On Baptism #
What is the sacrament of Holy Baptism? #
The sacrament of Holy Baptism is both a tomb and a mother. It is a tomb because it puts to death the sin that has brought death to the entire human race due to the transgression of God’s commandment by its first forefather, Adam. It is a mother because it gives birth again to those who receive it as sons of God, so that by fulfilling God’s righteousness, they may receive eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, the Orthodox Creed professes “one baptism for the remission of sins” and truly anticipates the life of the age to come.
How is Holy Baptism performed? #
Holy Baptism is performed according to the rite that the Holy Church has maintained to this day, in accordance with the commandment that Christ gave to His disciples, saying: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). According to the 50th Apostolic Canon, baptism must be performed with three immersions, and apart from the Trinitarian invocation and the three immersions, Holy Baptism cannot be validly performed.
Can Holy Baptism be repeated? #
The Orthodox Creed professes “one baptism for the remission of sins” based on the teaching of the holy apostle Paul, who says: “It is impossible for those who were once enlightened (that is, baptized), and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit… and have fallen away, to renew them again to repentance (that is, to baptize them again), since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God and put Him to an open shame” (Hebrews 6:4-6). Therefore, St. John of Damascus says: “Those who were baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who learned the one nature in three hypostases, if they repeat baptism, they crucify Christ a second time” (Book 4, ch. 9).
Is it possible for a layperson to perform Holy Baptism? #
Christ, in addressing only His chosen disciples for apostleship, said: “As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:21-23). This statement, as the holy martyr Cyprian writes, shows that only those who have the Holy Spirit can baptize and grant the forgiveness of sins (Letter to Magnus on the baptism of Novatians). This means only a bishop or presbyter, not a layperson. This is also evident from the 49th and 50th canons of the holy apostles, which condemn incorrect forms of baptism, but only in bishops and presbyters, not laypeople.
St. Basil the Great, in his first canon concerning pure heretics, says: “The Cathars belong to the number of schismatics. However, the ancients—by which I mean Cyprian and our Firmilian—decided to treat all of them, including the Cathars, Encratites, and Hydroparastates, under one determination: because although their separation began as a schism, those who separated from the Church no longer had the grace of the Holy Spirit, as the transmission of that grace ceased with the break in succession. And although those who initially separated had received ordination from the fathers and received spiritual gifts through the laying on of hands, those who broke away, becoming laypeople, had no right to baptize or ordain, and were unable to pass on to others the grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves had fallen. Therefore, those baptized by them, as baptized by laypeople, when they come to the Church, must be cleansed by true baptism, the baptism of the Church.” Having said this, Basil, following the judgment of Cyprian and Firmilian, makes his own conclusion: “But since some in Asia, for the sake of managing many, have firmly decided to accept their baptism, let it be accepted” (rules of full translations: Nikon of Black Mountain, word 63, and Matthew the Canonist, chapter 2).
Matthew the Canonist, in Collection of Canons (Соборник), says: “This statement, that is, the judgment of Cyprian and Firmilian, which the Great Basil recalls with commendation, was laid down for the sake of order, though spoken against leniency.” But this means that Basil considered Cyprian and Firmilian’s judgment just, recognizing that laypeople cannot baptize or ordain. However, he found insufficient grounds to consider the clergy among these heretics as mere laypeople, and therefore accepted their baptisms as valid, and their ordained clergy as legitimate in the same canon. And with this, he left Cyprian and Firmilian’s judgment on rebaptizing these heretics as unnecessary, that is, not obligatory to follow.
John, Metropolitan of Nicaea, also rejected the Armenian baptism based on the commendation of Cyprian and Firmilian, that laypeople cannot baptize. He wrote to Zachariah of Greater Armenia: “For the Armenians do not even have ordination but are strangers to all ordination, which is evident from this: St. Gregory the Armenian and the blessed Leontius, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, who ordained St. Gregory as bishop, made a covenant among them, decreeing that the Armenian bishop should receive ordination from the Church and from the Archbishop of Caesarea, from whom St. Gregory first received the priesthood, as it is carefully stated in the book of Domna and the martyrdom of St. Gregory: ‘These Armenians, falling into heresy in droves, and estranging themselves from the Catholic Church, and not accepting ordination from the Church of Caesarea, how could they not be entirely unordained and without ordination?’ And (John concludes), ’those baptized by them are no more baptized than pagans’” (Kormchaya, chapter 80, and Nikon of Black Mountain, word 63).
Although the Armenians violated the rule of not turning to the Church of Caesarea for ordination, they nevertheless continued the apostolic succession of Christ-given priesthood among themselves. Therefore, John of Nicaea was mistaken in considering them as entirely unordained and without any priesthood for violating the rule regarding the ordination of their bishops from the Church of Caesarea. But what he said—that those without ordination cannot baptize—was very correct. For without a priest, writes St. Chrysostom, “neither can you have the font (of baptism), nor can you partake of the mysteries, nor receive a blessing, and therefore you are not a Christian” (Homily 2 on 2 Timothy). And again: “For unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, and unless he eats the body of the Lord and drinks His blood, he is cast out of eternal life. All these things can only be completed by holy hands, which I mean, priestly hands” (On the Priesthood, ch. 3).
What is the significance of the 203rd rule of the Nomocanon, which states: “However, those baptized by a reader, or by a simple monk, or a deacon, or by the father himself, or by some Orthodox Christian, due to the absence of a priest, are not to be rebaptized”? It also references the rule of Nikiphor, the Patriarch of Constantinople. #
You have mentioned a statement that appears to be an exception rather than the actual definition of the 203rd rule of the Nomocanon, which only appeared in printed editions of the Nomocanon from Kiev in the 1630s. However, this exception is not found in the ancient manuscript versions of the Nomocanon. In these older texts, the rule is written as follows: “Likewise, those who were baptized by non-clerics, that is, by laypeople, are to be rebaptized, according to the third chapter of the Matthew the Canonist.” No other exceptions are mentioned, except if the previous baptism was performed by heretics. This concludes the rule in its entirety.
To more accurately understand the content of this rule, we must examine it along with the four preceding rules and one following rule. The preceding rules specify how a person should be properly baptized and then outline three cases in which baptism may be repeated. The first case is when a person is unsure whether they have been baptized. The second is when children of non-believers were baptized not out of faith, but merely to avoid death; such individuals must be baptized again if they later truly believe. The third case is when someone is baptized by a layperson pretending to be a priest. Apart from these cases, those who are already in Orthodoxy are not to be rebaptized. However, regarding those coming from heresies, the Nomocanon refers to the second chapter of the Matthew the Canonist, which briefly states at the end of its rules: “All those who were baptized with a single immersion by non-Orthodox, and who are approaching the Orthodox Church, are to be rebaptized according to the divine rules.”
The 203rd rule of the Nomocanon, in its command to rebaptize those baptized by laypeople, refers to the third chapter of Matthew the Canonist, which states: “It has also been investigated… whether those baptized by a non-cleric, who pretended to be a priest, should be accepted as valid… and the council decided that they should be rebaptized, because, as it says, according to the sacred canons of the holy apostles 46 and 47, the performance of Holy Baptism is entrusted to bishops and priests alone. This is also confirmed by the 26th and 46th rules of the Council of Laodicea, which forbids anyone not appointed by a bishop from catechizing catechumens, and mandates that only bishops or presbyters should instruct those being illuminated in the faith.”
Furthermore, the Sixth Ecumenical Council’s 86th (or in some translations 84th or 85th) canon, as well as the 72nd canon (or in some translations 83rd) of the Council of Carthage, also mandate the immediate rebaptism of those who are in doubt about the validity of their previous baptism. It is neither proper nor error-free, nor without scandal, for someone baptized by one not granted the authority to baptize and grant the forgiveness of sins through baptism to be considered as part of the divine assembly. This doubt may lead to the serious consequence that such a person could be deprived of the purification of Holy Baptism, and we might inadvertently partake of the sacraments alongside someone who is unbaptized.
Therefore, neither the 203rd rule of the Nomocanon nor the chapter of Matthew the Canonist referenced by it shows any rules permitting laypeople to baptize. Rather, they offer only criticism of such practices. The Kiev publishers of the Nomocanon understood this, but given their circumstances, as described in the Book on Faith, where it is mentioned that many young children were left unbaptized due to the absence of Orthodox priests (chapter 23, “On the Uniates”), and seeing the decree of Nikiphor of Constantinople that, in cases of necessity, a layperson could perform baptism, they decided to relax the 203rd rule of the Nomocanon by including this exception, to ensure that many in their land would not remain entirely without baptism due to the absence of Orthodox priests.
Thus, this exception, added due to circumstances, should not be taken as a replacement for the rule itself. The rule remains that it is improper and erroneous for someone baptized by one not authorized to baptize to be considered fully baptized. As for the reference to the decree of Nikiphor, Patriarch of Constantinople, even the actual existence of this decree was disputed by the reviewers of the Great Catechism authorized by Patriarch Philaret, as seen in the preface to ancient manuscripts of the catechisms. But even if we accept its existence, it should be regarded not as a rule but rather as a circumstantial concession from the divine rules, as evidenced by the following question and answer from the same Nomocanon: “Question: What should be done if non-clerics—men or women, or monks—baptize? Answer: If the baptized person dies before a priest can be reached, the divine grace completes what is lacking; but if the person survives, the priest should place them again in the font, and perform the prayers and anointing with chrism according to custom. The same is said by Nikiphor of Constantinople” (in the Great Trebnik, leaf 723).
This Nikiphor is the same Patriarch of Constantinople, and if he ordered the priest to place those baptized by laypeople in the font and perform the prayers and anointing with chrism according to custom, it is clear that he did not recognize lay baptism as complete or permissible according to divine rules. What is performed according to the rules cannot be considered incomplete. But by allowing laypeople to baptize, or more accurately to immerse, only when death threatens the one desiring baptism in the absence of an Orthodox priest, he recognized that baptism in water alone, without the Spirit—which no layperson can impart—might, at the very least, serve as a sign to all that the person desired to receive the holy sacrament of baptism, whereas mere desire, though it might compensate for this deficiency, could remain unknown to many.
How should we understand the statement in the Nomocanon: “For our Lord Jesus Christ commanded many apostles who did not have the priesthood to baptize”? #
To accurately understand this statement from the Nomocanon, it is first necessary to clarify: when were the apostles without the priesthood? And how did they baptize at that time? According to the teaching of the Great Catechism, Christ made His apostles priests at the Last Supper (ch. 72), indicating that they were without the priesthood before the Last Supper. Yet, even before the Last Supper, they baptized, as the Evangelist says: “When Jesus knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples), He left Judea and departed again to Galilee” (John 4:1-3). If the apostles were baptizing at that time, they must have done so by the command of the Lord. Otherwise, the Pharisees would not have attributed this action to Christ, and it would have been better for Christ to forbid the apostles’ unauthorized actions rather than withdraw to Galilee.
However, the Evangelists do not detail how Christ commanded the apostles to baptize or the exact manner in which they baptized. From Christ’s words to His disciples at the Ascension: “For John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:5), it is evident that even the apostles had not yet been baptized with the Holy Spirit before the descent of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it is clear that they could not have baptized others with the Holy Spirit at that time but baptized only with water, as John did. But now we must have a more perfect baptism, based on Christ’s further declaration: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Thus, the example of the apostles’ baptism before they received the priesthood is insufficient for us today, and the Holy Church does not derive any rule from it that would allow laypeople to fully perform the sacrament of Holy Baptism.
In the Nomocanon, this reference is not made to suggest that laypeople have the right to baptize, but rather as a basis for allowing an elder, deacon, or reader to bless the festive meal by the priest’s command.
If someone disagrees with this explanation and considers the statement from the Nomocanon as a rule granting laypeople the right to fully perform Holy Baptism even today, let them consider that the Holy Church is called holy precisely because it cannot contradict itself, as the holy apostle Paul testifies to the Corinthians, saying: “But as God is faithful, our word to you was not Yes and No” (2 Corinthians 1:18). Therefore, it cannot be claimed that laypeople both can and cannot perform Holy Baptism. The sanctity of the Church requires us to recognize either one or the other: either they can, or they cannot.
Since the Gospel commandment to baptize all nations was given exclusively to the apostles, and therefore applies only to their successors, it is more just to conclude that laypeople do not have the right to perform baptism. Only in extreme cases, as an exception to the general rule, are they permitted to immerse those desiring to receive Holy Baptism. However, even in such cases, this action is not considered a fully completed baptism, but still requires completion by an Orthodox priest. If, despite the Church’s teaching on this matter, someone insists that a layperson can fully and perfectly baptize, it would clearly indicate that such a person lacks full faith in the proper performance of the sacrament of Holy Baptism, and thus would be deficient in the grace of baptism, not only due to the insufficient performance of the layperson but also due to their own insufficient faith in the sacrament’s completion.
Is baptism complete if received without faith, or with a deficiency in Orthodox faith? #
It is not fully complete, for, according to the testimony of Matthew the Canonist and Theodore Valsamon, it was customary among the Hagarenes not to circumcise their infants before forcing Christian priests under their control to baptize them. However, under Patriarch Luke, it was determined by council that such individuals, upon coming to the true faith, should be rebaptized due to the single reason that they were previously baptized not with a pious mind but as a kind of charm or spell, to prevent sickness or foul bodily odor in those being baptized (Matthew the Canonist, Compendium of Rules, ch. 3; and Theodore Valsamon’s commentary on the 84th canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council).
Cyril of Jerusalem says to those preparing for baptism: “Be careful not to approach the baptizers like Simon the Sorcerer, with hypocrisy, while your heart does not seek the truth… for the Holy Spirit examines the soul and does not cast pearls before swine. If you are hypocritical, people may baptize you, but the Spirit will not. But if you have come in faith, people serve visibly, but the Holy Spirit grants the invisible” (17th Catechetical Lecture).
St. Nilus of Sinai writes: “He who hypocritically approaches the Church of God and is baptized only with water, but not also with the Holy Spirit, is commonly called Simon Magus” (St. Nilus of Sinai, part 3, p. 125).
Blessed Theodoret says that those who do not have true and holy faith, and thus approach baptism, are not accepted by God. Such was Simon, who, although baptized, was not deemed worthy of grace because he did not possess the perfection of faith (Commentary on the 5th chapter of the Song of Songs).
St. Mark the Ascetic states: “Through baptism, the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit are granted according to the measure of faith. To the extent that one departs from faith, they are immediately held by sin. The Holy Spirit is given after baptism to those who firmly believe, but is not given to the unfaithful and heretical, even after baptism” (Discourse 4, On Baptism). Similarly, the holy fathers speak of those with corrupted faith:
John Chrysostom: “We are taught not to investigate, but to believe: by believing we are enlightened, and not by investigating — we are baptized. Do not let yourself be deceived by the assemblies of heretics: they have baptism, but not enlightenment; they are baptized in body, but not enlightened in soul. Thus, Simon was baptized, but not enlightened: they are in the same state” (Homily on the words: “In the beginning was the Word,” Homilies on Various Passages of Scripture, vol. 2, p. 185).
Gregory the Theologian, in disputing with the Arians about baptism, says: “I do not want to leave the font imperfect when I entered it to be made perfect. I do not want to die in the water like an abortion, dying in the very pangs of birth. I do not want, I say, when I was baptized to live, to end up dying. But how in the same matter do you make me blessed and wretched, newly enlightened and not enlightened, so that I even drown the very hope of rebirth?” (Oration against the Arians and on Himself). Similarly, against the Macedonians, he says: “What deceit of grace, or rather of those who bestow grace, is this: to believe in God, but depart from piety, to confess one thing and be taught another? What are these cunning words and deceptions, that through confession and inquiry lead to perdition? Woe is me for this light if I am darkened after the font, if I see the more enlightened as not cleansed, if I seek the best spirit and do not find it” (Oration to the Bishops Who Came from Egypt).
Basil the Great in his first canon says that the Cathars, Encratites, and Hydroparastates began their departure through schism, but those who departed from the Church no longer had the grace of the Holy Spirit… and could not pass on the grace of the Holy Spirit to others, having themselves fallen from it (rules of full translations). In Aristin’s commentary on the first canon of Basil the Great, it is written: “The Novatians, called the Pure, standing by the water and refraining from it, although their baptism is not accepted, since the Holy Spirit leaves them, yet for the sake of economy, it is allowed” (Slavonic Kormchaya).
Blessed Augustine speaks of the schismatic Luciferians: “Let us not heed those who, although they do not rebaptize anyone, prefer to separate themselves from unity and would rather be called Luciferians than Catholics. They do not err in this one thing, that they do not rebaptize the properly baptized… but they themselves have a truncated form of baptism, like a branch cut off… they are those of whom the apostle speaks: ‘Having a form of godliness but denying its power’ (2 Timothy 3:5). For great is the power of love, peace, and unity, for God is love. But these do not have it because they have separated from unity. Therefore, those coming from them to the Catholic Church do not repeat the form of godliness that they have, but receive the power of love, which they lacked” (The Work of a Christian, ch. 30).
The 46th Apostolic Canon commands that a bishop or presbyter who accepts baptism or sacrifice from heretics should be deposed, while the canons of the Ecumenical Councils—1st Ecumenical Council’s 8th Canon, 2nd Ecumenical Council’s 7th Canon, 6th Ecumenical Council’s 95th Canon, and the Canons of the Councils of Laodicea (7th Canon) and Carthage (47th and 57th or 57th and 68th Canons)—command the acceptance of baptism from many heretics. How should we understand this? #
The canons you mentioned do not contradict each other, as they address different types of heretics. Some heretics distorted the faith in God Himself, who is known and glorified in three persons, while others erred in denying or altering some of His divine commandments, and others divided the unity of the Church out of pride and a desire for authority. This distinction among heretics is noted in the first canon of Basil the Great, in the word of Timothy the Presbyter, and in the 15th word of the Enlightener. Therefore, only the baptism of heretics of the first type is rejected, to which the 46th Apostolic Canon specifically applies. The baptism of heretics of the second and third types is accepted without repetition, which is what the mentioned canons of the councils refer to, and the 46th Apostolic Canon does not pertain to them.
Indeed, there was considerable confusion in the early Church regarding this matter. Some, misunderstanding the intent of the 46th Apostolic Canon, attempted to rebaptize all three types of heretics. However, many did not agree with this. For instance, the holy martyr Cyprian of Carthage and Firmilian of Caesarea had decided by council to rebaptize every heretic and schismatic. But Pope Stephen of Rome and other bishops opposed them, and finally, at local and ecumenical councils, it was determined that those heretics who had been baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity and by triple immersion should not be rebaptized upon their conversion to Orthodoxy, but only ordained or anointed with chrism to receive the Holy Spirit (Matthew the Canonist, Compendium of Rules, ch. 2, 7th Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, and Baronius, The Year of the Lord 314, no. 7). Blessed Augustine reasoned thus: whoever separates from the Church loses the benefits of union with it and is deprived of grace; likewise, those who are born and raised outside the Church’s unity, though they may be sealed with the sacraments, do not receive from them the grace and sanctification. But if either of these returns to the Church, the unrepeatable sacraments should not be repeated over them, because what they lacked was not the sacraments themselves, but their saving effect. For a sacrament to be valid, it must be lawfully performed; faith and love are necessary for it to have a saving effect on the recipient. Thus, if the words “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” were pronounced over the baptized person, the sacrament was performed; but it is fruitless for the unbeliever until they come to faith, and for the heretic or schismatic until they are united with the Church from which they are spiritually separated. This applies generally to any sinner who is corrupt and neglectful of their salvation until they turn to God in repentance (Lives and Works of Augustine, Kiev, 1855, p. 116). Similarly, Athanasius the Great, when asked whether someone who, not believing in the Christian faith, is baptized for other reasons, is accepted by God, replied: “If someone receives Holy Baptism for other reasons, not believing, it is of no benefit to him. But if, after baptism, he reflects and begins to believe sincerely and gives thanks from the heart, it is counted to him as baptism” (Limonarion, ch. 198).
This reasoning of the eminent Church teachers and the decisions of the holy councils are in no way contrary to the 46th Apostolic Canon, but rather they align with the declaration of the 47th Apostolic Canon, which states: “If a bishop or presbyter baptizes someone who truly has baptism, or does not baptize someone who is defiled by the ungodly, let him be deposed, as one who mocks the Cross and the Lord’s death, and does not distinguish priests from false priests.”
It is clearly shown here that defilement by the ungodly did not take the form of true baptism (according to the Lord’s command), which was strictly forbidden to be repeated, as well as the repetition of ungodly defilement performed in the guise of baptism, as stated in their 49th and 50th canons, which were not in accordance with the Lord’s institution, “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” and by triple immersion, but rather by other methods such as “in the name of three unbegotten, or in the name of three sons, or in the name of three comforters, or by a single immersion,” and so on. Any baptism not performed according to the Lord’s institution is clearly something invented by heretics, and therefore such heretical baptism is not a baptism at all, but rather a defilement. But a baptism performed according to the true command of the Lord, even if by a person who is not Orthodox, should not be rejected, because Christ commanded us to observe His commandments, not to ridicule them, regardless of who performs them.
Are parents guilty if they neglect the baptism of their children? #
Yes, they are guilty. The 67th rule of the Nomocanon states: “If a child dies unbaptized due to negligence, such a person shall not partake of communion for three years, shall perform two hundred prostrations every day, and shall fast on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. If they run to the priest and the priest is negligent, the sin lies with the priest, and he is subject to the same canon.”
In the Prologue for May 28, it is written: “If a child is born and dies unbaptized due to the priest’s negligence, it is a severe fault for that priest. But if a child dies unbaptized due to the negligence of the parents, woe to those parents. Therefore, parents should be very diligent about the baptism of their children and should observe the time, especially when death is near. For an unbaptized child belongs to the wolf’s portion, but once marked with the sign, the child belongs to Christ, who protects those who bear His sign.”
In the Trebnik (Book of Needs) on the reverse of leaf 306, it states: “If a child dies unbaptized but has been catechized with prayer and given a name, such children are not to be commemorated in church services, but only at home with anointing of holy oil, making the sign of the cross on the chest, and burying them with their parents near the church, and they should be remembered in prayer. Therefore, parents must be very careful in this matter, so that a child does not die unbaptized, for God will hold them accountable.”