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 received the power to perform that rite which confers the Holy Spirit from the
God-Man 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: (α) ‘perceptible to the senses’—the
outward sign (β) the conferring of sanctifying grace (γ) 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

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.
4
.The Roman Catechism, II, I, 8.
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 Peter’s visit. This miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit was evidenced by Cornelius’s
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 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 Paul’s 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 God’s stamp of approval to the preaching of
the gospel to different ethnic groups and geographical areas according to the pattern Jesus
revealed before he ascended— ‘You 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

5
.(α) its performance was by a procedure perceptible to the senses, consisting in laying on of hands and prayer (β)
the effect of this outward rite was the communication of the Holy Spirit, i.e., the Principle of inner sanctification (γ)
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).
6
.John M. Brenner, A Brief Study of Confirmation: Historical Development, Theological Considerations, and
Practical Implication, P.17-18.
 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 God’s 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
Calvin is not denying that the rite of laying on of hands described in Acts 8:16-17 is a Sacrament. He
agrees with us that it’s 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 Apostle’s 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
Luciferians”8
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

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.
8
.Ibid,
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 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

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 Luther’s Works. Pp. 218-
219.
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 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 man’s heart.’ Confirmation would thus include three Sacraments—
the 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 God’s 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 Luther’s lead and thus classify Confirmation in the following terms:
“Confirmation and Extreme Unction are rites received from the Fathers which not even the Church
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

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), 24-25.
14
.Ibid,
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.
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 can 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? Is it not strange that St. Luke writing on a later date still felt the need to
mention that rite on those separate occasion?
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 rite consisting of the laying on

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 “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. Paul’s 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 times…All this I put before you, not
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 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

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.
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 Church’s 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.
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 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 had
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 work…Neither 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 subject—the pilgrim
People of God—and 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, who—through men and their humanity—is at
the deepest level the one speaking.”19

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
 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 Church’s 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 re-baptize 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 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 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.
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.
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 Peter’s 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 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

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
.It’s 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.”
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
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 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 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

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 (εποτίσθημεν) 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.—Paul’s 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
baptism—In 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 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.
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 (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 corpus—that 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

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.
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. Paul’s 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 of Christian initiation (cf. Acts 8:16-17; also see St.
Paul’s 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

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.
31
.Tertullian, On Baptism, 7-8.
32
.Ibid, 6.
33
.Tertullian, The Resurrection of the Dead, 8, 2-3.
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.
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 repeated…Happy 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 Tertullian’s 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 pouring—if, 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 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

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.
38
.St. Cornelius of Rome, Letter to Fabius of Antioch, fragment in Eusebius’ History of the Church, 6, 43, 14-15.
 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 Spirit’s 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 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. Peter’s 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

39
.St. Hippolytus, Commentary on Daniel, 6, 18.
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.
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
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

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.
 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
The above text shows that the Syrian tradition knows of an imposition of the bishop’s 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
afterwards—whether thou thyself baptize, or thou command the deacons or presbyters to
baptize—let 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
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 name…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 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

44
.Didascalia, II, 32.
45
.Didascalia, III, 12.
46
.The author’s purpose in the entire passage was to present a case for the usefulness of a deaconess in the
service of the Church.
47
.Acts of Thomas, 27.
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 modesty’s 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 both—he 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 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

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.
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 Chrism…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.”(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).
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 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
washing55and 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 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

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.
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 afterwards—whether
thou thyself baptize, or thou command the deacons or presbyters to baptize—let 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 baptism’—this 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.
54
.See comments in 52 above. Also see text from Theodore and the Apostolic Constitution below.
55
.Some have suggested that Acts 10:44-48—where the gift of the Holy Spirit precedes and leads to Baptism—is 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.
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 ‘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

56
.Didascalia, II, 33.
57
.Origen, Commentaries on Romans, 5, 8, 3.
 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, 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.

58
.Ibid, Homilies on Leviticus, 8, 11, 11-15.
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.
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 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 man…Thus 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 re-conferring 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 hands…for the receiving of the Holy Spirit,” but rather, “let nothing be renewed
except…that 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 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

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

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. Cyprian’s Letters, 75 [74],8
68
.Ibid,75 [74], 12.
69
.Ibid, 75 [74], 18.
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 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

70
.Acts of the Council of Carthage, September 256.
71
.Ibid.
72
.Ibid. This argument is meant to be a rebuttal of St. Stephen’s position which they understood as implying that
heretics can baptize but cannot confer the Holy Spirit through the imposition of hands.
73
.Psuedo-Cyprian, On Re-Baptism, 1.
74
.Ibid, 3.
75
.Ibid, 4.
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 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 things—into Him who descended on Jesus—into 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 initiated…After 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 2nd 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 - 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;

76
.Ibid, 10.
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. Stephen’s 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.
79
.Gospel of Philip, 74-75.
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:
“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 Vazan’s head, then on
the heads of women, saying: ‘In thy name, Jesus Chtist, let it be to these souls for remission

80
.Ibid, 25.
81
.Ibid, 95.
82
.Ibid, 67d.
83
.Ibid, 68.
84
.Acts of Thomas, 121.
 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 blessed…And breaking [the bread of] the Eucharist he gave to Vazan and Tertia and
Mnesara and Siphor’s 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 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 Demiurge…But 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
opinions”86
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

85
.Ibid, 157-158. See the Baptism of Siphor in 131-133 as well.
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.
 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;
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 Church’s 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 confirmation—terms 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

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
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 water90 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 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 faces…And 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 St. 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

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.
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.
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 water—no, 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 Tertullian’s treatises in which he reflected on the rite of Confirmation had not been preserved?
Would not these men have made the same argument from Tertullian’s silence in the treatise on the
crown that he knew nothing of the gift of 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

94
.Tertullian, The Crown, 3, 2-3.
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. It is such argument from silence from certain texts of Syraic
origin (the Didacalia Apostolorium, first decades of the 3rd century; the Acts of Thomas, mid 3rd century; the History
of John the Son of Zebedee, second half of the 4 th century; Homilies of Nasai, 5th Century; Life of Rabbula, 5th
century) that has led to the general perception among scholars that the initiation rite of the Oriental Churches did
not originally have either an anointing or an imposition of hand after the washing with water. But when these
same scholars are confronted with other documents which originated from these same part of the world and
which attest to the existence of such post baptismal rites (the Catecheses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, the canons of
the council of Laodicea, the Catecheses of Theodore of Mopsuestia, The Apostolic Constitution, The Ecclesiastical
Hierarchy of Dionysius the Areopagite) they attempt to explain them away or undermine the value of their
testimony in this matter by suggesting they do not reflect the actual practices of their regions. But such attempts
apart from being one-sided are usually filled with speculations most of which are not convincing.
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 heretical 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 down from the
very beginning—so 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 meat—for 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. Cyprian’s 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. Paul’s 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

96
.St. Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition
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.
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 baptism…Hence it can
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 Church’s 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 Church’s 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 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.

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, 6.4-7.1). 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.
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 some—that 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 well-known 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).
 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 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.
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

102
.Council of Elvira, canon 38.
103
.Ibid, canon 77.
104
.Council of Arles, canon 8.
105
.Eusebius of Caesarea, Proof of the Gospel, 1, 10.
 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.
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 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

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.
111
.St. Aphraates the Persian Sage, Treatise, 23, 3.
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 post-baptismal 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 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

112
. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 16, 26.
113
.Ibid, 18, 33.
114
.Ibid, 21 [Mystagogic 3], 1.
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 life-giving 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 High-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

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.
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.
 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 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 8:18-19: “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

122
.St. Athanasius, Letters to Serapion, 1,6.
123
.Psuedo-Athanasius, De Trinitate et De Spiritu Sancto, 21; PG 26: 1217.
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.
128
.St. Epiphanius of Salamis, Panacea against All Heresies, 21, 1, 4.
laying on of hands for the bestowal of the Holy Spirit 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
believest…thou 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 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

129
.St. Pacian of Barcelona, Sermon on Baptism, 7.
130
.Ibid, Epistle 1, 11.
131
.Ibid, 1, 13.
132
.Ibid, 1, 14.
133
.Didymus the Blind, On the Trinity, 2, 14. (PG 39, 712).
134
.Ibid, 2, 15. (PG 39, 720-22).
 In St. Jerome’s Dialogue between a Luciferian135 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 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

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.
 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
Master’s 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 Chrysostom’s 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 post-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 ones—all 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

138
.St. John Chrysostom, Baptismal Catecheses, 2, 25-27.
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-and-so),’ but ‘So-and-so is
baptised’—in the same way as he had previously said ‘So-and-so is signed’ and not ‘I sign So-
and-so’—in 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
benefits…After 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 altogether clear to all men that even without earth it was possible for Him to make man.
Well, then, do not be over inquisitive. 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 post-baptismal 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 means incompatible.141 That it

139
.Theodore of Mopsuestia, Catechetical Homilies, 14.
140
. St. John Chrysostom, Homily 25 on the Gospel of St. John.
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
was no less different in Chrysostom’s 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 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

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? In the pre-Nicene era there were Christian writers who used what we may
today term inadequate expressions when trying to express these truths but this in no way imply that they were
confused or they were heretics. 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.
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
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 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. Matthew’s 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

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.
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).
own part leaves this question open and anyone reading Luke’s description of that event without any
foreknowledge of the accounts of the other Synoptic authors can take his words as implying that the
baptizing of Christ by St. John the Baptist and the anointing of Christ by the Father occurred in the
water. St. Luke’s 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, heaven…’—there 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 Luke’s 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 since this is where the Church from the very beginning had greatly utilized the
Gospel texts. Thus, it is no coincidence that the initiation ceremony of the Roman church—and the
Churches related to her—are shaped after the account of Christ’s 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 church—and 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

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 2nd 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.
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 you”148 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 mysteries…And 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 baptism…After this he comes to the water…And 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. 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

148
.See above.
149
.Apostolic Constitution, 7, 40-45, 1.
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
 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 353-355 A.D., says: “Moreover, the plan of the heavenly mystery is portrayed in him. After he was

(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; 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. Again, when the compiler of the Apostolic Constitution attached
the following significance to the pre-baptismal anointing ‘the anointing with oil may be a participation of the Holy
Spirit’ he appears to be connecting the giving of the Holy Spirit in Baptism to the baptismal anointing. This does not
necessary imply that he could not have understood the confirmational anointing/imposition of hands as the work
of Spirit.
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
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 Father’s 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 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 Father’s 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 Father—God by God—as the Son asked and the Spirit
announced that it had been promised—this 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 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: ‘N…is 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 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

153
.Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 2, 6.
154
.St. Optatus of Mileve, 4, 7.
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
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 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
Baptism’s dewy fountain,
The sacramental laver
And holy oil’s 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 Emperor’s
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 return”160

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).
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
Gregory’s day.
 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 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 28th 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”164Bishop 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 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

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.
165
.St. Augustine of Hippo, Against the letters of Petilian the Donatist, 2, 104, 239.
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 read…Attend, 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:
“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

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.
 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 19th 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
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 Law’s 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 Spirit:
“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

171
.Ibid, On the Trinity, 15, 26 (46).
172
.St. Innocent I, Letters, 25, 3, 6.
173
.St. Isidore of Pelusium, Book I, Letters , 450.
174
.St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 32[331-332].
175
.Theodoret of Cyrus, Interpretation of the Canticle of Canticles, 1 .PG 81, 60.
176
.St. Peter Chrysologus, Sermon 126, 7.
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
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 admitted to the mysteries of the Eucharist.”182Elsewhere, he expressly says
that “the baptized person receives the Holy Spirit through the imposition of the [bishop’s] 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

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.
182
.Gennadius of Marseilles, On Church Doctrine, 21.
183
.Ibid, 40. Cf. A.G. Martimort, The Sacraments, p. 57.
 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 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,

184
.St. Faustus of Riez, Homily 29, on Pentecost, 1-2.
185
.St. Patrick, Letter to the Soldiers of Coroticus, 1, 2-3.
186
.Psuedo-Dionysius, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, 2, 2,7.
187
.Ibid, 4,1
188
.Ibid, 4, 3, 8.
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 immersion…He is next arrayed in white
vesture, and his head anointed with the auction of 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, thirty-four priests,

189
.Ibid, 4, 3, 9.
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.
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
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 alone…It 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 bishop’s 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. This 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 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

195
.Council of Auxerre (578 A.D), canon 6.
196
.Council of Barcelona (599), canon 2.
197
.St. Braulion of Saragossa, Letter 36.
198
.St. Eulogius of Alexandria, In Photius. Excerpt 2. Cf. Augustus Theodore Wirgman, Doctrine of Confirmation, p.
196.
 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
sins…The 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.
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

199
.St. Isidore of Seville, The Etymologies, 6, 19, 50-52.54.
200
.Ibid, On the Church’s Institution, 2, 27, 1.
201
.St. Hildephonsus of Toledo, On the Awareness of Baptism, 123.136.129.127.132
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.
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 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 29 th of
October in the year 739 stated that in the course of Boniface’s 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 Lord’s Prayer and the Creed. And it ought to be told to them, that the whole foundation of the

207
.St. Bede, life of St. Cuthbert, 29.
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.
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 of the bishop for confirmation, unless he holds in his memory the
Creed and the Lord’s 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 commenting on St. John the baptist’s 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

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.
217
.Amalarius of Metz, On the Offices of the Church, 4, 29.
218
.Ibid, 1, 27.
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 used221which is indeed not surprising for a 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.

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 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.
 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 done…For
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 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

223
.Jonas of Orleans, De Institutione laicali (rules of Christian life for laymen), 1, 7.
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.
Baptism, Chrismation, and the Eucharist are three distinct rites that are of the supernatural order and
are not man made.
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 God’s 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
The event here described occurred from November 9th 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

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.
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 fact, 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 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

232
.Theophylact, Commentaries . Cf. Augustus Theodore Wirgman, Doctrine of Confirmation, p.
233
.Hugh of St. Victor, De Sacramentis Christianæ Fidei
234
.Peter Lombard, Sentences 4.
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.
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 at least
gather that Christ promised to impart the Holy Spirit to His Apostles (Jn 14:16-17. 26; 16:7-8; 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 promise to impart this same grace to all the future faithful (Jn 7:38-39) hence He must have given
the Apostles instruction (at least 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

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.