who also hath sealed us, and given the
pledge of the Spirit in our hearts (II Cor 1:21-22); the Epistle to the Ephesians: In
whom you also, after you had heard the word of truth, (the gospel of your
salvation;) in whom also believing, you were signed with the holy Spirit of promise
(Eph 1:13); And grieve not the holy Spirit of God: whereby you are sealed unto the
day of redemption (4:30). Also, see, in the Johannine corpus, the Apocalypse of St.
John written in the last quarter of the first century: And I saw another angel
ascending from the rising of the sun, having the sign of the living God; and he cried
with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the
sea, Saying: Hurt not the earth, nor the sea, nor the trees, till we sign the servants
of our God in their foreheads(Apoc 7:2-3). See, outside the NT the early Syraic
Christian hymnal book the Odes of Solomon composed around 100 A.D.: And before
they had existed, I recognized them; and imprinted a seal on their facesAnd my
righteousness goes before them; and they will not be deprived of my name; for it is
with them.93
Another point that should be noted is that we do not possess all the writings of
not only Justin Martyr but other Christian authors who wrote during that same
period. Now, if we look at someone like Tertullian whose body of works were
numerous and most have been preserved it would be discovered that in the various
times which he described the early Christian rite of Baptism it was only on certain
occasion that he reflected on the rite of Confirmation. See, for example, in his
treatise on the Crown written a decade after the treatise on Baptism: Let me turn
to Baptism. When we are about to enter the waterno, just little before,in the
church and under the hand of the bishop we solemnly profess that we renounce the
devil and his pomps and his angels. Thereupon we are immersed three times,
complying somewhat amply with what the Lord enjoined in the Gospel. Then, when
we are taken out, we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey; and from that day
for a whole week we abstain from the daily bath. 94In this passage in which a
detailed description of the liturgy of Baptism is found Tertullian omit mention of the
gift of the Spirit mediated through the laying on of hands as we find elsewhere in
the treatise on Baptism, and in the treatise on the Resurrection of the dead (see
above). What if Tertullians treatises in which he reflected on the rite of Confirmation
had not been preserved? Would not these men have made the same argument from
Tertullians silence in the treatise on the crown that he knew nothing of the gift of
91 . See St. Clement of Alexandria, in his Stromata: Where then, now, is his
repentance who was once an unbeliever, through which (repentance) is remission of
sins? So, there is no longer a rational baptism; nor a blessed seal; nor the Son, nor
the Father (2, 5).
92 .The use of the signing of the cross by the minister of the Church during the rites
of Christian initiation could have been what led to the broad usage of the term seal
for the process of initiation as a whole.
93 .Odes of Solomon, 8, 13.19.
94 .Tertullian, The Crown, 3, 2-3.

the Holy Spirit mediated through the laying on of hands? 95 Therefore, the fact that
we do not at first meet clear mentions of the Sacrament of Confirmation in the
writings of the early Church authors does not mean it was not used. It only means
we do not happen to have any explicit record of it. Had it been suddenly invented
later, there would have been an uproar, such as came when heresies arise. But
there is no such thing. At the time we began to notice clearer evidence for the
Sacrament of Confirmation in the writings of early Church authors there is nothing in
these writings which suggest that this was a recent innovation. There is no reason
to doubt that when Tertullian less than a decade after his conversion to Christianity
wrote the treatise on Baptism, the process of Christian initiation described in that
book was that which he was acquainted with ever since his conversion (193 A.D)
and it was the same process that was undertaken when he was welcomed into the
Church. Thus, the practice of laying-on of hands and anointing of candidates for
Baptism was already an old aged practice in the last decade of the second century.
St. Hippolytus, on his part, informs us in the prologue of his Apostolic Tradition that
he intends to record only forms and rites already traditional and customs already
long established. He wishes to write them down against innovations: And now,
though the love which He had for all the saints [Eph 1:15], having come to our most
important topic, we turn to the subject of the Tradition which is proper for the
Churches, in order that those who have been rightly instructed may hold fast to the
tradition which has continued until now, and fully understand it from exposition may
stand and more firmly therein. This is now the more necessary because of the
apostasy of error which has recently invented out of ignorance and because of
certain ignorant men.96 Thus, the Liturgy of Baptism/Confirmation described by
Hippolytus in this work is of a much older date and must have been in vogue even
in the second century. These men wrote from different parts of the ancient world
(Carthage, Rome, Alexandria, Caesarea, etc.) yet they all bear witness to the
existence of the same rite even if there were slight differences in its application. If
at some point one of the local churches had adopted this rite from a Gnostic sect
how come it now spread across the whole Church at such an early date with no
voice of opposition being raised against it in any part of the Christian world? A study
of the history of the Church reveals that the early Catholics had a sense of aversion
towards practices and beliefs invented by heretics to promote their heretic
doctrines. They regard such practices and beliefs as means which these heretics
attempt to use to falsify the doctrines of the Church. Surely the concept of the
Sacrament of Confirmation would have been considered a distortion of the doctrine
of Baptism if it had derived from certain heretical sect(s) and had not been hand
95 . See also in the treatise Against Marcion writing around 207 A.D where in
refuting the novel ideas of Marcion, Tertullian says: He certainly has not even yet
rejected the Creator's water, for in it he washes his own, nor the oil with which he
anoints them, nor the compound of milk and honey on which he weans them, nor
the Creator's bread by which he makes manifest his own body. Even in his own rites
and ceremonies he cannot do without things begged and borrowed from the
Creator. Against Marcion, 1, 14, 3. The imposition of hands is again omitted here
when mentioning the rites of initiation in passing.
96 .St. Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition

down from the very beginningso where are the records of early Catholics
condemning it? No such record ever existed, and this is because the concept of the
Sacrament of Confirmation must have had its root in the Tradition of the Apostles.
Here we must point out an inference from the early Church authors interpretation
of the texts from the Acts of the Apostles which has often been ignored by historians
of dogma. St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons, writing around 185 A.D and alluding to Acts
8:17, says: The apostle had the power to give them strong meatfor those upon
whom the apostles laid hands received the Holy Spirit, who is the food of life
[eternal].97 Origen, writing between the years 220/230 A.D and commenting on
Acts 8:17 says: The Holy Spirit was bestowed through the laying on of the apostles
hands after the grace and renewal of baptism. 98See also St. Cyprians comment on
that passage above. Some have tried to explain away some of these texts as having
no bearing on this topic. For example, J. N. D. Kelly, commenting on the passages
from Irenaeus agrees that he was making an obvious allusion to Acts 8, 17, and
that Irenaeus betrays his recognition that the Spirit had been bestowed by the
imposition of the apostles hands but Kelly quickly adds but even here there is no
hint that the contemporary Church was familiar with any such practice. 99 But the
question here should not be whether there is hint that the contemporary Church
was familiar with any such practice. But rather it should be whether these early
Church authors would have interpreted that NT text the way they did if the
contemporary Church was not familiar with any such practice. I do not think so.
Take, for example, St. Pauls statement of Baptism for the dead in I Cor 15:29. In
the second century, several heretical sects such as the Cerinthians and the
Marcionites tried to find support for their practice of vicarious Baptism from that NT
text. But because the contemporary Church was not familiar with any such practice,
the early Church authors who felt the need to reflect on that text never interpreted
it as a reference to vicarious Baptism. In fact we find them in the same instance
condemning the practice of vicarious Baptism as something oppose to the faith of
the Church and objecting to the Cerinthians/Marcionites interpretation of that
text.100 We would have expected the same fate to have fallen on the interpretation
of that text from the Acts of the Apostles as a reference to the communication of the
Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands if as some men think that the Churchs
teaching on Confirmation developed from Gnostic traditions and was not part of the
deposit of faith handed down from the very beginning. But there is no record of
anyone in Christian antiquity rejecting such interpretation. Rather, we find the early
Church authors adapting the wordings of that text to fit the practice of their day.
Hence, the only possible inference that can be made from the fact that many
features of the Churchs rite of Confirmation are also found in Gnostic circles is that
this rite must have been present in the life of the Church in the earliest years before
the authors of these Gnostic sects had any contact with the Church. And when they
finally began having contact with the Church these Gnostic sects adopted the rite of
Confirmation from the Church and continue to expound and perform it. But like with
97 .St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against All Heresies, 4, 38, 2.
98 .Origen, First Principles, 1, 3, 7.
99 .J.N.D Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines(1977), P. 195.

every heretical group that leaves the Church or became separated from her, these
Gnostic sects began to attach their own meaning to it. 101
From the fourth century onwards the testimonies regarding this Sacrament are
naturally more frequent and clear. In these periods we find several synodal
decisions from various parts of the Christian world, East and West, which show that
the Christians in these regions were familiar with this Sacrament.
In Spain, we find the following canon from the Council of Elvira which was held
around 300 A.D and attended by 19 bishops along with 26 priests and deacons:
During a voyage at sea in a foreign place, or when there is no church in the
neighborhood, one of the faithful who has kept his Baptism unimpaired and who is
not twice-married is able to baptize a catechumen, when there is necessity
100 .St. Epiphanius of Salamis, says concerning the followers of Cerinthus: For their
school reached its height in this country, I mean Asia, and in Galatia as well. And in
these countries I also heard of a tradition which said that when some of their people
died too soon, without baptism, others would be baptized for them in their names,
so that they would not be punished for rising unbaptized at the resurrection and
become the subjects of the authority that made the world. And the tradition I heard
of says that this is why the same holy apostle said, If the dead rise not at all, why
are they baptized for them? [I Cor 15:29] But others explain the text satisfactory by
saying that, as long as they are catechumens, the dying are allowed baptism before
they die because of this hope, showing that the person who has died will also rise,
and therefore needs the forgiveness of his sins through baptismHence it can be
observed at every point that Cerinthus, with his supporters, is pathetically mistaken
and has become responsible for the ruin of others, since the sacred scriptures
explain it all to us, clearly and in details. (Panacea against All Heresies, 28, 6.47.1). Tertullian, in his treatise Against Macion: Let us now return to the
resurrection, to the defense of which against heretics of all sorts we have given
indeed sufficient attention in another work of ours. But we will not be wanting (in
some defense of the doctrine) even here, in consideration of such persons as are
ignorant of that little treatise. What, asks he, shall they do who are baptized for
the dead, if the dead rise not? [I Cor 15:29] Now, never mind that practice,
(whatever it may have been.) The Februarian lustrations will perhaps answer him
(quite as well), by praying for the dead. Do not then suppose that the apostle here
indicates some new god as the author and advocate of this (baptism for the dead.
His only aim in alluding to it was) that he might all the more firmly insist upon the
resurrection of the body, in proportion as they who were vainly baptized for the
dead resorted to the practice from their belief of such a resurrection. We have the
apostle in another passage defining but one baptism. To be baptized for the dead
therefore means, in fact, to be baptized for the body; for, as we have shown, it is
the body which becomes dead. What, then, shall they do who are baptized for the
body, if the body rises not again? We stand, then, on firm ground (when we say)
that the next question which the apostle has discussed equally relates to the body.
(5, 10, 1-2). See also his treatise On the Resurrection of the Body, 48; St. John
Chrysostom, Homilies on I &II Corinthians, 40. etc.

occasioned by illness, provided that, if such a one survives, he brings him to the
bishop, so that it may be completed through the imposition of his hand. 102In
another canon by the same council: If a deacon, ruling a people without a bishop or
presbyter, has baptized some of them, the bishop must bring them to the perfection
of it through his blessing. But if they depart from this world beforehand:- by reason
of the faith in which he believed, he is able to be justified. 103The idea here is that
the bishop must administer confirmation to those who have been baptized in his
absence by a deacon. This suggests that the right to administer the Sacrament of
Confirmation was reserved to the bishop. Also, evident in that canon is the fact that
Confirmation was understood as the perfection of baptismal grace. However, just
like Catholics today believe, it was likewise understood by the Catholics in Spain
back then that Baptism itself is sufficient for entry into the Kingdom of God if there
was an obstacle preventing one from completing the process of initiation by
receiving Confirmation before his or her death.
101 .Tertullian as early as the year 200 A.D already has this to say in this regards:
The question will arise, by whom is to be interpreted the sense of the passages
which make for heresies? By the devil, of course, to whom pertain those wiles which
pervert the truth, and who, by the mystic rites of his idols, vies even with the
essential portions of the sacraments of God. He, too, baptizes somethat is, his
own believers and faithful followers; he promises the putting away of sins by a layer
(of his own); and if my memory still serves me, Mithra there, (in the kingdom of
Satan,) sets his marks on the foreheads of his soldiers; celebrates also the oblation
of bread, and introduces an image of a resurrection, and before a sword wreathes a
crown. What also must we say to (Satan's) limiting his chief priest to a single
marriage? He, too, has his virgins; he, too, has his proficients in continence.
Suppose now we revolve in our minds the superstitions of Numa Pompilius, and
consider his priestly offices and badges and privileges, his sacrificial services, too,
and the instruments and vessels of the sacrifices themselves, and the curious rites
of his expiations and vows: is it not clear to us that the devil imitated the wellknown moroseness of the Jewish law? Since, therefore he has shown such emulation
in his great aim of expressing, in the concerns of his idolatry, those very things of
which consists the administration of Christ's sacraments, it follows, of course, that
the same being, possessing still the same genius, both set his heart upon, and
succeeded in, adapting to his profane and rival creed the very documents of divine
things and of the Christian saints his interpretation from their interpretations, his
words from their words, his parables from their parables. For this reason, then, no
one ought to doubt, either that spiritual wickednesses, from which also heresies
come, have been introduced by the devil, or that there is any real difference
between heresies and idolatry, seeing that they appertain both to the same author
and the same work that idolatry does. (The Prescription Against Heresies, 40, 1-8).
102 .Council of Elvira, canon 38.
103 .Ibid, canon 77.

In France, we find the following canon from the Council of Arles which was
convened in the year 314 A.D and attended by a large number of bishops across the
Western world: Concerning the Africans, because they follow their own peculiar law
and re-baptize: it is determined that if someone come to the Church from heresy, let
them ask him his creed; and if they see that he has been baptized in the Father and
the Son and the Holy Spirit, only is the hand to be imposed on him, so that he may
receive the Holy Spirit. But if, upon being interrogated, he does not respond with
this Trinity, he is to be baptized.104
Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, writing between the years 316 and 322 A.D says:
And this very thing He proclaims to his Church as a great mystery
expressed with prophetic voice in the volume of the book. As we have
received a memorial of this offering which we celebrate on a table by
means of symbols of His Body and saving Blood according to the laws of
the new covenant, we are taught again by the prophet David to say: Thou
hast prepared a table before me in the face of my persecutors. Thou hast
anointed my head with oil, and thy cup cheers me as the strongest [wine].
Here it is plainly the mystic Chrism and the holy Sacrifices of Christ's Table
that are meant, by which we are taught to offer to Almighty God through
our great High Priest all through our life the celebration of our sacrifices,
bloodless, reasonable, and well-pleasing to Him. And this very thing the
great prophet Isaiah wonderfully foreknew by the Holy Spirit, and foretold.
And he therefore says thus: O Lord, my God, I will glorify thee, I will hymn
thy name, for thou hast done marvellous things. And he goes on to explain
what these things so truly wonderful are: And the Lord of Sabaoth shall
make a feast for all the nations. They shall drink joy, they shall drink wine,
they shall be anointed with myrrh [on this mountain]. Impart thou all these
things to the nations. For this is God's counsel upon all the nations. These
were Isaiah's wonders the promise of the anointing with ointment of a
good smell, and with myrrh made not to Israel but to all nations. Whence
not unnaturally through the chrism of myrrh they gained the name of
Christians. But he also prophesies the wine of joy to the nations, darkly
alluding to the sacrament of the new covenant of Christ, which is now
openly celebrated among the nations. And these unembodied and spiritual
sacrifices the oracle of the prophet also proclaims, in a certain place: Offer
to God the sacrifice of praise, and give the Highest thy vows: And call upon
me in the clay of thy affliction, and I will deliver thee, and thou shall glorify
me. 105

From the above passage it is evident that Chrismation like the Eucharist was seen
as a distinct sacramental rite which was also prefigured in the Old Testament and
Divinely instituted in the New. That it was part of the initiation process can be
gleaned from the following statement, through the chrism of myrrh they gained the
name of Christians. Although Eusebius did not go into details as per the actual
sequence of the initiation ceremony in the Palestinian tradition, he was not unaware
of the Roman tradition on this matter and referred to it as something quite natural
(see above the passage from Pope Cornelius which Eusebius preserved in his Church
History). Moreover, Bishop Firmilian, one of his predecessors who wrote many years
before him demonstrated that the Palestinian tradition on this matter was quite
similar to that of the Romans and Africans.
104 .Council of Arles, canon 8.
105 .Eusebius of Caesarea, Proof of the Gospel, 1, 10.

In Phrygia (Phrygia Pacatiana), the Council of Laodicea held between 343 and
381 A.D clearly referred to a post-baptismal anointing: That those who have been
illuminated are, after Baptism, to be anointed with celestial chrism, and thus
become partakers in the Kingdom of Christ. 106This canon should be read in
conjunction with the one which preceded it: Those who have received Baptism
during an illness, if they recover, shall learn the creed by heart, and be made to
understand that a divine gift has been vouchsafed to them. 107 Thus, the reason for
enacting canon 48 was not because the rite of Chrismation after Baptism was
before now unknown to the Oriental Churches and the council fathers were trying to
unify the tradition of the Orients with that of West (it is quite unreasonable to think
that the council fathers themselves would be the ones pushing for the
abandonment of their own tradition that was so dear to them). No, it was because
the rite of Chrismation after Baptism which has always been observed in the
Oriental Churches has recently been neglected by some. 108 One of the reasons for
this neglect was that some who had received emergency Baptism during illness did
not bother upon recovery to complete the process of initiation. 109 Thus, the council
fathers after emphasizing in canon 47 that those who had received emergency
Baptism during illness should be properly instructed on the Christian faith if it so
happens that they later recovered, felt the need to enact a separate canon in which
the importance of Chrismation after Baptism would be greatly emphasized.
Elsewhere, the same council declared: That those who are converted from
heresies, that is, from the Novatians, or, indeed, from the Photinians, or
Quartodecimans, be they catechumens or among those whom they call faithful, are
not to be received until they have anathematized every heresy, and especially that
in which they were involved. And thereafter, those who among them were called
faithful, when they memorized the formula of faith and have been anointed with the
holy chrism, may participate in the Holy Mystery [i.e. Eucharist]. 110
St. Aphraates the Persian Sage, who is considered as the oldest father of the
Syrian Church, writing in the year 345 A.D says: A gate has been opened for
seeking peace, whereby the mist has lifted from the reason of the multitude; and
106 .Council of Laodicea, canon 48.
107 .Ibid, canon 47.
108.It is important to point out here that synodal decisions are mainly conservative
in nature. They are mainly enacted to defend long existing beliefs and practices,
and not to introduce new ones.
109.They might still be other reasons. We know from the Acts of Thomas that there
were certain Syrian Gnostic Christian groups who appear not to have included a
post-baptismal anointing in their initiation rite. The council fathers might also be
reacting to such tendencies and understanding of the Christian initiation ceremony
by heretical teachers.
110 .Ibid, canon 7.

light has dawned in the mind; and from the glistening olive, fruits are put forth, in
which there is a sign of the sacrament of life, by which Christians are perfected, as
well as priests and kings and prophets. It illuminates the darkness, anoints the sick,
and leads back penitents in its secret sacrament. 111From this passage one could
see that olive oil was used in various sacramental anointing in the Syrian Church
and one of these anointing was for the perfection of Christians: by which Christians
are perfected, as well as priest and kings and prophets. The allusion here is
certainly to the anointing which accompanies Baptism and from the phraseology of
that statement it is difficult to escape from the conclusion that the anointing in
question was something that was administered after Baptism.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem in a set of lectures delivered to the candidates for Baptism
during lent in the year 350 A.D, says: You note how everywhere, in Old Testament
and New alike, there is this one symbolic action. In Moses time the Spirit was given
by the laying on of hands [cf. Deut 34:9]. Peter likewise gave the Spirit by the laying
on of hands [Acts 8:14-18]. Now this grace is shortly to come upon you when you
are baptized. I am not telling you just how, for I am not taking anything out of
turn.112 St. Cyril here implies that, in a later lecture, he will tell his audience how in
the course of them being initiated into the Christian mysteries a rite distinct from
Baptism and consisting of the laying on of hands will bring to them the gift of the
Spirit. He expressed such intention to them again in another lecture delivered
during that same Lenten season:
After the holy and salvation-bringing feast of Easter, beginning on the
Monday, you shall, God willing, hear further lectures, if you will come into
the holy place of the resurrection each day of Easter week after the liturgy.
In these you will be instructed again in the reasons for each of the things
that took place. You will be given proofs from the Old and New Testaments,
first, of course, for the things that were done immediately before your
Baptism, and next how you have been made clean from your sins by the
Lord with the washing of water by the word, [Eph 5:26] then how that you
have entered into the right to be called Christ in virtue of your
priesthood, then how you have been given the sealing of the fellowship
of the Holy Spirit, then about the mysteries of the altar of the new
covenant which had their origin here [i.e. in Jerusalem], what Holy
Scripture tells us about them, with what virtue they are filled, then how
these mysteries are to be approached and when and how received. 113

Note how that you have entered into the right to be called Christ in virtue of your
priesthood, this is an allusion to the anointing with oil after Baptism. From those
two passages one could observe that the Oriental Churches knew of a postbaptismal rite, which consisted of the laying on of hands and anointing with oil,
administered for the reception of the Holy Spirit. There is nothing in those passages
which suggest that we are here dealing with a recent innovation or with something
that before now was not part of the tradition of the Orientals. Rather, St. Cyril spoke
of Confirmation in a way which suggests that this was the accepted norm even in
Jerusalem and that such belief was old aged. Among the post-paschal lectures later
111 .St. Aphraates the Persian Sage, Treatise, 23, 3.
112 . St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 16, 26.
113 .Ibid, 18, 33.

delivered by St. Cyril, which has been preserved, there is one devoted to the
Sacrament of Confirmation entitled On Unction. There we find the following
statements: And to you in like manner, after you had come up from the pool of the
sacred streams, there was given chrism, the antitype of that with which Christ was
anointed: and this is the Holy Spirit. 114 A connection between the Holy Spirit and
post baptismal anointing is here made. Again: Christ was not anointed by an oil or
by a physical perfume given by the hand of men. But the Father, Who established
Him in advance as Savior of the whole universe, anointed Him with the Holy Spirit,
as Peter says Jesus of Nazareth, whom God has anointed with the Holy Spirit. [Acts
10:38] And in the same way as Christ was truly crucified, truly buried, truly risen
again, and as it has been granted to you in Baptism to be crucified with Him, buried
with Him, risen again with Him in a certain imitation, so it is with the Chrism. He was
anointed with spiritual oil of exultation, that is to say, with the Holy Spirit, called the
Oil of Exultation because He is the source of spiritual joy; and you, you have been
anointed with perfumed oil, and become participants in Christ. 115Again: But
beware of supposing that this is ordinary ointment. For just as the bread of the
Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Spirit is simple bread no longer, but the
body of Christ, so also this ointment is no longer plain ointment, nor, so to speak,
common, after the invocation. Further, it is the gracious gift of Christ, and it is made
fit for the imparting of his Godhead by the coming of the Holy Spirit. This ointment
is symbolically applied to your forehead and to your other senses; while your body
is anointed with the visible ointment, your soul is sanctified by the holy and lifegiving Spirit. Just as Christ, after his baptism, and the coming upon him of the Holy
Spirit, went forth and defeated the adversary, so also with you after holy baptism
and the mystical chrism, having put on the panoply of the Holy Spirit, you are to
withstand the power of the adversary and defeat him, saying, I am able to do all
things in Christ, who strengthens me. [Phil 4:13] 116 Again: [David says,] You have
anointed my head with oil. [Ps 22(23):5] With oil he anointed your head, your
forehead, in the God-given sign of the cross, so that you may become that which is
engraved on the seal, a holy thing of the Lord. [Ex 28:36-38] 117 again: Moreover,
you should know that in the old Scripture there lies the symbol of this Chrism. For
what time Moses imparted to his brother the command of God, and made him High114 .Ibid, 21 [Mystagogic 3], 1.
115 .Ibid, 21[Mystagogic 3], 2. Commenting on this text Jean Danielou says: This
page is one of the most remarkable in sacramental theology. First of all, it states
clearly what a sacrament is: a real participation in the grace of Christ, by a
sacramental imitation of His life. And, secondly, it shows how this structure applies
as well to the sacrament of Confirmation as to that of Baptism. In the same way as
Baptism configures us to Christ dead and risen again, so Confirmation configures us
to Christ anointed by the Holy Spirit. The Baptism of Christ, followed by the descent
of the Spirit, is thus seen to be a prefiguration of His death followed by His royal
enthronement, of which the Christianin turn partakes by means of the two
sacraments of water and of the anointing. The Bible and the Liturgy, P.118
116 .Ibid, 21[Mystagogic 3], 3-4.

priest, after bathing in water, he anointed him; and Aaron was called Christ or
Anointed, evidently from the typical Chrism. So also the High-priest, in advancing
Solomon to the kingdom, anointed him after he had bathed in Gihon [I Kgs 1:39]. To
them however these things happened in a figure, but to you not in a figure, but in
truth; because you were truly anointed by the Holy Spirit. Christ is the beginning of
your salvation; for He is truly the First-fruit, and you the lump; but if the First-fruit be
holy, it is manifest that Its holiness will pass to the mass also [Rom 11:16]. 118
In the Sacramentary or Missal composed in the year 350 and which is ascribed
to Serapion, Bishop of Thmuis in Egypt, we find the following prayer said over the
Chrism with which the baptized are anointed: God of powers, aid of every soul that
turns to You and comes under Your powerful hand in Your only-begotten. We
beseech You, that through Your divine and invisible power of our Lord and Savior
Jesus Christ, You may effect in this chrism a divine and heavenly operation, so that
those baptized and anointed in tracing with it of the sign of the saving cross of the
Only-begotten, through which cross Satan and every adverse power is turned aside
and conquered, as if reborn and renewed through the bath of regeneration, may be
made participants in the gift of the Holy Spirit, and confirmed by this seal, may
remain firm and immovable, unharmed and inviolate. 119
St. Hilary of Poitiers writing between the years 353-355 A.D speaks of the
sacraments of baptism and of the Spirit 120 and he says that the favor and gift of
the Holy Spirit were, when the work of the Law ceased, to be given by the
imposition of hands and prayer.121
St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in one of his letters to Serapion Bishop of
Thmuis, says: Through the laying on of the apostles hands the Holy Spirit was
given to those who are being regenerated. 122
In one of the works from the fourth century formerly included among the works
of St. Athanasius but actually written by an unknown author before the year 381, its
author speaks of all the saints having received the Holy Spirit in the Name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, through the laying on of hands of the
Priest of God.123
St. Gregory of Nazianzus, in one of his Orations written on the occasion of his
consecration as bishop of Sasima in the year 372 A.D., recalled: Spirit and chrism
117 .Ibid, 22 [Mystagogic 4], 7.
118 .Ibid, 21[Mystagogic], 6.
119 .Serapion, The Sacramentary of Serapion, 21, 1-2.
120 .St. Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 4, 27.
121 .Ibid, 24.
122 .St. Athanasius, Letters to Serapion, 1,6.
123 .Psuedo-Athanasius, De Trinitate et De Spiritu Sancto, 21; PG 26: 1217.

upon me again: and again I make my way bowed down and in mourning [Ps
34:14(35:14)].124The reference here is to the earlier reception of the Chrism during
initiation and the present during consecration as bishop. He understood both events
as the work of the Spirit.
St. Ephraim the Syrian, writing before the year 373 A.D and commenting on Joel
2:24, says: And your floors shall be filled with wheat, and the presses shall
overflow equally with wine and oil.... This has been fulfilled mystically by Christ,
who gave to the people whom He had redeemed, that is, to His Church, wheat and
wine and oil in a mystic manner...the oil is the sweet unguent with which those who
are baptized are signed, being clothed in the armaments of the Holy Spirit. 125
St. Basil, Bishop of Caesarea, in his treatise on the Holy Spirit written around
375 A.D, says: Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no
great authority, we would unwittingly injure the Gospel in its vitals; or rather, we
would reduce kerygma to a mere term. For instance, to take the first and most
general example, who taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those
who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ?...Where is it written that we
are to bless the baptismal water, the oil of anointing, and even the one who is being
baptized? Is it not from silent and mystical tradition? Indeed, in what written word is
even the anointing with oil taught? Where does it say that in baptizing there is to be
a triple immersion? And the rest of the things done at Baptism,where is it written
that we are to renounce Satan and his angels? Does this not come from that secret
and arcane teaching which our Fathers guarded in silence not too curiously meddled
with and not idly investigated, when they had learned well that reverence for the
mysteries is best preserved in silence 126 Basil here mentions the anointing
associated with Baptism among the unwritten tradition handed down from the very
beginning. Elsewhere in another work, the saintly doctor commenting on Mt 6:17
and using the imagery of the rites of the Church to exhort his audience on the ideal
way to fast, exclaims: The word calls to you in a mystery. What is anointed is
christened; what is washed is cleansed. Transfer this divine law to your inner life.
Thoroughly wash the soul of sins. Anoint your head with holy chrism so that you
may be a partaker of Christ, and then go forth to the fast. 127
St. Epiphanius of Salamis, who was born in Palestine, in his Panacea against All
Heresies written between the years 374/377, says while commenting on Acts 8:1819: Simon made up to the apostles and, together with many he too, like the others,
was baptized by Philip. All except Simon waited for the arrival of the chief apostles,
and received the Holy Spirit through the laying on of their hands. (Philip, being a
deacon, did not have the faculty of the laying on of hands in order to give the Holy
Spirit through it).128St. Epiphanius most probably have in mind here the belief that
the administration of the rite of laying on of hands for the bestowal of the Holy Spirit
124 .Gregory of Nazianus, Oration 9, 1.
125 .St. Ephraim, Commentaries on Sacred Scripture: On Joel 2:24.
126 .St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, 27, 66.
127 . Ibid, Sermons on Fasting, 1, 2.

is the privilege of the successors of the Apostles (i.e. Bishops) and not the lesser
members of the clergy (i.e. deacon).
St. Pacian, Bishop of Barcelona, writing between the years 375-392 A.D, says:
And so the seed of Christ, that is, the Spirit of God produces, by the hands
of the Priests, the new man conceived in the womb of our Mother, and
received at the birth of the font, faith presiding over the marriage rite. For
neither will he seem to be engrafted into the Church, who hath not
believed, nor he to be born again of Christ, who hath not himself received
the Spirit. We must believe therefore that we can be born. For so saith
Philip, If thou believestthou mayest.[] Christ therefore must be received
that He may beget, for thus saith the Apostle John, As many as received
Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God.[] But these
things cannot otherwise be fulfilled except by the Sacrament of the Laver,
and of the Chrism, and of the Bishop. For by the Laver sins are washed
away, by Chrism the Holy Spirit is poured out, but both these we obtain at
the hand and the mouth of the Bishop. And so the whole man is born again
and renewed in Christ, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, even
so we also should walk in newness of life; that is, that having laid aside the
errors of our former life, the serving of idols, cruelty, fornication,
wantonness, and all other vices of flesh and blood, we should through the
Spirit follow new ways in Christ, faith, modesty, innocence, chastity. 129

St. Pacian, in the above passage connects the rite of Chrismation with the gift of the
Holy Spirit. Elsewhere in another work the saintly bishop comments: Why said He
this, if it was not lawful for men to bind and loose? Is this allowed to Apostles only?
Then to them also only is it allowed to baptize, and to them only to give the Holy
Spirit, and to them only to cleanse the sins of the nations; for all this was enjoined
on none others but Apostles.130 What Pacian is here saying is that if the argument
is raised that the power of binding and loosing ceased with the Apostles then such
persons should logically conclude that the power to baptized, and the power to
communicate the Holy Spirit as well ceased with the Apostles. But since it is
accepted that the Apostles have handed down to their successors, i.e. the Bishops
of the Church, the power to baptized and the power to communicate the Holy Spirit,
then it must be accepted that the Apostles also handed down the power of binding
and loosing to the Bishops of the Church: If, therefore, the power of the Laver, and
of the Anointing, gifts far greater, descended thence to Bishops, then the right of
binding and of loosing was with them. Which although for our sins it be
presumptuous in us to claim, yet God, Who hath granted unto Bishops the name
even of His only Beloved, will not deny it unto them, as if holy and sitting in the
chair of the Apostles.131Again: Therefore neither the Anointing, nor Baptism, nor
remission of sins, nor the renewing of the Body, were granted to his sacred
authority, because nothing was entrusted to him as assumed by himself, but the
128 .St. Epiphanius of Salamis, Panacea against All Heresies, 21, 1, 4.
129 .St. Pacian of Barcelona, Sermon on Baptism, 7.
130 .Ibid, Epistle 1, 11.
131 .Ibid, 1, 13.

whole has descended in a stream from the Apostolic privilege. 132Thus, St. Pacian
believed that the rite of Chrismation like the rite of Baptism is of Divine institution
and that both goes back to the times of the Apostles.
Didymus, surnamed the Blind, who was the head of the catechetical school of
Alexandria, writing between 381 and 392, says; The sphragis of Christ on the brow,
the reception of baptism, the confirmation by chrism. 133Elsewhere, he explained
that those coming from heretical groups which practice valid Trinitarian baptism
are to be anointed because they do not have holy chrism, for only a bishop by
means of heavenly grace consecrates chrism. 134
In St. Jeromes Dialogue between a Luciferian 135 and an Orthodox Christian,
written either at Antioch in 379 A.D. or at Rome in 382 A.D, the following question
was posed by the Luciferian Christian:
Don't you know that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the
invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches? Do you demand
Scripture proof? You may find it in the Acts of the Apostles. And even if it
did not rest on the authority of Scripture the consensus of the whole world
in this respect would have the force of a command. For many other
observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the
authority of the written law, as for instance the practice of dipping the head
three times in the layer, and then, after leaving the water, of tasting
mingled milk and honey in representation of infancy; and, again, the
practices of standing up in worship on the Lord's day, and ceasing from
fasting every Pentecost; and there are many other unwritten practices
which have won their place through reason and custom. So you see we
follow the practice of the Church, although it may be clear that a person
was baptized before the Spirit was invoked.136

To this question the Orthodox Christian responded: I do not deny that it is the
practice of the Churches in the case of those who, living far from the larger cities,
have been baptized by the presbyters and deacons, for the bishop to come to them
to invoke the Holy Spirit upon them by the imposition of his hands. 137Before the
year 379, apart from Dalmatia where he was born, St. Jerome had been to Rome
where he began his education, to Gaul where he embraced ascetical life and
associated himself with a group of monks, and to Antioch where he lived as a hermit
from 375 to 378 and was later ordained to the priesthood by Paulinus of Antioch.
Thus, he was quite familiar with the tradition of not only the Syrian church, but of
the universal Church. Yet in the words which he puts in the mouth of the Luciferian
132 .Ibid, 1, 14.
133 .Didymus the Blind, On the Trinity, 2, 14. (PG 39, 712).
134 .Ibid, 2, 15. (PG 39, 720-22).
135 . A Schismatic group named after Lucifer (d. 371) Bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia
136 .St. Jerome, Dialogue between a Luciferian and an Orthodox Christian, 8.
137 .Ibid, 9.

Christian he stated that the laying on of hands after baptism and then the
invocation of the Holy Spirit is a custom of the Churches and that there was a
consensus of the whole world regarding the observance of that custom. And this
statement the Orthodox Christian in the same work did not deny but seconded and
affirmed.
St. John Chrysostom, in a set of catechetical instructions which was delivered at
Antioch during Lent in 390 A.D., we find the following description of Baptism:
After this anointing, the priest makes you go down into the sacred waters,
burying the old man and at the same time raising up the new, who is
renewed in the image of his Creator. It is at this moment that, through the
words and hand of the priest, the Holy Spirit descends upon you. Instead of
the man who descended into the water, a different man comes forth, one
who wiped away all the filth of his sins, who puts off the old garment of sin
and has put on the royal robe. That you may also learn from this that the
substance of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, baptism is conferred in
the following manner. When the priest says: So-and-so is baptized in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he puts your
head down into the water three times and three times he lifts it up again,
preparing you by this mystic rite to receive the descent of the Spirit. For it
is not only the priest who touches the head, but also the right hand of
Christ, and this is shown by the words of the one baptizing. He does not
say: I baptize so-and-so, but: So-and-so is baptized, showing that he is
only the minister of grace and merely offers his hand because he has been
ordained to this end by the Spirit. The one fulfilling all things is the Father
and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the undivided Trinity. It is faith in this
Trinity which gives the grace of remission from sin; it is this confession
which gives us the gift of filial adoption. What follows suffices to show from
what those who have been judged worthy of this mystic rite have been set
free, and what they have gained. As soon as they come forth from those
sacred waters, all who are present embrace them, greet them, kiss them,
rejoice with them, and congratulate them, because those who were
heretofore slaves and captives have suddenly become free men and sons
and been invited to the royal table. For straightway after they come up
from the waters, they are led to the awesome table heavy laden with
countless favours, where they taste of the Masters body and blood, and
become a dwelling place for the Holy Spirit. Since they have put on Christ
himself, wherever they go they are like angels on earth, rivaling the
brilliance of the rays of the sun.138

Now the position of St. John Chrysostom in determining the sequence of the
rites of Christian initiation in the Syrian Church is a subject that is very much
debated among scholars. Some starting from the assumption that the third century
Acts of Thomas (where as we have earlier seen the following sequence is found:
anointing, washing, Eucharist) represents an older view of the Syrian Church
conclude from St. John Chrysostoms alleged silence on the post-baptismal
anointing or imposition of hand that the sequence of anointing, washing, and
Eucharist found in the Acts of Thomas was that which was familiar to the saintly
doctor and that he knew nothing about a rite of Confirmation distinct from Baptism
for the giving of the Holy Spirit. But as we have earlier shown there is need for
caution in ascribing such importance to the Acts of Thomas. Moreover, we have
already seen from the works of Firmilian of Caesarea, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St.
Jerome, and the decisions of the fathers who assembled at Laodicea that a post138 .St. John Chrysostom, Baptismal catecheses, 2, 25-27.

baptismal rite connected with the gift of the Holy Spirit was known to the Oriental
Churches way before St. John Chrysostom. St. Jerome, a contemporary of St. John
Chrysostom, who like we have already pointed out was ordained to the priesthood
at Antioch certainly knew no church including that of the Antiochene tradition which
does not have a rite of Confirmation in its initiation ceremony. For he says
emphatically that a post-baptismal rite whereby the bishop invoke the Holy Spirit
upon the baptizands by the imposition of hands was observed in the Churches
spread across the known world. Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia, who was a fellow
student of John Chrysostom under the great Christian teacher Diodore at Antioch,
attested to the existence of a post-baptismal anointing which he connected with the
gift of the Holy Spirit:
You draw, therefore, near to the holy baptism, and before everything you
take off your garments. As when Adam was formerly naked and was in
nothing ashamed of himself, but after having broken the commandment
and become mortal, he found himself in need of an outer covering, so also
you, who are ready to draw near to the gift of the holy baptism so that
through it you may be born afresh and become symbolically immortal,
rightly remove your covering, which is a sign of mortality and a reproving
mark of that (Divine) decree by which you were brought low to the
necessity of a covering. After you have taken off your garments, you are
rightly anointed all over your body with the holy Chrism: a mark and a sign
that you will be receiving the covering of immortality, which through
baptism you are about to put on. After you have taken off the covering
which involves the sign of mortality, you receive through your anointing the
sign of the covering of immortality, which you expect to receive through
baptism. And you are anointed all over your body as a sign that unlike the
covering used as a garment, which does not always cover all the parts of
the body, because although it may cover all the external limbs, it by no
means covers the internal onesall our nature will put on immortality at
the time of the resurrection, and all that is seen in us, whether internal or
external, will undoubtedly be changed into incorruptibility according to the
working of the Holy Spirit which shall then be with us. While you are
receiving this anointing, the one who has been found worthy of the honour
of priesthood begins and says: So-and-so is anointed in the name of the
Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And then the persons
appointed for this service anoint all your body. After these things have
happened to you, at the time which we have indicated, you descend into
the water, which has been consecrated by the benediction of the priest, as
you are not baptised only with ordinary water, but with the water of the
second birth, which cannot become so except through the coming of the
Holy Spirit (on it). For this it is necessary that the priest should have
beforehand made use of clear words, according to the rite of the priestly
service, and asked God that the grace of the Holy Spirit might come on the
water and impart to it the power both of conceiving that awe-inspiring child
and becoming a womb to the sacramental birth.The priest stands up and
approaches his hand, which he places on your head, and says: So-and-so is
baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
while wearing the aforesaid apparel which he wore when you were on your
knees and he signed you on your forehead, and when he consecrated the
water. It is in this apparel that he performs the gift of baptism, because it is
right for him to perform all the Sacrament while wearing it, as it denotes
the renovation found in the next world, to which you will be transferred
through this same Sacrament. He says: So-and-so is baptised in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit in order to show by

these words who is the cause of this grace. As he says: So-and-so is signed
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, so he
says: So-and-so is baptised in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Spirit. All this is in harmony with the teaching of our Lord who
said: Go you and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.[]The priest places his hand
on your head and says: So-and-so is baptised in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and does not say I baptise (So-andso), but So-and-so is baptisedin the same way as he had previously said
So-and-so is signed and not I sign So-and-soin order to show that as a
man like the rest of men he is not able to bestow such benefits, which only
Divine grace can bestow. This is the reason why he rightly does not say "I
baptise" and "I sign" but So-and-so is signed and baptised. In this he
immediately refers to the One by whom a person is signed and baptised,
namely in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
and shows that these are the cause of the things that happen to him, and
demonstrates that he himself is a subordinate and a servant of the things
that take place, and a revealer of the cause which gives effect to them
The priest places his hand on your head and says of the Father, and with
these words he causes you to immerse yourself in water, while you
obediently follow the sign of the hand of the priest and immediately, at his
words and at the sign of his hand, immerse yourself in water. By the
downward inclination of your head you show as by a hint your agreement
and your belief that it is from the Father that you will receive the benefits of
baptism, according to the words of the priest. If you were allowed to speak
at that time, you would have said: Amen, a word which we believe to
mean that we subscribe to the things said by the priest, as the blessed Paul
said: He that occupies the room of the unlearned says Amen at your
giving of thanks. He shows here that this word is said by the congregation
at the giving of thanks by the priests to signify by it that they subscribe to
the things that are said. You are, however, not allowed to speak at the time
of baptism, as it is right for you to receive the renewal through the
Sacrament, when you are baptised, in silence and fear, while by inclining
your head downwards you signify that you subscribe to the things said by
the priest. You, therefore, immerse and bow your head while the priest says
and of the Son, and causes you with his hand to immerse again in the
same way. And you show that you subscribe to the words of the priest, and
as a sign also that you are expecting to receive the benefits of baptism
from the Son, you bow your head. Then the priest says and of the Holy
Spirit and likewise presses you down into the water, while you immerse
yourself and look downwards as a sign that here also you make the same
confession to the effect that you are expecting the benefits of baptism from
the Holy Spirit. After this you go out of the water. When the priest says of
the Father you immerse, bow your head, but do not go out of the water;
and when he says and of the Son, you immerse and bow your head
likewise, but do not go out of the water; and after he has said and of the
Holy Spirit, he has finished the complete call upon the Father, Son and
Holy Spirit, and so after immersing again and bowing your head, you go out
of the water of baptism, which, so far as you are concerned, comes to an
end, because, as you remember, there is no name left for you on which to
call, as the cause of the expected benefitsAfter you have received the
grace of baptism and worn a white garment that shines, the priest draws
near to you and signs you on your forehead and says: So-and-so is signed
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. When
Jesus came out of the water He received the grace of the Holy Spirit who

descended like a dove and lighted on Him, and this is the reason why He is
said to have been anointed: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because of
which the Lord has anointed me," and: "Jesus of Nazareth whom God has
anointed with the Holy Spirit and with power": texts which show that the
Holy Spirit is never separated from Him, like the anointment with oil which
has a durable effect on the men who are anointed, and is not separated
from them. It is right, therefore, that you also should receive the signing on
your forehead. When (the priest) signs you he says: So-and-so is signed in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, so that it
may be an indication and a sign to you that it is in the name of the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit that the Holy Spirit descended on you also, and you
were anointed and received grace; and He will be and remain with you, as
it is through Him that you possess now the first fruits.139

There is nothing in this passage which suggests that Theodore was here
fostering an innovation and was not faithfully representing the Antiochene tradition
on this matter as he has always known it. A century earlier Pope St. Cornelius in his
letter to Bishop Fabius of Antioch took it for granted that the Antiochenes were
familiar with the rite of imposition of hands after Baptism for the bestowal of the
Holy Spirit. In his question to Fabius And since this [i.e. Confirmation] was not done,
how could he have the Holy Spirit? Cornelius assumed that Fabius shared the same
theological stands with him on this matter. This to Cornelius was the teaching of the
Church not only in Rome but everywhere (note did not receive the other things of
which one should partake according to the rule of the Church, in particular the
sealing by a bishop). There is nothing in Eusebius History of The Church which
suggests that either Bishop Fabius or Eusebius that preserved that letter held a
divergent position from that espoused by Cornelius. Even St. John Chrysostom
himself, elsewhere in another of his work demonstrated that he was unfamiliar with
the idea, sometimes ascribed by these men to the early Syrian Church, that the
reception of the Holy Spirit preceded the baptismal bath in Christian initiation.
Commenting on Jn 3:5, he says:
If someone should ask: Why has water been mentioned as necessary for
baptism?let us also in our turn ask why earth at the beginning was
employed for the forming of man. For, it is althogether clear to all men that
even without earth it was possible for Him to make man. Well, then, do not
be overinquisitive. However, that the part which water plays is essential
and indispensable you may learn from the following: When, on one
occasion, the Spirit had come down before the water, the Apostle did not
remain satisfied with that, but as if the water was necessary and not
superfluous, see what he said: Can anyone refuse the water to baptize
these, seeing that they have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?[Acts
10:47]140

St. John Chrysostom certainly saw the sequence in Acts 10:47 where the
bestowal of the Holy Spirit comes before the washing with water as something
unique. So the position he must have held must either be that the Holy Spirit is
mediated through Baptism or that the Holy Spirit is mediated through certain postbaptismal rite or even both. Almost all his contemporaries (including those we have
cited so far) who spoke on this subject held both positions which are not by any
139 .Theodore of Mopsuestia, Catechetical Homilies, 14.
140 . St. John Chrysostom, Homily 25 on the Gospel of St. John.

means incompatible.141 That it was no less different in Chrysostoms case can be

seen from his Homilies on the First Epistle to the Corinthians which he wrote at
Antioch. There commenting on I Cor 12:13 And were all made to drink of one Spirit,
he says: But to me he appears now to speak of that visitation of the Spirit which
takes place in us after Baptism and before the Mysteries. 142 This passage shows
that Chrysostom knows of a sacramental act for the bestowal of the Holy Spirit
during Christian initiation which comes after the washing with water and before the
Eucharist. That this sacramental act consist of an imposition of hand can be seen
elsewhere in his Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews composed sometime in
403/404 A.D while he was a bishop. There commenting on Heb 6:2 he shows that he
was familiar with an imposition of hand connected with the washing with water and
performed immediately after it for the communication of the Holy Spirit:
But what is the doctrine of baptisms? Not as if there were many baptisms,
but one only. Why then did he express it in the plural? Because he had said,
not laying again a foundation of repentance. For if he again baptized them
and catechised them afresh, and having been baptized at the beginning
they were again taught what things ought to be done and what ought not,
they would remain perpetually incorrigible. And of laying on of hands. For
thus did they receive the Spirit, when Paul had laid his hands on them [Acts
19:6], it is said. And of the resurrection of the dead. For this is both
effected in baptism, and is affirmed in the confession. And of eternal
judgment. But why does he say this? Because it was likely that, having
already believed, they would either be shaken [from their faith], or would

141 .Some scholars see this position of the fathers of this period as a sort of
confusion. J.N.D. Kelly for instance says: From what has been said so far it should
be clear that there was considerable confusion between the theology of
consignation, or chrismation, and that of baptism. Both rites, it would appear, were
regarded as conferring the gift of the Spirit and as uniting the believer to Christ. So
long as the great sacrament of initiation remained an unbroken whole, there was no
serious disadvantage in this, and the confusion created no difficulty. Once unction
and the laying on of hands, however, were detached, the problem of the precise
relation of the two rites became increasingly urgent. Early Christian Doctrines,
p.435. But holding two truths which are not by any means incompatible is one thing
and knowing how to reconcile them is another. It is true that in trying to work out a
way to reconcile both truth or in trying to expound how both truths are related some
would use inaccurate and even sometimes unfavorable terminology but this does
warrant the thought that they were confused in holding both truths. This was the
case regarding the Christological teachings of the Church. If the Father is God, and
the Son is God, then, how are they related? If the Son is truly God and truly man,
then what is the relation between the Divine and the Human nature? What we have
said regarding the Christological teachings of the Church also apply to the
Sacramental teachings of the Church. The point to note here is that the various
teachings of the Church were still in their early stages of development in this period
and so such situations are to be expected.
142 .Ibid, Homily 30 on First Corinthians.

lead evil and slothful lives, he says, be wakeful. It is not open to them to
say, If we live slothfully we will be baptized again, we will be catechised
again, we will again receive the Spirit; even if now we fall from the faith, we
shall be able again by being baptized, to wash away our sins, and to attain
to the same state as before. You are deceived (he says) in supposing these
things.143

St. John Chrysostom in the above passage was using the Liturgical language in
his day to interpret that Scriptural text and he clearly implied that it was by the
laying on of hands that the Holy Spirit was bestowed on the recipients of the
Epistle to the Hebrews (and therefore all Christians) at the time they were being
received into the Church. For him the laying on of hands mentioned in the Epistle to
the Hebrews is not different from the laying on of hands after the baptismal washing
mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. It is the same rite that is been spoken of in
those two Scriptural documents. Thus, he does not consider the post-baptismal
laying on of hands mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles as an unusual practice but
sees it as something continually perpetuated in the Church and which even in the
Apostolic era was administered to each and every one of the faithful at the point of
their entry into the Church.144 And in another work where reference was again made
to that event in Acts of the Apostles he appears to have held the view that the right
to administer the rite of laying on of hands for the bestowal of the Holy Spirit
belongs to those of certain ranks of the Church leadership (the successors of the
Apostles i.e. the bishop) alone: As it appears Philip was one of the seven, Stephen
was another. Although they were able to baptize, the seven did not give the gift of
the Spirit to those baptized; neither did they have the authority to do so. This gift
was a prerogative of the Twelve. Watch, then, that the deacons did not go out. It
was by divine economy that they went out [to baptize], inspite of the fact that they
did not possess this grace, since they had not received the Spirit. They had received
the power to perform signs but not to give the Spirit to others. 145 To me I think the
difference in liturgical practices here is not that the pattern of the initiation
143 .Ibid, Homily 9 on the Epistle to the Hebrews.
144 .It is the same impression we get from the Sermon on the Feast of Holy
Pentecost attributed to St. John Chrysostom: And, as it is written, when the day of
Pentecost was fully come, all the holy Apostles were assembled with one accord in
one place, and the Paraclete was sent to them under the appearance of tongues of
fire. [cf. Acts 2:1-3] Having received the abundant promise of the Father and the
Holy Spirit, they were strengthened, and they manifested Him Who was sent to
them, His grace and His power. The martyr and proto-deacon Stephen, filled with
the same Holy Spirit, Whom he received by the laying-on of hands of the Apostles,
did great wonders and miracles among the people. Note the Scripture nowhere
speak of the way and manner in which St. Stephen was baptized. But for the author
of this work, if genuinely St. John Chrysostom, the initiation ceremony of the Church
always included a post-baptismal laying on of hands for the bestowal of the Holy
Spirit and that was the pattern which was observed when St. Stephen was baptized.
145 .Ibid, P.G. 60, 144:23-32.

ceremony of certain Churches at one time lacked an action(s) after the baptismal
washing such as Confirmation for the bestowal of the Holy Spirit and perfection of
baptismal grace. All the Churches, both East and West, then had an initiation
ceremony which included such. But the difference lies in the fact that in some
places the rite of Confirmation was also performed immediately after the baptismal
washing inside the baptismal pool while in others it was performed after the
baptismal washing only after the newly baptized must have come out of the
baptismal pool. The former was that which was observed in certain Oriental
Churches while the later was observed in some Oriental Churches and the rest of
the Church. Both traditions we must say have their roots in the description of the
baptism of Christ found in the Synoptic Gospels.
The idea of liturgically celebrating the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation
together in a single ceremony of Christian initiation in the early Church was
influenced by the event of the Baptism of Christ in the Jordan. In the Gospel of St.
Mark, we find the following narrative of that event: In those days, Jesus came from
Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And forthwith coming
up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit as a dove
descending, and remaining on him. And there came a voice from heaven: Thou art
my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased. (Mk 1:9-11) Note and forthwith coming
up out of the water, (v. 10a, cf. Mt 3:16)it was immediately after Christ was
baptized that he was anointed with the Spirit. The anointing of Christ with the Spirit
is closely connected to the baptism of Christ in the Jordan. This, as we have already
seen, would lead the early Church to closely link the rite of the laying on of hands
(i.e. Confirmation), which was seen as a participation of the Christian in the
anointing of Christ,146 to the rite of Christian Baptism. Just as Jesus Christ in coming
out of the water in which he was baptized was anointed with the Spirit (cf. Acts
10:37ff), so also the Christian in stepping out of the baptismal water is anointed
with the Spirit by the laying on of hands (cf. Acts 19:1-6). Now, if we look again at
the narrative of the Baptism of Jesus found in the synoptic Gospels it would be
discovered that only St. Matthew and St. Mark emphasized that it was immediate
after Christ left the water that he was anointed with the Spirit. In St. Matthews text
we read And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the
heavens (Mt 3:16) and in St. Mark And forthwith coming up out of the water, he
saw the heavens (Mk 1:10). St. Luke on his own part leaves this question open
and anyone reading Lukes description of that event without any foreknowledge of
the accounts of the other Synoptic authors can take his words as implying that the
146 .Pope John Paul II says: In fact, the sacrament of Confirmation closely
associates the Christian with the anointing of Christ, whom God annointed with the
Holy Spirit (Acts 10:38). This anointing is recalled in the very name Christian,
which derives from that of Christ, the Greek translation of the Hebrew term
messiah, whose precise meaning is anointed. Christ is the Messiah, the Anointed
One of God. Through the seal of the Spirit conferred by Confirmation, the Christian
attains his full identity and becomes aware of his mission in the Church and the
world. Before this grace had been conferred on you, St Cyril of Jerusalem writes,
you were not sufficiently worthy of this name, but were on the way to becoming
Christians (Cat. Myst., III, 4: PG 33, 1092). The Holy Spirit and the Sacrament of
Confirmation, 1 (September 30, 1998).

baptizing of Christ by St. John the Baptist and the anointing of Christ by the Father
occurred in the water. St. Lukes account of that event reads: Now it came to pass,
when all the people were baptized, that Jesus also being baptized and praying,
heaven was opened; And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape, as a dove
upon him; and a voice came from heaven: Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am
well pleased. (Lk 3:21-22). Note being baptized and praying, heaventhere is
no interruption to the sequence. The baptizing, the praying, and the anointing all
seem to have occurred in the water. Again, only St. Luke in his version of that event
mentioned the act of praying. The same author explicitly stated elsewhere that the
laying on of hands after the baptismal washing was accompanied with prayer:
when they [i.e. the Apostles] were come, prayed for them, that they might receive
the Holy Ghost. (Acts 8:15) The connection between those two texts is not
coincidental. Just as Jesus Christ immediately after His baptism in the water prayed
and was anointed with the Spirit, so also the Christian immediately after his/her
baptism in the baptismal pool is anointed with the Spirit by prayer and the laying on
of hands (cf. Acts 19:1-6). But since in Lukes tradition there is the tendency of
understanding the whole event (i.e. the baptism with water and the anointing with
the Spirit) as having occurred in the water, certain Christian communities who in the
earliest period were only familiar with this tradition would go on to shape their
initiation ceremony in such a way that the act of washing with water and that of the
laying of hands were both performed together in the baptismal pool. There is in fact
an old tradition which goes as far back as the second century which linked the
Gospel of St. Matthew to Palestine, the Gospel of St. Mark to Rome (St. Mark himself
to Egypt), and the Gospel of St. Luke to Syria (St. Luke himself to Antioch). Even if
for the sake of argument one were to agree with some modern scholars that this
tradition is doubtful, such person must still recognize that what could have given
rise to this tradition is the fact that there was a sort of connection that the
Christians at the turn of the first century saw between those regions and those
Synoptic Gospels. Part of this connection must have been in the area of the Liturgy.
Thus, it is no coincidence that the initiation ceremony of the Roman churchand
the Churches related to herare shaped after the account of Christs baptism in the
Jordan reported in the Gospel of St. Mark (See the testimony from St. Hippolytus and
the Africans above). In the Roman tradition as we have already seen the rite for the
bestowal of the Holy Spirit is performed immediately after the newly baptized steps
out of the baptismal pool. This is the same scenario in the Palestinian tradition
connected to the Gospel of St. Mathew (See Firmilian of Caesarea and St. Cyril of

Jerusalem above).147 On the other hand, the initiation ceremony of the early Syrian
churchand certain Churches related to her is modeled after the account of Christ
Baptism reported in the Gospel of St. Luke. In the early Syrian tradition the
baptismal washing and the laying on of hands occurs in the baptismal water, and
both rites are so closely linked together that it is difficult at times to differentiate
them (See the Didascalia above). This seems to be the tradition St. John Chrysostom
had grown to know, see the text from his Baptismal Catecheses where he says: It is
at this moment that, through the words and hand of the priest, the Holy Spirit
descends upon you148 Again, see the liturgical books preserved in the Syrian
Apostolic Constitution composed around 400 A.D, where we find the following
description of the Christian initiation ceremony:
And when it remains that the catechumen is to be baptized, let him learn
what concerns the renunciation of the devil, and the joining himself with
Christ; for it is fit that he should first abstain from things contrary, and then
be admitted to the mysteriesAnd after this vow, he comes in order to the
anointing with oil. Now this is blessed by the priest for the remission of
sins, and the first preparation for baptismAfter this he comes to the
waterAnd after this, when he has baptized him in the Name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, let him anoint him with Chrism, and
say: O Lord God, who art without generation, and without a superior, the
Lord of the whole world, who hast scattered the sweet odour of the
knowledge of the gospel among all nations, do thou grant at this time that
this chrism may be efficacious upon him that is baptized, that so sweet
odour of thy Christ may continue upon him firm and fixed, and that now he
has died with him, he may arise and live with him. Let him say these and
the like things, for this is the efficacy of the laying on of hands on every
one; for unless there be such a recital made by a pious priest over every
one of these, the candidate for baptism does only descend into water as do
the Jews, and he only puts off the filth of the body, not the filth of the soul.

147 .Similar accounts of the baptism of Christ by John the Baptist are found in the
apocryphal Gospels connected to these areas. See, for instance, the Gospel of the
Hebrews which dates from the first half of the second century and which was
familiar to the Palestinian and Egyptian Christians: And it came to pass when the
Lord was come up out of the water, the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended
upon him and rested on him and said to him: My Son, in all the prophets was I
waiting for thee that thou shouldest come and I might rest in thee. For thou art my
rest; thou art my first-begotten Son that reignest forever. Fragments 2. Also see,
the Gospel of the Ebionites which dates from the 2 nd century and used by the
Jewish-Christian sect whose name it bears: When the people were baptised, Jesus
also came and was baptized by John. And as he came up from the water, the
heavens were opened and he saw the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove that
descended and entered into him. And a voice (sounded) from heaven that said:
Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased. And again: I have this day
begotten thee. And immediately a great light shone round about the place.
Fragment 3.
148 .See above.

After this let him stand up, and pray that prayer which the Lord taught
us.149

From the above passage we could notice the following sequence anointing, washing,
anointing/imposition of hands. That is the sequence the Syrian compiler of this work
was familiar with. He is not aware of an initiation ceremony among Christians which
does not have a post-baptismal act which includes the imposition of hands. For we
find him elsewhere in the same work again alluding to such kind of sequence in his
interpretation of the third century text of the Didascalia which we cited earlier on:
For we stand in need of a woman, a deaconess, for many necessities; and
first in the baptism of women, the deacon shall anoint only the foreheads
with the holy oil, and after this the deaconess shall anoint them: for there is
no necessity that the women shall be seen by men; but in the laying on of
hands the bishop shall anoint her head only as the priests and kings were
formerly anointed, not because those who are now baptized are being
ordained priests, but as being Christians, or anointed, from Christ the
Anointed, a royal priesthood, and an holy nation, [I Pt 2:9] the Church of
God, the pillar and ground, [I Tm 3:15] of the marriage chamber, who in
the time past were not a people, [I Pt 2:10]but now are beloved and
chosen. Thou therefore, O bishop, according to that type, shalt anoint the
head of those that are being baptized, whether men or women, with the
holy oil, for a type of the spiritual baptism. After that, either thou, O bishop,
or a presbyter that is under thee, calling and naming over them the solemn
invocation of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, shall baptize them in the
water; and let a deacon receive the man and a deaconess the woman, that
so the conferring of this inviolable seal may take place with becoming
decency. And after that, let the bishop anoint with chrism those that have
been baptized.150

But note the last phase in the first text which we cited from this work: After this let
him stand up The implication here is that the sequence of those actions (the
anointing, washing, and laying on of hands) all occurred in the water. 151
The early fathers were quite aware of the connection between the Baptism of
Christ in the Jordan and the Christian initiation ceremony. Thus, St. Cyril of
Jerusalem in his Catechetical Lectures delivered around 350 A.D says: Baptized in
Christ, and having put on Christ, you have become conformed to the Son of God.
God, indeed, having predestined you for adoption of sons, has conformed you to the
body of the glory of Christ. Become participant in Christ, you are rightly called
Christ. But you were made Christs when you received the sacrament of the Holy
Spirit. And all these things were done symbolically, because you are the images of
Christ. And He, having bathed in the Jordan and the Holy Spirit descended
personally upon Him, Like resting on Like. And you also, when you came out of the
pool of the sacred water, you received the anointing, the sacrament of that which
Christ was anointed, I mean to say, the Holy Spirit, of whom the blessed Isaias said,
in speaking of the name of the Lord: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, that is why
He has anointed me [Is].152 St. Hilary of Poitiers, writing between the years 353355 A.D., says: Moreover, the plan of the heavenly mystery is portrayed in him.
After he was baptized, the entrance of heaven was opened, the Holy Spirit came
forth and is visibly recognized in the form of a dove. In this way Christ is imbued by
the anointing of the Fathers affection. Then a voice from heaven spoke the
following words: You are my Son, today I have begotten you. [Lk 3:22] He is
revealed as the Son by sound and sight, as the testimony of his Lord by means of
149 .Apostolic Constitution, 7, 40-45, 1.

both an image and a voice; he is sent to an unfaithful people who are disobedient to
their prophets. As these events happened with Christ, we should likewise know that
following the waters of baptism, the Holy Spirit comes upon us from the gates of
heaven, imbuing us with the anointing of heavenly glory. We become the sons of
God by the adoption expressed through the Fathers voice. These actual events
prefigured an image of the mysteries established for us. 153 St. Optatus of Mileve,
writing in the year 364 A.D, says: It was right that the Son should be anointed by
the FatherGod by Godas the Son asked and the Spirit announced that it had
been promisedthis the Father fulfilled in the Jordan. For when the Son of God, our
Saviour, came there, He was pointed out to John with these words: 'Behold the
150 .Ibid, 3, 16, 2-4. What is the meaning the Syrian compiler of the Apostolic
Constitution attached to each of these acts which he has always known to be
performed during the Christian initiation ceremony? The following understanding is
provided by the compiler of that work: This baptism therefore is given into the
death of Jesus [Rom 6:8] the water is instead of the burial, and the oil instead of the
Holy Ghost; the seal instead of the cross; the chrism is the confirmation of the
confession. (3, 17, 1) Again: Now concerning baptism, O bishop, or presbyter, we
have already given direction, and we now say, that thou shalt so baptize as the Lord
commanded us, saying: Go ye, and teach all nations, baptizing them into the Name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you) [Mt 28:19]: of the Father who sent, of
Christ who came, of the Comforter who testified. But thou shalt first anoint the
person with holy oil, and afterward baptize him with water, and finally shalt seal him
with the chrism; that the anointing with oil may be a participation of the Holy Spirit,
and the water a symbol of the death, and the chrism a seal of the covenant. But if
there be neither oil nor chrism, the water is sufficient both for the anointing, and for
the seal, and for the confession of him that is dead, or indeed is dying together with
[Christ]. But before baptism, let him that is to be baptized fast. (7,22, 1-4) Some
have taken the last passage as proof that in some quarters in the Syrian church the
importance of the anointing (pre-baptismal and post-baptismal) was played down.
However, if we look at that text carefully and the whole tradition on the matter it
would be discovered that the author was merely speaking of a case of emergency
Baptism and he had no such intention to play down the importance of the anointing.
The fathers before now who spoke on this issue have always frowned at an
understanding which seem to down play the importance of the post-baptismal rite
which consisted of an anointing with oil and laying on of hands, and whose
performance was the responsibility of the bishop. For them the initiation ceremony
is incomplete without this post-baptismal rite which they connected with the gift of
the Holy Spirit (See above Pope St. Cornelius in Rome, the council fathers of Elvira in
Spain, the council fathers of Laodicea in Syria). But from some of these same
fathers it can as well be gathered that there was equally a sense of awareness that
Baptism itself is sufficient for entry into the Kingdom of God if there was an obstacle
(i.e. sudden death due to illness) preventing one from completing the process of
initiation by receiving Confirmation (see above Pseudo-Cyprian, On Rebaptism, 4;

Lamb of God; He it is who taketh away the sins of the world.'[Jn 1:29.] He went
down into the water, not that there was anything in God that could be cleansed, but
the water had to come before the oil that was to come after, thus to commence and
ordain and fulfil the Mysteries of Baptism. For when the waters went over Him, and
He was held in the hands of John, the Mystery followed in due order, and the Father
fulfilled that for which the Son had prayed, and the Holy Ghost had announced was
to come. The Heaven was opened, as the Father anointed. Forthwith the spiritual oil
descended in the likeness of a Dove, and sat upon His Head and flowed over Him.
On this account He was first called Christ, when He was anointed by God the Father.
And lest it might seem that the laying on of hands was lacking to Him, the Voice of
God was heard, saying from the cloud: 'This is My well-beloved Son, in whom I am
well pleased. Hear ye Him.' [Mt 3:17; Mk 1:11; Lk 9:35; II Pt 1:17]. 154 Theodore of
Mopsuestia in his Catechetical Homilies delivered between 382 and 392 at Antioch,
says: When you have received grace by means of Baptism, and when you have
been clothed with shining white garment, the bishop comes to you, signs you on the
forehead and says: Nis signed in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit. Because as Jesus came up from the water, He received the Holy Spirit
Who in the form of dove came to rest on Him; and further because it is also said of
Him that He was anointed with the Spirit; since, also those who are anointed by men
with an anointing of oil, the oil adheres and is not taken away from them, therefore
Synod of Elvira, canon 77). This appears to be the stand point of the author of the
Apostolic Constitution. Note the following statement for the confession of him that
is dead, or indeed is dying together with [Christ]. The idea is that for those who in
illness have been baptized, there is no course to fear for their salvation if they are
overtaken by death and so did not have the chance to complete the initiation
process since the washing with water itself is sufficient for entry into the kingdom of
heaven.
151 .The fact that the actions of the baptismal bath and that of the post baptismal
Confirmation rite were both perform in the water in the Syrian tradition could over
time have led to a conflation of both actions in certain quarters among the Orients
to the point that their distinctiveness is lost sight off and one is considered to be
less important than the other or one is totally neglected for the other. See already
the diverse views of the Syrian Gnostic Christians in the Gospel of Philip, and the
Acts of Thomas. Canon 48 of the Council of Laodicea may as well be a reaction to
such tendencies.
152 .St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures PG 32, 1088B-1089A, as translated
in Jean Danielou, The Bible and the Liturgy (Norte Dame, IN: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1956), 117
153 .Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 2, 6.
154 .St. Optatus of Mileve, 4, 7.

you also must receive the signing on your forehead, so that you may have this sign
that the Holy Spirit has also come down upon you and that you have been anointed
with Him.155
Coming back to the testimonies of the fathers on the existence of Confirmation,
St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, addressing the newly baptized during Easter Week
(390/391 A.D), says: You have descended then [into the water]; remember what
you replied [to the questions], that you believe in the Father, you believe in the Son,
you believe in the Holy Spirit After this, of course, you went up to the priest.
Consider what followed. Was it not that which David says: Like the ointment on the
head, that ran down upon the beard, the beard of Aaron. [Cf. Ps 132:2] This is the
ointment of which Solomon also says: Thy name is as ointment poured out;
therefore young maidens have loved Thee and drawn thee. [Cant 1:2.3]
Understand why this is done: For the eyes of a wise man are in his head.[Eccl 2:14]
Therefore, it flows upon the beard, that is, upon the grace of youth; therefore, upon
the beard of Aaron, that you may become a chosen race, [Cf. I Pt 2:9] sacerdotal,
precious; for we all are anointed unto the kingdom of God and unto the priesthood
with spiritual grace.156Elsewhere, we find the saintly doctor telling his audience:
So recall that you have received a spiritual seal, the spirit of wisdom and of
understanding, the spirit of counsel and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge and of
piety, the spirit of holy fear, [Cf. Is 11:2-3] and preserve what you have received.
God the Father sealed you; Christ the Lord confirmed you, and gave a pledge, the
Spirit, in your hearts, as you have learned in the lesson of the Apostle [Cf. II Cor
5:5].157The Holy Spirit is here connected to the post-baptismal rite which consists of
an anointing with oil. Still more clearly in the treatise the Sacraments which was
compiled between the years 390-391 and which contains sermons St. Ambrose
delivered to the newly baptized, we are told that after the Baptismal immersion:
There follows a spiritual sign which you heard read today, because after the font
there remains the effecting of perfection, when at the invocation of the priest the
Holy Spirit is poured forth, the spirit of wisdom, and of understanding, the spirit of
counsel, and of virtue, the spirit of knowledge, and of godliness, the spirit of holy
fear,[Cf. Is 11:2.3] as it were , seven virtues of the Spirit. 158 Like in the earlier
treatise cited, St. Ambrose here connects the Holy Spirit with the post-baptismal
155 .Theodore of Mopsuestia, Catechetical Homilies, 14, 27. Cf. The Bible and the
Liturgy, Jean Danielou. p.118-119
156 .St. Ambrose, The Mysteries, 5-6 (28-30). A similar passage is found in another
work of St. Ambrose: Yesterday we discussed the font, whose likeness is as a kind
of sepulcher in which, believing in the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, we are
received and dipped and rise, that is, are resuscitated. Moreover, you receive myrrh,
that is ointment upon the head. Why upon the head? Because the eye of a wise
man are in his head, [Eccl 2:14]. The Sacraments 3, 1, ( 1).
157 .Ibid, 7 (42).
158 .Ibid, The Sacraments, 3, 2, (8).

Chrismation and he also pointed out that one of the effect of this rite is that of
perfection.
Moving to the fifth century, in one of the hymns composed between the years
398 and 405 A.D by the Christian Poet Prudentius of Saragossa in Spain mention is
made of Baptism and Confirmation:
O Christian soul, remember
Baptisms dewy fountain,
The sacramental laver
And holy oils anointing.159
Elsewhere in another work by the same Poet, in which he narrates an event which
occurred in his youth during the reign of Emperor Julian the Apostate, we are
informed that on one occasion when the Emperor came to a pagan shrine to offer
sacrifice to the pagan gods, the old pagan priest could not continue with the
heathen ritual because their gods had flee due to presence of one of the Emperors
soldiers who was a Christian. The pagan priest cried out and said:
Some Christians has crept hither unawares:
The band and the couch divine this race abhor.
Let him by water and by chrism signed
Depart, and let Proserpine return160
Still in Spain, the Council of Toledo, assembled by Archbishop Patronus (or
Patruinus), and attended by 18 other bishops, in September of the year 400,
declared Although it is almost everywhere guarded that no one make the chrism
159 .Prudentius, The book of Hymns for every day [The Cathemerinon], 6, 125-128.
160 .Ibid, The Divinity of Christ [Apotheosis], 485-488. Two centuries later, St.
Gregory of Tours, narrates this incident as well in his Glory of the Martyrs: So our
Prudentius records in his book written against the Jews. An emperor advanced to
offer a loathsome sacrifice to demons. After adoring the gods and kneeling before
the images, he watched the priests of these images who were sacrificing flocks of
animals, whose heads had been wreathed in laurel and crushed with axes. An old
priest investigated parts of the internal organs with his blood-stained hands. After
he attempted to detect something divine among the fibers of the liver and the
hearts of the animals, he noted that everything was confused, and he was unable to
discover for certain what he wished to learn. Distraught, he cried out and said: 'Alas,
alas, I do not know what is happening that is thought to be hostile to our gods. For I
see that our gods are scattering far away and accept nothing from the sacrifices we
have prepared. The situation indicates that this is due to respect for some gods who
are usually hostile to us. It would be surprising if a worshipper of the God Christ,
who they claim was crucified, had not compelled our gods to flee. The censers of
incense are cooling, the fire of the altar wastes away, and the sword plunged into
the victims is seen to become blunt. Look now, most sacred Augustus, for someone
washed in water and anointed with balsam; and let him immediately depart, so that
the gods whom we call might come.' Glory of the Martyrs, 40. Note: for someone
washed in water and anointed with balsam. The rites of initiation known to
Prudentius was still the same in Gregorys day.

without the bishop, yet because, in some places or provinces, the presbyters are
said to make the chrism, it seem good that, from this time, no other but the bishop
make the chrism, and send it through the diocese; so that, before Easter-day,
deacons or subdeacons be sent to the bishop from the several churches, that the
chrism, being immediately sent by the bishop, may arrive in time for Easter. No
doubt it is lawful for a bishop to make chrism at all times; but without the mind of
the bishop let not the presbyters presume to do anything. It is decreed that a
deacon may not administer chrism, but a presbyter may, in the absence of a bishop:
but if the bishop be present, not without his command. 161 The situation here was
such that the Church was expanding tremendously and it was becoming more
difficult for the bishop to preside at every Baptism within his diocese. A solution to
this by the council fathers is that the presbyter could be delegated to perform the
rite of Chrismation in the absence of the bishop but that the consecration of the oil
used in the rite must still be done by the bishop.
That the consecration of the oil used in Christian initiation is the sole privilege of
the bishop appears to be the stand point of the Africans as well. Thus, we find the
Council of Carthage under Bishop Genethlius of Carthage in the year 387 or 390,
declaring: Let no presbyter make the chrism, nor prepare the unction, nor
consecrate virgins, nor publicly reconcile anyone to communion. 162 In another
Carthaginian Synod held on the 28 th of August in the year 397: Let the presbyters
who govern the diocesan church seek the chrism before the feast of Easter, not
from any bishop but from their own, and by themselves, or by one of the same
order, and not by one of the junior clergy. 163Again, in the Council of Carthage held
under Archbishop Aurelius in the year 419 A.D: The bishop Fortunatus said, If your
holiness commands, I make a suggestion. For I remember it was decreed in a former
council, that chrism, or the reconciliation of penitents, and moreover, the
consecration of virgins, should not be done by presbyters. But if anyone has arisen
to do this, what is to be decreed concerning him? Bishop Aurelius said, Your
worship has heard the suggestion of our brother and co-bishop Fortunatus; what do
you say to these things? All the bishops said, Let not the confection of chrism nor
the consecration of maidens be done by the presbyters; nor let it be lawful for a
presbyter to reconcile any one at public mass. This pleased them all 164 Bishop
Fortunatus here was referring to the earlier canon by the Carthaginian synod of the
year 390.
One of the bishops who sat in these African councils was St. Augustine, Bishop
of Hippo. In his writings mention is made of the sacrament of Confirmation on
several occasions. Thus, writing between 401-403 A.D., the holy doctor says: Why,
therefore, is the Head itself, whence that ointment of unity descended, that is, the
spiritual fragrance of brotherly love,--why, I say, is the Head itself exposed to your
161 .First Council of Toledo (400 A.D), Canon 20.
162 .Council of Carthage (390 A.D), canon 3. See Hefele, History of the Councils,
vol. II, P.390.
163 .Third Council of Carthage (397 A.D), canon 36.
164 .Council of Carthage (419 A.D), 6.

resistance, while it testifies and declares that repentance and remission of sins
should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem? And by
this ointment you wish the sacrament of chrism to be understood, which is indeed
holy as among the class of visible signs, like baptism itself... 165Here it is obvious
that St. Augustine understood Baptism and the post baptismal Chrismation as two
distinct Sacraments. Elsewhere in one of his sermons delivered during Easter
Sunday, he says to the newly baptized: For, unless the grain is ground and
moistened with water, it cannot arrive at that form which is called bread. So, too,
you were previously ground, as it were, by the humiliation of your fasting and by the
sacrament of exorcism. Then came the baptism of water; you were moistened, as it
were, so as to arrive at the form of bread. But, without fire, bread does not yet exist.
What, then, does the fire signify? The chrism. For the sacrament of the Holy Spirit is
the oil of our fire. Notice this when the Acts of the Apostles are readAttend, then,
and see that the Holy Spirit will come on Pentecost. And thus He will come: He will
show Himself in tongues of fire. For He enkindles charity by which we ardently
desire God and spurn the world, by which our chaff is consumed and our heart
purified as gold. Therefore, the fire, that is, the Holy Spirit, comes after the water;
then you become bread, that is, the body of Christ. Hence, in a certain manner,
unity is signified.166Augustine here connects the rite of Chrismation which is
performed after the baptismal washing with the mediation of the Holy Spirit.
Similarly, in his Homilies on the Epistle of John to the Parthians: And you shall have
anointing by the Holy One so that you may be manifest to yourselves. [See I Jn
2:20] The spiritual anointing is the Holy Spirit Himself, the Sacrament whose coming
is in a visible anointing.167 Augustine clearly understood that the working of the
Spirit at the post-baptismal rite of Chrismation is different from that received at
Baptism although to him it is the same Spirit that is received at both rites: It is one
thing to be born of the Holy Spirit, another to be nourished by the Spirit 168; The
Holy Spirit is signified whether through the water for cleansing and washing, or
through the oil for exultation and inflaming of charity; nor indeed, although the
signs are different, does he differ from himself. 169 That this post-baptismal
Chrismation include the laying on of hands can be seen from the following works of
Augustine: He was baptized, he was sanctified, he was anointed, the hand was laid
upon him.170Again:

165 .St. Augustine of Hippo, Against the letters of Petilian the Donatist, 2, 104, 239.
166 .Ibid, Sermon 227.
167.Ibid, Homilies on the Epistle of the Parthians, 3, 5.
168 .Ibid, Sermon 71, 12, 19.
169 .Ibid, Exposition of the Psalms108, 26.
170 .Ibid, Sermon 324.

And if perhaps another reason may be advanced why the Holy Spirit was
given twice, yet we ought not to doubt that the same Holy Spirit was given
when Jesus had breathed upon them of whom He later said: 'Go, baptize all
nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
[Cf. Mt 28:19] a passage in which the Trinity is especially commended. And,
therefore, it is He who was also given from heaven at Pentecost, that is, ten
days after the Lord ascended to heaven. How, then, is He not God who
gives the Holy Spirit? Nay rather, how great a God is He who gives God? For
none of His disciples gave the Holy Spirit. They indeed prayed that He
might come into them upon whom they laid hands, but they themselves did
not give Him. And the Church observes this custom even now in regard to
its leaders. Finally, even when Simon the magician offered money to the
Apostles, he did not say: 'Give me also this power so that I may give the
Holy Spirit, but 'so that anyone, he said, 'upon whom I shall lay my hands
may receive the Holy Spirit. For the Scripture had not previously said that
Simon saw the Apostles giving the Holy Spirit, but: 'Simon seeing that the
Holy Spirit was given through the laying on of the Apostles' hands. [Cf.
Acts 8:18-19] Therefore, our Lord Jesus Himself, too, has not only given the
Holy Spirit as God, but has also received Him as man, and for this reason
He was said to be full of grace and the Holy Spirit [Cf. Lk 4:1]. As it was
written more plainly of Him in the Acts of the Apostles: 'since God anointed
him with the Holy Spirit [Cf. Acts 10:38]. Certainly this was not done with
any visible oil, but with the gift of grace which is signified by the visible
anointing whereby the Church anoints the baptized. Nor indeed was Christ
then anointed at His Baptism, when the Holy Spirit descended upon Him as
a dove [Cf. Mt 3:16], for He then deigned to foreshadow His Body, namely,
His Church, in which those who are baptized receive the Holy Spirit in a
special manner; but we are to understand that He was then anointed by
that mystical and invisible anointing when the Word of God was made flesh,
that is, when the human nature, without any preceding merits of good
works, was joined together to God the Word in the womb of the Virgin, so
as to become one person with Him. For this reason we confess that He was
born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary. 171

Pope St. Innocent in his letter to Bishop Decentius of Gubbio written on the 19 th
of March in the year 416 A.D., says:
In regard to the confirming of infants, however, it is clear that it is not
permitted to be done by any other than the bishop. For the presbyters,
granted they be secondary priests, do not, however, possess the summit of
the pontificate. This pontifical power, however, by which they confirm or
confer the Spirit Paraclete, is show to belong only to bishops, not only by
ecclesiastical custom but also by that passage of the Acts of the Apostles
which declares that Peter and Jon were directed to give the Holy Spirit to
persons already baptized [Acts 8:14-17]. For it is permitted presbyters,
when they baptize either without a bishop or in the presence of a bishop, to
anoint the baptized with chrism, but with chrism which has been
consecrated by a bishop; they are not permitted, however, to sign the
forehead with the same oil, which is signing pertains to bishop only, when
they confer the Spirit Paraclete.172

171 .Ibid, On the Trinity, 15, 26 (46).

172 .St. Innocent I, Letters, 25, 3, 6.

St. Innocent here identifies the Sacrament of Confirmation with the rite of the
imposition of hands mentioned in Acts 8:14-17. For him the bishops as successors of
the Apostles are the ordinary ministers of this rite.
St. Isidore of Pelusium, who was born at Alexandria around 355 A.D and died
about the year 435 A.D, in arguing that Philip the deacon and Philip the Apostle are
two distinct persons referred to Acts 8:14-17 as Biblical witness, sayings: If he who
baptized was one the Apostles, he had the authority of giving the Spirit. But he
baptizes only as a Disciple, whereas the Apostles, to whom this authority has been
given sanction the grace.173 The idea that the bishop is the ordinary minister of the
Sacrament of Confirmation is clothed in those words.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his Commentary on the Twelve Minor Prophets written
before 429 A.D., commenting on Joel 2:21-24 says: The living water of holy
Baptism is given to us as if in rain, and the Bread of Life as if in wheat, and the
Blood as if in wine. In Addition to this there is also the use of oil, reckoned as
perfecting those who have been justified in Christ through holy baptism. 174
Theodoret of Cyrus, writing sometime in the 430s and commenting on verse 3
of the first chapter of the Songs of Song (Thy name is as oil poured out) says:
Bring to thy recollection the holy rite of initiation, in which they who are perfected
after the renunciation of the tyrant and the acknowledgment of the King, receive as
a kind of royal seal the chrism of the spiritual unction as made partakers in that
typical ointment of the invisible grace of the Holy Spirit. 175
St. Peter Chrysologus, Archbishop of Ravenna, who died in the year 450 A.D,
says: The Jew owed oil, which by means of the Laws bond he had taken to anoint
kings, prophets, and priests as a prefiguration of Christian chrism, until he would
come into the presence of the very Leader of kings, prophets, and priests, to whom
the full hundredfold amount of chrism was to be given and poured out in its
entirety.176Chrysologus was here referring to the postbaptismal Chrismation or
Confirmation ritual. Elsewhere, in one of his sermons on Epiphany, he connects the
Chrismation with the Holy Spirits: Today the Holy Spirit hovers over the waters
under the appearance of a dove [Cf. Mt 3:16], so that, just as that dove announced
to Noah that the flood that inundated the world had subsided [Gen 8:11], so too by
this sign it would be known that the unremitting shipwreck of the world had come to
an end. But it did not carry a branch from the old olive tree, as that one did, but
pours out rich, new chrism all over his head as Parent, in order to fulfill what the
prophet said: God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness before your
fellows.[Ps 44(45):8(7)] Today the Lord is over the waters. Correctly does it say
over the waters, and not under the waters, because Christ is not a servant to his
Baptism, but he has authority over the sacraments. 177
173 .St. Isidore of Pelusium, Book I, Letters , 450.
174 .St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 32[331332].
175 .Theodoret of Cyrus, Interpretation of the Canticle of Canticles, 1 .PG 81, 60.
176 .St. Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 126, 7.

Salvian of Marseilles, in his work On the Government of God, written between

431 and 450 A.D, lists the grace of holy baptism, the unction of the divine chrism
among the blessings God bestows on Christians. 178
In southeastern Gaul the Council of Orange held in the year 441 A.D declared:
That no minister who has received the office of baptizing make a progress
anywhere without chrism, since it has been decreed among us that chrism shall
only be once administered. But, concerning anyone who, through any supervening
necessity, has not been chrismed in baptism, the priest [sacerdos] shall be advised
in confirmation. For among some [us, in some copies] there is only one benediction
of the chrism; [this is said] not for sake of prejudging anything, but that it may not
be thought necessary to repeat the chrism. 179Although several details of this canon
are not so clear we can at least gather from it that Baptism and confirmation were
already at this time being celebrated at least in certain places in the Latin West as
two distinct, successive actions.
Pope St. Leo who died in the year 461 A.D, in a letter to Emperor Leo, tells him
that the savage murder of Bishop Proterius at Alexandria has interrupted the
sacrifice and cause the hallowing of chrism to cease: Is it not clear which side you
ought to support and which to oppose, if the Church of Alexandria, which has always
been the house of prayer, is not now to be a den of robbers [Lk 19:46]? For surely it
is manifest that through the cruellest and maddest savagery all the light of the
heavenly mysteries is extinguished. The offering of the sacrifice is cut off, the
hallowing of the chrism has failed, and from the murderous hands of wicked men all
the mysteries have withdrawn themselves.180 The reference here is to the Eucharist
and the Chrism associated with baptism. Elsewhere, in one of his Christmas
sermons, the Pope says: you, dearly beloved, whom I address in no less earnest
terms than those of the blessed Apostle Peter, a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a
holy nation, a people for God's own possession [I Pt 2:9], built upon the impregnable
rock, Christ, and joined to the Lord our Saviour by His true assumption of our flesh,
remain firm in that Faith, which you have professed before many witnesses, and in
which you were reborn through water and the Holy Ghost, and received the
anointing of salvation, and the seal of eternal life. 181 A distinction between Baptism
and Chrismation is here made, and both rites are clearly considered as means of
divine grace.
Gennadius of Marseilles, who flourished in the year 470 A.D, wrote: If there are
little children or handicapped persons who cannot understand the teaching, those
who present them are to answer for them like someone answering for himself at
baptism; then, strengthened by imposition of hand and by the chrism they are to be
177 .Ibid, Sermon 160, 4-5.
178 .Salvian of Marseilles, On the Government of God, 3, 2, 8.
179 .Council of Orange (441 A.D), canon 2.
180 .St. Leo the Great, Letter 156, 5.
181 .Ibid, Sermon 24, 6.

admitted to the mysteries of the Eucharist. 182Elsewhere, he expressly says that

the baptized person receives the Holy Spirit through the imposition of the
[bishops] hand.183
In an ancient homily on Pentecost ascribed to St. Faustus of Riez, who died
around the year 490 A.D, we read:
What the imposition of hand bestows in confirming individual neophytes,
the descent of the Holy Spirit gave people then in the world of believers
the Holy Spirit, who descends upon the waters of baptism by a salvific
falling, bestows on the font a fullness toward innocence, and presents in
confirmation an increase for grace. And because in this world we who will
be prevailing must walk in every age between invisible enemies and
dangers, we are reborn in baptism for life, and we are confirmed after
baptism for the strife. In baptism we are washed; after baptism we are
strengthened. And although the benefits of rebirth suffice immediately for
those about to die, nevertheless the help of confirmation are necessary for
those who will prevail. Rebirth in itself immediately saves those needing to
be received in the peace of the blessed age. Confirmation arms and
supplies those needing to be preserved for the struggles and battles of this
world. But the one who arrives at death after baptism, unstained with
acquired innocence, is confirmed by death because one can no longer sin
after death.184

Here we have a well-developed theology of the Sacrament of Confirmation.

St. Patrick the apostle of Ireland, in his letter to the soldiers of Coroticus written
around 497 A.D in which he chastised them for the barbaric acts they carried out
against his flock, says: They have chosen, by their hostile deeds, to live in death;
comrades of the Scotti and Picts and of all who behave like apostates, bloody men
who have steeped themselves in the blood of innocent Christians. The very same
people I have begotten for God; their number beyond count, I myself confirmed
them in Christ. The very next day after my new converts, dressed all in white, were
anointed with chrism, even as it was still gleaming upon their foreheads, they were
cruelly cut down and killed by the swords of these same devilish men. 185
In the treatise On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy written by an unknown author in
Syria about A.D. 500, we find the following description of the Christian initiation
rites:
When the Deacons have entirely unclothed him, the Priests bring the holy
oil of the anointing. Then he begins the anointing, through the threefold
sealing, and for the rest assigns the man to the Priests, for the anointing of
his whole body, while himself advances to the mother of filial adoption, and
when he has purified the water within it by the holy invocations, and
perfected it by three cruciform effusions of the altogether most pure Muron,
and by the same number of injections of the all holy Muron, and has
invoked the sacred melody of the inspiration of the God-rapt Prophets, he

182 .Gennadius of Marseilles, On Church Doctrine, 21.

183 .Ibid, 40. Cf. A.G. Martimort, The Sacraments, p. 57.
184 .St. Faustus of Riez, Homily 29, on Pentecost, 1-2.
185 .St. Patrick, Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus, 1, 2-3.

orders the man to be brought forward; and when one of the Priests, from
the register, has announced him and his surety, he is conducted by the
Priests near the water to the hand of the Hierarch, being led by the hand to
him. Then the Hierarch, standing above, when the Priests have again called
aloud near the Hierarch within the water the name of the initiated, the
Hierarch dips him three times, invoking the threefold Subsistence of the
Divine Blessedness, at the three immersions and emersions of the initiated.
The Priests then take him, and entrust him to the Sponsor and guide of his
introduction; and when they, in conjunction with him, have cast over the
initiated appropriate clothing, they lead him again to the Hierarch, who,
when he has sealed the man with the most Divinely operating Muron,
pronounces him to be henceforward partaker of the most Divinely initiating
Eucharist.186

Elsewhere in the same work, he informs us that after Baptism: there is another
perfecting Service of the same rank, which our Leaders name Initiation of
Muron.187The idea here is that the post-baptismal anointing is a perfecting of what
is begun at Baptism. He takes this up again: the consecrating gift and grace of
the Divine Birth in God is completed in the most Divine perfectings of the
Muron.188Again: The perfecting unction of the Muron gives to him who has been
initiated in the most sacred initiation of the Birth in God, the abiding of the
supremely Divine Spirit; the sacred imagery of the symbols, portraying, as I think,
the most Divine Spirit abundantly supplied by Him, Who, for our sakes, has been
sanctified as man by the supremely Divine Spirit, in an unaltered condition of His
essential Godhead.189
John the deacon, who was a deacon in the Church of Rome during the
pontificate of Pope Symmachus (498-514), in explaining to Senarius a Roman noble
certain aspects of the rites of Christian initiation, says:
Next the oil of consecration is used to anoint their breast, in which is the
seat and dwelling place of the heart; so that they may understand that
they promise with a firm mind and a pure heart eagerly to follow after the
commandment of Christ, now that the devil has been driven out. They are
bidden to go in naked even down to their feet, so that having put aside the
carnal garments of mortality they may acknowledge that they make their
journey upon a road upon which nothing harsh and nothing harmful can be
found. The Church has ordained these things with watchful care over many
years, although the old books may not show traces of them. And when the
elect or catechumen has advanced in faith by spiritual conveyances, so to
speak, it is necessary to be consecrated in the baptism of the one laver, in
which sacrament his baptism is effected by a threefold immersionHe is
next arrayed in white vesture, and his head anointed with the auction of

186 .Psuedo-Dionysius, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, 2, 2,7.

187 .Ibid, 4,1
188 .Ibid, 4, 3, 8.
189 .Ibid, 4, 3, 9.

the sacred chrism: that the baptized person may understand that in his
person a kingdom and a priestly mystery have met.190

St. Gregory of Tours (539-594 A.D), in his History of the Franks, informs us that
when Clovis, the first king of the Merovingian dynasty, was converted to Catholicism
(about 503 A.D), he was baptized in the name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit,
and was anointed with the holy ointment with the sign of the cross of Christ. 191
Among the canons which were drawn up in the Council of Braga (modern day
Portugal), which met in the year 563 A.D, there is one in which it is stated that a
priest who ventures, after being forbidden, to consecrate the chrism, or to
consecrate churches or alters, shall be deposed from his office. 192It should be
recalled that two centuries earlier a similar canon was enacted by the Africans.
There we saw that the privilege of consecrating the oil used in the rites of Christian
initiation was reserved to the bishop. It is the same stance that is been reaffirmed
here. What this also implies is that although the bishop was understood to be the
ordinary minister of the rite of Confirmation there could have been cases in these
areas whereby simple priests were granted the faculty to confirm the baptized
faithful. There are several documents from this period which confirms our suspicion.
See the 52 canon ascribed to the Second Council of Braga (572 A.D) which reads: It
is not permitted to a presbyter to chrismate when the bishop is present. A presbyter
may not sign infants when the bishop is present, unless perhaps it was commanded
him by the bishop.193 Also, see the testimony of Pope St. Gregory the Great, in his
letter to Januarius, bishop of Cagliari, written in the year 594 A.D: It has to come
our attention that some have been scandalized because we forbade presbyters to
touch with chrism those who are to be baptized. And we did this, indeed, in accord
with the ancient custom of our Church; but if some are in any way distressed on this
account, we allow that, where the bishops are lacking, presbyters may touch with
chrism, even on their foreheads, those who are to be baptised. 194 The practice of
allowing priests to confirm which at first started as an exception (at least since in
the 4th Century) had in the course of the years in some regions led to the idea of
seeing the priest as the usual minister of Confirmation. This could be the meaning
behind the following canon from the council of Auxerre which was held in the year
578 A.D under Bishop Annacharius of Auxerre and attended by seven abbots, thirtyfour priests, and three deacons of that diocese (it was a diocesan synod): That the
presbyters apply for chrism from the middle of Lent; and if anyone, being detained
by illness, is unable to come, let him send to his archdeacon or sub-archdeacon, but
with the chrismary and linen as the relics of saints are wont to be carried. 195 Also,
see the Council of Barcelona, held on the 1st of November in the year 599 under the
190 .John the deacon, Letter to Senarius, 6.
191 .St. Gregory of Tours, History of Franks 2, 31.
192 .Council of Braga (563 A.D), Canon 36.
193 .Second Council of Braga (572 A.D), canon 52.
194 .St. Gregory the Great, Letters, 4, 26.

presidency of the Metropolitan Asiaticus of Tarragona and attended by twelve

bishops which issued the following canon: That when the chrism is given to the
diocesan presbyters for confirming the neophytes, nothing be accepted for the price
of the liquor, lest the grace of God, being affected by the price of the benediction,
confound both buyers and sellers in a simoniacal death. 196 Again, the fathers of the
Second council of Seville held in the year 619 were certainly reacting to such an
idea when they enacted the following canon: Nor indeed is it allowed for presbyters
to consecrate a church or an altar, to bestow the paraclete Spirit through the
imposition of a hand on the baptized faithful or on converts from heresy, to make
chrism, to sign the forehead of the baptized with chrism, and not to publicly
reconcile any penitent in the dismissal, nor to send composed epistles to anyone. All
these things are illicit for presbyters because they do not have the perfection of the
episcopacy, which is decreed by the authority of the canons to be due to bishops
aloneIt is not permitted to presbyters in the presence of the bishop to enter the
baptistry nor to baptize or sign infants in the presence of the bishop. The intent of
this canon as the last sentence seem to imply is not to convey an idea that
presbyters in whatever context were absolutely forbidden to perform those function
but it is meant to deal with Presbyters performing certain functions reserve for the
office of a bishop without their bishops delegation. Again, see the concern shared
by St. Braulio (590-651 A.D.), Bishop of Saragossa, in his letter to Eugene, Bishop of
Toledo: Your prudence certainly knows that the traditions of the canons had been
established that a presbyter should not dare to chrismate. But we know that all of
Italy and the East keep doing it to this day. Later, however, it was agreed that
presbyters might chrismate, but with chrism blessed by bishops. In this way it did
not seem that this was the right of presbyters when they consecrate the people of
God from that holy oil, but the right of bishops, with whose blessing and permission
they may thus perform the offices of this kind, as it were by the hand of the
bishop.197 It was such situation that confronted Pope St. Gregory in the passage
cited above. In Sardinia simple priests were already use to seeing themselves as
the usual minister of Confirmation. Thus, there were aggrieved when Pope Gregory
in an earlier letter forbade them from performing that sacramental action. These
made Gregory to send them another letter (i.e. cited above) in which he not only
pointed out that his action were in accord with the ancient custom of our Church
but at the same time reinstated that old aged exceptional rule whereby simple
priests can be delegated to perform that sacramental action in certain cases.
St. Eulogius of Alexandria (581-607), interpreting Heb 6:2 according to the
liturgical usage current in his day says regarding those who had accepted the
Christian faith: It is necessary for those who come to Christ first to renounce their
sins,and next to receive the redemption of their former sins through Baptism
Then, having made progress, they become worthy of that advent of the Spirit, which
comes through the laying on of Apostolic hands, and to be taught the doctrine of

195 .Council of Auxerre (578 A.D), canon 6.

196 .Council of Barcelona (599), canon 2.
197 .St. Braulion of Saragossa, Letter 36.

the resurrection of the dead and future judgment. 198 Here Baptism and the
Confirmational imposition of hands are certainly understood as two distinct
sacramental rites.
St. Isidore of Seville (560-636) wrote:
The Greek term chrism is unction in Latin. The word Christ is also
derived from this word, and a person is sanctified after the application of
unction. For just as remission of sins is granted in baptism, so the
sanctification of the spirit is administered through unction. This sacrament
derives from the anctient custom according to which people used to be
anointed into the priesthood or the royal office, for which reason Aaron was
anointed by Moses. When this is done in the flesh, it benefits in the spirit,
just as in the gift of baptism also there is a visible act, that we are
submerge in water, but a spiritual effect, that we are cleansed of sinsThe
sacramental laying of hands is done to bid the Holy Spirit to come,
invoked by means of a blessing, for at the time the Paraclete, after the
bodies have been cleansed and blessed, willingly descends Father. 199

Elsewhere he says: But since after baptism the Holy Spirit is given through the
bishops with the laying on of the hand, we recall that the apostles did this in the
Acts of the Apostles.200
St. Hildephonsus of Toledo who died in 669 A.D, in his treatise On the Awareness
of Baptism, says: After the washing, we are anointed with chrism, that from the
name of Christ we may be called Christians But this anointing may become most
powerful in this way, as the holy Pope Innocent witnesses; thus he says it is not
permitted to be done by anyone other than a bishop After baptism the Holy Spirit
is aptly given with the imposition of the hands. For this the Apostle is shown to have
done in the Acts of the Apostles It is therefore wholesome that after the example
of Christ [Mk 10:13] a hand on blessing is placed upon the faithful by the priest
After the washing at the font, after the renewal of life, after the unction of the Spirit,
the person is taught to pray with the words of truth. 201
During the first trail of St. Maximus of Constantinople in the year 665 A.D, when
asked whether every Christian Emperor is not also a priest and therefore possesses
the right to determine dogma, the saintly bishop replied: He is not, for neither does
he stand at the altar nor after the consecration of the bread does he elevate it
saying, Holy things for the holy. Nor does he baptise, or perform the rite of
chrismation, or ordain and make bishops and priests and deacons; nor does he
anoint churches, or wear the symbols of the priesthood, the omophorion and the
Gospel book, in the way in which he wears, as symbols of kingship, the crown and
purple robe.202 A distinction between Baptism and Chrismation is here expressed.
198 .St. Eulogius of Alexandria, In Phot. Excerpt 2. Cf. Augustus Theodore Wirgman,
Doctrine of Confirmation, p. 196
199 .St. Isidore of Seville, The Etymologies, 6, 19, 50-52.54.
200 .Ibid, On the Churchs Institution, 2, 27, 1.
201 .St. Hildephonsus of Toledo, On the Awareness of Baptism,
123.136.129.127.132

Theodore of Tarsus, who was archbishop of Canterbury (668-90), in the

penitential book ascribed to him we read: One person may, if it is necessary, be
[god] father to a catechumen both in baptism and in confirmation; however, it is not
customary, but [usually] separate persons act as godparents in each[office]. 203
Here a clear distinction between baptism and confirmation can be seen. Elsewhere
we read: No one may act as a godparent who is not baptized or confirmed. 204 The
idea that Confirmation is a completion of Baptism is found in this work as well: We
believe no one is complete in baptism without the confirmation of a bishop; yet we
do not despair.205
Stephen of Ripon in his life of St. Wilfrid (d.709), written a couple of years after
his death, reports that St Wilfrid was out riding on a certain day, going to fulfill his
various duties of his bishopric, baptizing and also confirming people with the laying
on of hands...206 This event occurred probably in south-west Northumbria in the
670s.
Similarly, St. Bede, in the Life of St. Cuthbert written about 721 A.D, informs us
that in St. Cuthbert short time as bishop of Lindisfrane he travelled around his
diocese, preaching, healing and administering confirmation: Now on a certain day,
while he was going around his diocese dispensing words of salvation in all houses
and villages of the countryside, and was also laying his hand on those who had
been lately baptized, so that they might receive the grace of the Holy Spirit 207The
diocese of the bishop in certain areas was getting bigger and this made it difficult
for the bishop to be at every initiation ceremony. In the absence of the bishop, the
priest administers Baptism and the Eucharist to the people and they had to wait till
a later date for the bishop to come around to administer the Confirmation to them.
This seems to be the situation Stephen and St. Bede were alluding to in the passage
from their respective works cited above. Such situation would go on to have an
effect, as would soon be seen, on the sequence of the rite of initiation in certain
areas. Thus, instead of Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist; the sequence
would then become Baptism, the Eucharist, and Confirmation (see already in Alcuin
below). Elsewhere in his Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, St. Bede wrote:
It must be noted that Philip, who was the evangelist of Samaria, was one of the
seven, for if he had been an Apostle, he himself undoubtedly could have laid on the
hand that they might receive the Holy Spirit. For this belongs to bishops alone. For it
202 .Anastasius Apocrisiarius, Relatio motionis (Corpus Christianorum Seies Graeca
39, 27. 183-190)
203 .Theodore of Tarsus, The Penitential 2, 4, 8.
204 .Ibid, 2, 4, 9.
205 .Ibid, 2, 4, 5.
206 .Stephen of Ripon, Life of Bishop Wilfrid, 18.
207 .St. Bede, life of St. Cuthbert, 29.

is allowed to priest, whether they baptize without the Bishop or in the presence of
the Bishop, to anoint the baptized with chrism, but with chrism which has been
consecrated by the Bishop; not, however, to sign the forehead with the same oil,
which belongs to Bishops alone, when they convey the Comforter Spirit to the
baptized.208
Pope St. Gregory III, in a letter to St. Boniface, the Apostle of Germany, written
on the 29th of October in the year 739 stated that in the course of Bonifaces
conversion of the people of Bavaria: Those who were baptized with a formula
expressed in a heathen tongue, provided their Baptism was performed in the name
of the Trinity should be strengthened through the hands of imposition and of the
holy chrism.209
St. Alcuin of York (735-804 A.D) in his letter to Odwin written around 798 A.D.
describes how the neophyte, after the reception of baptism and the Eucharist,
prepares to receive the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands: "Last of all by the
imposition of the hands by the chief priest he receives the Spirit of sevenfold grace,
that he who has been endowed in Baptism through the grace of eternal life may be
strengthened through the Holy Spirit to preach to other. 210The interposition of the
Eucharist between Baptism and Confirmation clearly demonstrates that these men
understood Confirmation to be a rite distinct and separable from Baptism.
Magnus, Archbishop of Sens, in a treatise written in the 790s, after alluding to
white garments with which the Neophytes are clothed and the baptismal anointing,
he adds: Then after all the sacraments of baptism have been completed, they
finally receive the spirit of sevenfold grace through the imposition of the hand by
the chief priest, so that they may be strengthened in right faith through the Holy
Spirit. And therefore the imposition of the hand follows, so that the Holy Spirit may
be called upon and invited through a blessing. Then it should be known that as the
other sacraments of baptism happen visibly through priests, and they are
consecrated invisibly through the Lord, so also the grace of the Holy Spirit is handed
over through the imposition of the hands of the bishops to the faithful, and
confirmed by the Lord.211Here we find the teaching that the effect of Confirmation
is that of strength. And Like Baptism, Confirmation was understood as a means of
divine grace and thus a true and proper Sacrament.
Theodulf (760-821), Bishop of Orleans, in emphasizing the need to instruct
those coming to Baptism, says; Let all the faithful be reminded that generally
everyone from the youngest to the oldest learn the Lords Prayer and the Creed.
And it ought to be told to them, that the whole foundation of the Christian faith rests
on these two maxims. And unless anyone holds these two maxims in their memory
and believes them with all his heart and repeats them most often in prayer, he is
not able to be catholic. For it is established that no one is anointed or baptized nor
is anyone received from the font and neither does he hold anyone in the presence
208 .Ibid, Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. PL, 92, 961.
209 .St. Boniface, Letters, 24[45].
210 .St. Alcuin, Letters 134. PL. 101, 104.
211 .Magnus of Sens, Pamphlet on the Mystery of Baptism.

of the bishop for confirmation, unless he holds in his memory the Creed and the
Lords Prayer except for those, who by reason of their young age someone leads in
speaking.212 Elsewhere, in his treatise on Baptism, he connects the Holy Spirit with
the rite of Confirmation: Verily the Grace of the Spirit is conveyed to the faithful by
the Laying on of Hands, and the ministry of Bishops. 213
Jesse, Bishop of Amiens, in a letter on Baptism written probably in the year 812
A.D., says: After these things let the Bishop confirm him on the forehead with the
chrism; and so the Imposition of the Hand takes place, that the Holy Spirit being
invoked and invited by benediction may descend upon them after the example of
the Apostles.214 Jesse is certainly familiar with a Confirmational rite performed by
the bishop for the bestowal of the Holy Spirit which consisted of the laying on of
hands and anointing with chrism.
Leidrad (799-816), Archbishop of Lyon, in his book On the Sacrament of Baptism
written around 812 A.D, says: Done in part by the Lord Jesus Christ, this is fulfilled
all the more in his members, and daily. It might be said that the Lord put on vile
clothing when knowing no sin He was made sin for us [II Cor 5:21], took our
infirmities upon himself and bore our sicknesses [Mt 8:17]. Yet since there was in
him no guilt to carry away, but he was wounded because of our guilt [Is 53:5], the
vile garments were taken from him with the wiping-away of our sin, so that rising in
him, we hear, after our baptism: Behold thou shalt have new garments to wear.
And so the Song of Songs asks: Who is this who makes her way up all in white
[Cant 3:6; 8:5]? Then we receive anointing on the head as though in fulfillment of
the words: A clean mitre they should place on his head. And they put new garments
on him.215The anointing spoken of here is certain the confirmational anointing
which in several places is performed after the clothing of the neophytes in white
robes. Leidrad was also familiar with the action of laying on of hands connected to
rite of Confirmation as can be seen elsewhere while alluding to the testimony found
in the Acts of The Apostles: Therefore in Baptism is given the remission of sins, in
the Laying on of Hands are bestowed the gifts of miraculous powers. 216
One of the pupils of Alcuin, Amalarius of Metz (780-850), who became bishop of
Treves (Trier) about 811, in his treatise On the Offices of the Church, says: There is
this difference between our Baptism and that of the Apostles, because they were
first baptized with water, and then first received the Holy Ghost by the breathing of
Christ, whilst Christ was yet on earth, and afterwards from Heaven on the day of
Pentecost. But we are baptized in the presence of the Bishop at the same time as
we receive the Holy Ghost by the Laying on of the Hand of the Bishop. 217Amalarius
here connects the Holy Spirit with confirmational imposition of hands. Elsewhere
212 .Theodulf of Orleans, First Episcopal Statute, 22.
213 .Ibid, On the Ordinance of Baptism, 17.
214 .Jesse of Amiens, Epistola De baptism (Letter on Baptism),.
215 .Leidrad, On the Sacrament of Baptism, 8.
216 .Ibid, 7.

commenting on St. John the baptists words He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost
and fire [see Mt 3:11],he wrote: We are baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire.
We are baptized with the Holy Ghost, when we are washed from our sins; which
washing the white garments signify, which are used in Baptism over the whole body.
. . We receive the baptism of fire by the laying on of the hand of the Bishops. 218 For
Amalarius, Baptism and Confirmation are clearly two distinct Sacraments and he
understands that the Holy Spirit is given in each of these Sacraments. He is also
clear that the right to administer Confirmation belongs to the Bishop alone.
The second council of Chalons held in the year 813 A.D, reacting to an abuse of
receiving this Sacrament more than once which sometimes was due to careless on
the part of the clergy, decreed: It has been told us, that some people are confirmed
two or three times by the bishops, who themselves are unconscious of it. Whence it
has seemed good to us, that confirmation, like baptism, should by no means be
repeated.219
Another pupil of Alcuin, Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mayence, in his book
the Instruction of Clerics written sometime in the year 819 A.D. says; Finally the
Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, given through the grace of eternal life, is bestowed on
them by the bishop through the imposition of the hand, so that they may be
strengthened through the Holy Spirit for preaching to others the same gift which
they received in baptism. For the baptized are signed with chrism on the top of the
head by the priest, but on the forehead by the bishop, so that the descent of the
Holy Spirit upon them may be signified in the first anointing to consecrate the
dwelling for God, and the sevenfold grace of the same Holy Spirit may be said to
come on them in the second with all fullness of sanctity and knowledge and
strength.220Rabanus in this passage was attempting to explain the relationship
between the rite of Baptism performed by a priest and that of Confirmation
performed
by
the
bishop.
In
this
attempt
although
inadequate
phraseology/language are sometimes used 221which is indeed not surprising for a
217.Amalarius of Metz, On the Offices of the Church, 4, 29.
218 .Ibid, 1, 27.
219 .Second Council of Chalons (813), canon 27.
220 . Rabanus Maurus, The Instruction of Clerics, 1, 29-30.
221 .See for example his attempt to explain the fact that the Holy Spirit is receive in
both Baptism and Confirmation, where he seems to connect the giving of the Holy
Spirit in Baptism to the baptismal anointing: Nor is it strange that the man should
be twice anointed with the same chrism for receiving the Holy Spirit, when the same
Holy Spirit was given to the Apostles themselves twice over that is, once upon
earth when after his resurrection the Lord breathed upon them, and once from
heaven, when, after the ascension of the Lord, he came upon the Apostles on the
day of Pentecost in fiery tongues, and granted them to speak in the tongues of all
nations. (ibid, 1, 30). Again: The fact that the unction of the chrism follows upon

man in his time, it is still clear from his writing that Baptism and Confirmation were
understood as two distinct Sacrament, that the effects of Confirmation is that of
strength, and that the rite of Confirmation consist of the imposition of the hand
and the anointing on the forehead by the bishop.
Walafrid Strabo (808-849), the Benedictine Abbot, who at one time studied
under Rabanus Maurus, in his theological work Book on the Origins and
Development of Certain Matters in Church Practice(De exordiis et incrementis
quarundam in observationibus ecclesiasticis rerum), written between 840 and 842
for Reginbert the Librarian, says Others have added to Baptism the unction of the
chrism, which no one doubts to have been taken from an ancient usage, since in the
earliest times Baptism was wont to be confirmed by the Imposition of Hands, which
it is said that Peter and John did in Samaria, which Confirmation both at that time
pertained to the office of the Chief Pastors of the Church, and without doubt does so
pertain at the present time. Wherefore in the Canons it is frequently forbidden to
priests to consecrate the chrism, or to sign the baptized on the forehead, which
belongs to Bishops alone.222 From the writing of Strabo and Rabanus it appears that
there were two anointing after the washing with water. One was part of the rite of
Baptism and could be performed by a priest and the other was part of the rite of
Confirmation and was performed by the bishop alone.
Jonas of Orleans (760-843), who succeeded Theodulf in the See of Orleans in the
year 818 A.D, is clear in asserting that the right to administer the Sacrament of
Confirmation belong to the Bishop alone and he cites as Scriptural proof the texts
from the Acts of the Apostles: the Acts of the Apostles teaches that it belongs to
the Bishop alone to convey the Holy Spirit to the faithful by the imposition of
hands.223
The sixth council of Paris held in the year 829 A.D., saw it fit that bishops should
administer the Sacrament of Confirmation fasting and thus decreed: It has come to
our ears, that in some provinces most of the bishops confer the Holy Spirit, by the
imposition of hands, after eating and drinking, which seems to all of us unsuitable to
so excellent a ministry; and that henceforth it ought not to be doneFor as
baptism, except in case of sickness, is not celebrated but by fasting priests, so also
the delivering of the Holy Ghost, except in the same case of sickness, is to be
celebrated by fasting pontiffs. Indeed, it is meet that the chief priest of Christ should
Baptism is because the Holy Spirit, who through that chrism sanctifies believers by
the infusion of His own power, descended upon Jesus immediately after His Baptism
in the form of a dove. That dove, which at the flood brought back to the ark a
branch of olive with green leaves, was showing a type of this, signifying surely that
the Holy Spirit confers the verdure of Heavenly grace upon the faithful through the
anointing of the chrism in Baptism. (ibid, 1, 28) The comment here is on the
baptismal anointing and not the confirmational anointing.
222 .Walafrid Strabo, Book on the Origins and Development of Certain Matters in
Church Practice, 26.
223 .Jonas of Orleans, De Institutione laicali (rules of Christian life for laymen), 1,
7.

first prepare, in their own hearts, a house for the Holy Ghost, by fasting and prayer;
and so, by the imposition of hands, deliver him to the rest of the faithful in praying.
Moreover, as baptism is delivered to the faithful at two seasons, to wit, Easter and
Pentecost, so let the delivering of the Holy Spirit, by imposition of hands, be; except
as has been said, in the case of the sick, and those in danger of death; to whom, as
the grace of baptism is to be supplied, so also, without delay, is the gift of the Holy
Ghost to be delivered.224This text shows that the council fathers clearly understood
that Baptism and Confirmation were two distinct Sacraments.
Hincmar (808-882 A.D), Archbishop of Reims, France, after highlighting several
ways in which the action of laying on of hands is used in the Church, adds: But
when it is used for Confirmation or Ordination it must be held to be for a Sacrament,
and not for prayer alone, which imposition the holy Fathers have forbidden to be
repeated.225 Here we find the teaching on the character of Confirmation. That it
cannot be repeated.
Herard, Archbishop of Turin, in a synod which he held in the year 858 A.D and in
which several laws were promulgated for the clergy, there is one relating to
confirmation which reads: Let those who are adults come fasting to Confirmation,
and let them be admonished to make their confessions first, so that they may come
in purity to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 226
Photius, who became Patriarch of Constantinople in the year 858 A.D wrote a
letter criticizing the Westerners in the following terms: Likewise, they persuaded
them that all who had been chrismated by priests had to be anointed again by
bishops. In this way, they hoped to show that Chrismation by priests had no value,
thereby ridiculing this divine and supernatural Christian Mystery. From whence
comes this law forbidding priests to anoint with Holy Chrism? From what lawgiver,
Apostle, Father, or Synod? For, if a priest cannot chrismate the newly-baptised, then
surely neither can he baptise. Or, how can a priest consecrate the Body and Blood
of Christ our Lord in the Divine Liturgy if, at the same time, he cannot chrismate
with Holy Chrism? If this grace then, is taken from the priests, the episcopal rank is
diminished, for the bishop stands at the head of the choir of priests. But the impious
Westerners did not stop their lawlessness even here. 227 We have already seen that
in the earliest times in both East and West the Bishop alone was considered as
ordinary minister of the rite of Confirmation or Chrismation but from the 4th Century
we began to find the bishops in certain regions in certain exceptional cases
delegating this role to simple priests. This, as we have explained earlier, in the
course of the years in some regions led to the idea of seeing the priest as the usual
minister of Confirmation. This appears to be the case with Photius. However, from
the passage above it can be seen that in the eyes of Photius Baptism, Chrismation,
and the Eucharist are three distinct rites that are of the supernatural order and are
not man made.
224 .Sixth Council of Paris (829), canon 33.
225 Hincmar of Rheims, De Capit Eccl ,16.
226 . Herard of Tours, Capitula. 75
227 .Photius, Letter 1, 13, 7.

Aelfric (955-1020 A.D), in his Homily for the Holy Day of Pentecost: They [the
Apostles] set their hands over believing men, and the Holy Ghost came to them
through their bishoping. Bishops are of the same order in Gods church, and hold
the institution in their bishoping, so that they set their hands over baptized men,
and pray the Almighty Ruler to send them the sevenfold gift of his Spirit, who liveth
and reigneth ever without end. Amen.228
St. Peter Damian (1007-1072) wrote: In Baptism, the Holy Spirit is given for
pardon, here (in Confirmation) for combat; there we are cleansed from our
iniquities, here we are fortified beforehand with virtues. Does not the consecrated
hand impress the unction of the sacred chrism upon the brow as the portal of our
earthly house? Nor is any one without distinction chosen as the officiant of so great
a mystery, but the Bishop alone.229
Lanfranc (1005-1089 A.D), Archbishop of Canterbury: every doctor who
converts unbelievers to the Faith, first of all lays the foundation in their minds by
telling them that they must repent of their sins, and believe in God, and be baptized
for the remission of sins, and be perfected by the laying on of the hands of the
Bishop for the purpose of receiving the gifts of the Holy Spirit. 230
Eadmer (1060-1126 A.D), in his account of the life of St. Anselm, Archbishop of
Canterbury, narrates:
The next morning Anselm left Wissant and after a few days came to Saint
Bertin, where he was received with great rejoicing by the monks, clergy
and people, who kept him there for five days. During this time, at the
request of the canons, he consecrated an altar at Saint Omer. When he had
done this, some of the notabilities among the inhabitants came to him,
beseeching him on bended knees, to confirm their children by the laying-on
of his hands, and by anointing them with the holy oil. To this he replied: I
shall gladly receive for this purpose those for whom you make your
request; and if there are any others in need of the sacrament, I shall not
turn them away if they come. They admired the goodness show in his
ready reply, and thanked him with exuberant rejoicing. Their children were
confirmed, and thereupon they filled the whole city with the words they had
heard from his lips. Then might you have seen men and women, great and
small, rushing from their houses and running eagerly to our lodgings to
receive this sacrament. For at that time many years had passed among
these people during which no bishop had been allowed to perform this
office among them. At last, on the sixth day, when he had already
confirmed a vast multitude, and the long journey which lay ahead of us that
day compelled us to hasten our departure from this place.231

228 .Aelfric, Homily for the Holy Day of Pentecost. Cf. Benjamin Thorpe, The
Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church, vol. I. P. 329.
229 .St. Peter Damian, Sermon 1. De Dedicatione Ecclesiae
230 .Lanfranc, Commentary on Heb 6. Cf. Cf. Augustus Theodore Wirgman, Doctrine
of Confirmation, p. 314-315.
231 .Eadmer, Life of Saint Anselm, I2, 15.

The event here described occurred from November 9 th 1097 A.D when St. Anselm
left Wissant to 16th November of the same year when he left St. Omer. It should be
noted that the bishopric of Therouanne, in which St. Omer was situated, had had a
troubled history of successive intrusion and depositions during the previous twenty
years. Hence the statement at that time many years had passed among these
people during which no bishop had been allowed to perform this office among
them. However, from the event one could observe the Catholic populace in these
area understood Confirmation to be a distinct Sacrament in its own right.
Theophylact, Archbishop of Achrida (modern Ohrid) in Bulgaria who died in the
year 1107, commenting on Acts 8:17 says that after the Baptism the Holy Ghost
comes upon those who are baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus, by the Laying on
of Hands with prayer. Wherefore this order is thus preserved unto the present
day.232
Hugh of St. Victor (1096-1140 A.D): Since in Baptism a full remission of sins
takes place, what does Confirmation confer? The Spirit is given in Baptism for
remission, but here [.i.e. in Confirmation] for strength, for through it we are armed
against our invisible foes. A man can be saved without this Sacrament if he does not
pass it by from contempt.233
Peter Lombard (1095-1160): This Sacrament cannot be accomplished by any
others except Bishops, nor from the time of the Apostles is it recorded to have been
administered by any others save the Apostles themselves, nor can or ought it to be
done by any others save by those who hold their place in succession from them (in
the Apostles). The virtue of this Sacrament is the gift of the Spirit for strength, which
in Baptism was given for remission.234
Many more passages from Christian authors and synods from the first twelve
centuries of the Church can be cited to the same effect. But those we have given
are enough to show that the early centuries of the Church were quite familiar with a
Confirmational rite distinct from Baptism, which conferred the Holy Spirit. We can
see from those same passages that the contrary opinion held by the reformers that
Confirmation was formally nothing but a sort of catechism in which adults confirm or
endorse the promises made for them when baptized as infants, finds no warrant in
the NT and is quite unknown in these early centuries. In short, the contrary opinion
held by the Reformers on this matter cannot be traced further back than the
sixteenth century. Also, unknown in these early centuries is the idea put forward by
some of the Reformers that the special rite for the bestowal of the Holy Spirit
performed by the Apostles and of which two cases were narrated by St. Luke in the
Acts of the Apostles was meant to cease after the death of the Apostles. Rather, the
testimonies from the early centuries show that the Church from the time of the
Apostles till the present day continued to perform that rite believing it was meant to
endure for all time. The question we then pose to men like Boettner and Brenner
who today reject the Catholic doctrine of Confirmation is: Where did the Church
learn her doctrine of Confirmation, if not from the Apostles themselves? And from
232 .Theophylact, Commentaries
233 .Hugh of St. Victor, De Sacramentis Christian Fidei
234 .Peter Lombard, Sentences 4.

whom did the Apostles receive this doctrine, if not from Our Lord Jesus Christ
Himself? Boettner had said in criticism, Roman theologians are uncertain as to the
time when this so-called sacrament was instituted. But the same can be said of
Baptism.235 But has he ever inferred from this like the rationalistic critics do that
Baptism was not instituted by Christ? The fact that the exact time of institution for
most of the Sacraments of the Church cannot be establish from the Scriptures does
not prove that they were not instituted by the God-man Himself Jesus Christ. As
pointed out earlier, only God, or the God-man Jesus Christ, can by virtue of His Own
authority, link up the communication of Divine grace with an outward rite. The
Apostles it should be recall regarded themselves merely as ministers of Christ, and
dispensers of the mysteries of God. (I Cor 4:1). Therefore, even if it so happens
that no explicit directive from Christ can be found in the NT for most of the
Sacraments, the very fact that the Apostles performed these outwards rites which
convey inward grace, presupposes their ordinance by Christ. Moreover, like we
again pointed out earlier not everything Christ did was recorded in the NT. The NT is
clear on this: But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they
were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the
books that should be written. (Jn 21:25). Now, from the NT we can atleast gather
that Christ promised to impart the Holy Spirit to His Apostles (Jn 14:16-17. 26; 16:78; Lk 24:49; Acts 1:5). It is also evident in the NT that Christ fulfilled that promise on
Pentecost day when the Holy Spirit descended on His followers congregating in the
upper room (Act 2:4). Now the question is how did He intend to convey this same
grace of Pentecost to his followers in every age (including us today)? He did
promised to impart this same grace to all the future faithful (Jn 7:38-39) hence He
must have given the Apostles instruction (atleast on certain specifics) on the way
and manner he wants them to convey this grace to others. Therefore, when we see
the Apostles in the NT using a rite distinct from Baptism which consists of the laying
on of hands and prayer to convey this grace (Acts 8:14-19; 19:6) it stands to reason
that Christ must have been the author of that rite. 236

235 . The exact time of the institution of Baptism cannot be established from Holy
Writ. Theologians are divided in their opinion. Some assign as the time of institution
the Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan (Petrus Lombardus, Sent IV 3, 5: St. Thomas, S.th.
III 66, 2: Cat. Rom. II 2, 20); others the conversation with Nicodemus (Peter Abelard;
cf. Bernard of Clairvaux; Ep. 77), others the promulgation of the mandate of Baptism
before the Ascension (Hugo of St. Victor, De sacr. II, 6, 4: Mag. Roland). The first two
views are based on the improbable assumption, that the baptism of the Disciples [Jn
3:22; 4:1] was Christian sacramental Baptism. Against the first opinion we may note
above all the silence of Holy Writ; against the second, the external circumstances, in
which the words of Jesus on the necessity of Baptism for salvation were spoken. The
probabilities are in favour of the occasion in Mt 28:19; still the mandate of Baptism
does not exclude an earlier institution. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic
Dogma, P. 351.

236 .Whether one considers the tradition of the promise of the grace of Pentecost
as a genuine statement from Christ or not the fact remains that since in this period
the promise of that grace is linked to an actual statement of the God-Man shows
that the Church already at that time understood that the rite used for conveying
such grace owes its origin to Him.