Confirmation/Chrismation before Baptism in the early Syrian Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thephilosopher6

Guest
Various historians of the early Church have seen that from the 3rd to mid to late 4th century it was customary for the Church in Syria to anoint a candidate with chrism and then immediately baptize. However, there doesn’t seem to be evidence of any kind of Confirmation/Chrismation taking place after baptism in Syria during this time in the literature we have, and this has led many scholars and historians of the early Church to equate the anointing before baptism with Confirmation. Indeed, Ephrem the Syrian seems to write on the order of the sacraments of initiation as Confirmation, Baptism, and then Eucharist,
“When the leper of old was cleansed, the priest used to seal him with oil, and lead him to a water spring. The type has passed and the truth is come. Lo, with chrism have ye been sealed, in baptism ye are perfected, in the flock ye are intermixed, from body ye are nourished.” - Fifteen Hymns for the Feast of Epiphany 3.17 (335 A.D.)
Click to expand...
Again, he indicates Confirmation before Baptism,
“Descend [into the waters of baptism] my sealed brethren, put on the Lord…” Fifteen Hymns for the Feast of Epiphany 4.1 (335 A.D.)
Click to expand...
The Apostolic Constitutions (375 A.D.) speaks more interestingly on this order,
“…but in the laying on of the hands the bishop shall anoint her head only as the priests and kings were formerly anointed, a royal priesthood, and a holy nation… Thou therefore, O bishop, according to that type, shalt anoint the head of those that are to be baptized, whether men or women, with holy oil, for a type of spiritual baptism… The water instead of the burial, and the oil instead of the Holy Spirit; the seal instead of the cross. The chrism is the confirmation of the confession.” - Constitution of the Holy Apostles, Book III (375 A.D.)
Click to expand...
The chrism for the Confirmation indicated here was given after Baptism.

So here, Confirmation now has been placed after Baptism, however, the sealing of the Holy Spirit is still thought of as being before the Baptism with the anointing of the oil.

Apostolic Constitutions (at least this particular passage) is thought to have been written around the time when the Syrian rites and order of the sacraments were beginning to come into greater conformity with the rest of the Church (particularly the Church in Jerusalem); and this passage in Apostolic Constitutions seems to indicate a middle/transitioning phase when Confirmation was now after Baptism, but the anointing with oil before Baptism was still seen as the “true Confirmation” in terms of its actual effects.

What is to be made of this? Did the Church in Syria just get it wrong for a century and half?
 
Last edited:
Well yes, but the quotes and further evidence suggest this anointing was equated with confirmation. The effects of confirmation were thought of as being given through it.
 
It seems like it was a legitimate practice to me.

I wouldn’t think too much of it.
 
How can the sealing of the gifts of the Spirit be before baptism?
 
Because the Spirit of the Law is still upheld, in this case.

It’s simply happening just before Baptism rather than right after it.

The Spirit blows where it wills, he is not bound to follow a strict order. We are bound, but He is not.

The person is being Consecrated in the Spirit a moment before being Baptized into the Spirit.

It’s wrong to try to retroject Roman theological concepts of the 21st century onto early 1st millenium Syriac Christians.
 
Last edited:
Who has the authority to administer the sacraments before baptism? The Church is the Church, indeed, having it’s authority from Christ, but the practice mentioned above was restricted to the Church in Syria, and baptism as the sacrament that makes us Christians is a dogma of the Church. One can be saved without baptism by desire, but this applies after death, and nobody would think to give any of the sacraments to an unbaptized person, even if he desires baptism. It would seem that we would need revelation from God in order to do these things.
 
Last edited:
But in the early centuries you are speaking of almost none of this was solidified yet - study the development of the early Church and you will see a plethora of variant practices which took centuries to be brought into conformity with the Church Catholic.
 
Can you post some excerpts suggesting that the pre-baptismal chrism was viewed as confirmation or the equivalent of confirmation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top