baptism.16 In their view, a baptism that is performed without right belief in God does not confer the saving presence of the Holy Spirit; such a baptism, in effect, is done in the name of an unreal divinity. (Such thinking sheds light on why Gregory of Nazianzus based his argument for the Holy Spirit's divinity, as against the Pneumatochians, on the fact that the Spirit is invoked in the rite of baptism: because God is at work in baptism, the invocation of the Holy Spirit implies that the Spirit is God; here, practice gives rise to theory.)17 Athanasius the Great made the case against Arian baptism with alacrity: 'For by intending to receive baptism into what is not, they have received nothing at all; and being aligned with a creature they will have no help from the creation.'18 It was perhaps in response to such sharp criticism that Eunomius, a later figure who was sympathetic to Arius' position, altered the terms of the service. For his followers, baptism was pronounced into the death of Christ, rather than in the name of the Trinity.19 This modification allowed Eunomius to underscore the mediating function of Christ's death and thus secure a meaningful and consistent interpretation of baptism, while defending his position against his opponents (albeit at the cost of using the Matthean formula for baptism).

As late as c. 500, it was possible for a Roman figure to reject Arian baptisms using comparable arguments,20 but this was atypical and, on the whole, the Western perspective on heretical or schismatic baptisms developed along a different trajectory. In the Christian West, broadly speaking, heretical or schismatic Christians tended to be accepted into the Catholic communion by having the hands of the bishop placed on their heads rather than by being

16 Tertullian, On baptism 15 (ed. and trans. Evans, 32-4); Cyprian, Letters 69-75 (CSEL 32: 749-827); for Novatian, see Cyprian, Letter 73.2 (CSEL 32: 779-80).

17 Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 31.28 and 33.17 (SC 250: 330-2 and SC 318: 194-6); see further the commentary on Or. 31.28 by Norris, Faith gives fullness to reason, 207-9.

18 Athanasius, Orations against the Arians 2.43 (trans. Anatolios, 138); see also Athanasius' Letters to Serapion on the Holy Spirit 1.30 (trans. Anatolios, 229): 'The faith in the Trinity, which has been handed down to us, is one, and it is this faith which unites us to God, whereas anyone who takes anything away from the Trinity and is baptized in the name of the Father only, or in the name of the Son only, or in the name of the Father and the Son apart from the Spirit, receives nothing but remains empty and unsanctified -both he and the one who appears to be administering the consecration. After all, it is a consecration in the Trinity!'

19 See Socrates, H.E. 5.24 (GCS, n.f. 1,306-7); this passage is discussed by Kopecek (A history ofNeo-Arianism, ii: 397-400), who also notes (i: 160-1) that a generation earlier other Arian baptismal liturgies were apparently modified so as to avoid the triple immersion or the invocations of the Son and the Spirit. On Eunomius, see now R. P. Vaggione, Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene revolution.

20 John the Deacon, Epistola ad Senarium ยง9 (ed. Wilmart, 176).

0 0

Post a comment