Baptism involves, as Evstratie shows, citing examples from the Old and New Testaments, both the shedding of the old self, with its sins, and the putting on of the new self, in Christ; the newly baptised person is notpermitted to return to their former sinful life: ‘For, since the opposing powers were lodged within your members, it is no longer for us to wear that old garment. I do not speak of this in a literal sense, but of the old man, who is corrupted by the desires of deceit, with which the soul must no longer clothe itself again, having once cast them off, but to say, like the bride in the Song of Songs: ‘I have cast off my garment; how shall I put it on again?’1
Eustratius also mentions the importance of Chrismation, a sacrament performed immediately after Holy Baptism.
Baptism was performed by immersing those who believed in the Holy Trinity three times in the font of holy water, the author reminding Christians of the moment: “And each of you was asked whether you believed in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and you made the saving confession, and you were immersed three times in the water and came up again. And here, by this sign, he alludes to Christ’s three-day burial’2
On this occasion, Eustratius also emphasised the great love for humanity shown by Christ, Who truly died through His sufferings, thus experiencing a real and painful death, whilst the newly baptised is buried with Christ, without pain, receiving salvation as a gift: ‘O, what great and overwhelming love for mankind! Christ received the nails in His spotless hands and feet and endured the pain, so that He might grant me, painless and unwearying salvation, through my sharing in His sufferings. Therefore, let no one regard Baptism as merely a gift of the forgiveness of sins, like the baptism of John, which bestows only the forgiveness of sins, but also as the means of adoption as sons; for we know full well that, just as it is the cleanser from sins and the cause of the gifts of the Spirit, so too is it a representation and prefiguration of Christ’s Passion; for this reason Paul, a little earlier, cried out: ‘Do you not know that all of us who were baptised into Christ were baptised into His death?’3
Eustratius goes on to quote the 7th canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, held in Constantinople in 381, which refers to the different methods of receiving heretics into the Church 4, Arians, Macedonians, Sabbateans, Fourteenists and Apollinarians; however, for the Eunomians, who were baptised by a single immersion, the Church had decreed that they should be rebaptised. Eustratius, commenting on this canon, states that: ‘This means that the Ecumenical Church, at the universal council, accepts the baptism of the Arians, the Macedonians and other heretics, but rejected that of the Eunomians, on account of a single immersion. For, in baptism, the Church examines whether the heretics baptise correctly, and not their heresies and blasphemies 5”. From this, Eustratius concludes that Westerners may be considered unbaptised, not only by the name of the Sacrament (for the etymology refers to immersion), but also by its understanding and significance.
The importance of immersion in water in Baptism (and thus not mere sprinkling) is based – Eustratius continues – on the Gospel according to Matthew, Chapter 3, and in Mark, Chapter 1, which refer to the moment of the Saviour’s Baptism in the Jordan: ‘Jesus was baptised by John in the Jordan, and immediately came up out of the water, and so on. Therefore, if Jesus came up out of the water, it is evident that He had also gone down into it, and that He was baptised by immersion in the waters of the Jordan and not by sprinkling’6
Emphasising the use of water in Baptism and responding to those who criticised him for demanding sufficient water—not just a little, symbolically—and who accused him of placing too much emphasis on the material, that is, on physical water, Evghenie said that: “All our sacraments are material, corporeal and perceptible, yet they signify things that are intellectual and spiritual; they are perceptible, material and corporeal. The materials of the Sacraments are oil, natural water, bread, wine, incense, the hands of the bishop and the priest, and the very prayer, blessings and invocations of the divine Name 7”. He goes on to remind readers that Philip baptised the eunuch in water 8, not by sprinkling, and that, in ancient times, there was the custom of baptising in rivers, seas, then in bathing pools, baptisteries and baptismal fonts, where they could be fully immersed, as the practice of sprinkling did not exist at first, for ‘it is the duty of the one being baptised to be fully immersed in water’7
The author also delves into Western medieval history, dating back to the time of Charlemagne (768–814), drawing on the chronicles of the period and the writings of Alcuin, the disciple of the Venerable Bede and a collaborator of Charlemagne, during the papacy of Pope Leo III (795–816), selecting from these references to baptisms performed in rivers on Holy Saturday 9. Eustratius emphasised that in ancient times, before the schism in the Church had occurred, the Westerners also baptised by immersion, anointed and administered Holy Communion to infants immediately after Holy Baptism—a custom they subsequently abandoned. In the same vein, the author also quotes Saint Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, a friend of Saint Ambrose of Milan, who likewise mentions the practice of baptism in rivers and the administration of Holy Communion to infants. With regard to the change in Western baptismal practice, Eustratius then specifies, in chapter 23, that the Latins of his time, in order to justify baptism by sprinkling, used to refer to the passage in the New Testament, where it is said that Saint Peter the Apostle baptised 3,000 people in a single day; the Greek theologian explains, however, how that passage should be correctly understood: that Saint Peter was preaching and it was through his words that they were converted, but in the act of baptism itself, he may well have been assisted by the other Apostles. The author also emphasises that Peter would not have altered what he had received: ‘Peter would not, from the very beginning, have corrupted or altered the Baptism which he had received from the Forerunner and from Christ, nor would he have devised sprinkling’10).
Eustratius then attempts to pinpoint the moment when the change in practice occurred in the medieval Western world – for, as he had shown, in ancient times they too baptised by immersion – but concludes that this cannot be established with certainty for the whole of the Western world; the author confines himself to hypothesising, as the source of the change, the influence of the ancient baptism of the Eunomians, about which Theodoret of Cyrus had written that it was practised differently from that of the Church. Or perhaps, the author goes on to say, it was the influence of the Arians in Spain that led Westerners to change their method of baptism, in order to distinguish themselves somewhat from the Arians’ practice, which involved three immersions but was based on erroneous belief: ‘It is also said that, because of the Arians in Spain, who baptised by three immersions, so as not to appear to be in agreement with them, the Westerners began to baptise by a single immersion. And this was the first change the Westerners introduced into Baptism. Then, regarding the immersion, they adopted the practice of pouring water over the head once, as the Eunomians and others among them did. Others, meanwhile, pour water over the head three times. Later still, the practice of sprinkling water on the forehead emerged amongst them. And finally, they began to anoint the forehead of the person being baptised with a little water, ‘11’.
Thus, the author shows that, over time, there had been several ways of baptising even within the Western Church and that it would have been necessary, roughly once every fifty years, to convene an Ecumenical Council to condemn these errors, but that this had not been done because of the difficulty involved in carrying it out, and not because the Orthodox Church had accepted such innovations and practices. The difficulty also stemmed from the political situation: whilst the East was under assault from Catholic propaganda in Constantinople, Syria and Palestine, on the other hand, the Orthodox were also oppressed by the Ottomans 12. Consequently, Eustratius pointed out that the Church had been unable to convene synods in these specific circumstances, but this did not mean that it had agreed to or accepted ‘Latin baptism’12.
The author explained the historical context which had not favoured the convening of Orthodox synods, as well as the spread of Western practices throughout the Greek world: ‘Orthodox Christians everywhere, being troubled by war and powerless, and finding neither rest nor respite, nor even time to catch their breath, allowed their zeal for Orthodoxy to wane and grow cold. And some, in secret, baptised them, whilst others, as if for reasons of economy, contented themselves with anointing them with Chrism alone’13”. Speaking then of the state of freedom, the author points out that the Latins were under the tyranny of the Pope (referring also to the period when the papacy dominated secular power in the West) and that they feared change, whilst the Greeks were under the yoke of the Ottomans; yet for the former it also concerned the soul, whereas for the Easterners it concerned only the body, that is, political freedom: ‘the Latins […] the tyranny of the Pope of Rome, under whose yoke, being enslaved, they are compelled to be slaves, not like the Greeks in body, but like the Latins in soul as well, hence they fear to rectify their baptism and the other corrupted sacraments 14’. A similar idea is found in St. Athanasius of Paros, who pointed out that the Ottomans deprive the Greeks of their freedom, but that, for people, worse still is the false Western freedom, which brings with it—along with the atheism of the Voltaireans and secularising philosophies—the danger of losing one’s soul.
The change in the practice of Baptism was then perpetuated and emphasised – Evstratie continues – by the Protestants, the Lutherans and the Calvinists, ‘the offspring of the Latins’15. He argues that it would have been better – if they were so keen to reform something – to reform in the sense of a return to the tradition of the early Church, not to stray even further from it, despite the names they attributed to themselves as evangelicals (that is, those who would live according to the Gospel) and Reformed, for these titles, having no foundation, reveal nothing but ‘empty names and bold pride’16
Eustratius then explains, in chapter 28, why immersion in the practice of Baptism is necessary: ‘If Baptism is burial with Christ, it is therefore necessary that the whole body of man should be buried in water. If it is Resurrection with Christ, then the whole body of man must rise from the water. If it is a bath, the whole body of man must be washed. If it is a second birth, then the whole person must be born again. If it is renewal, then the whole person must be renewed. Whether it be enlightenment, the remission of sins, adoption as sons, being born again, purification, the communion of the Holy Spirit, or anything else, all these must be bestowed upon the whole body of man and upon every person, and not to a single limb or part of the human body, nor through some external understanding, but comprehensively and universally’17 For, says the author, Christian Baptism is not that of John the Baptist, which was one of repentance, solely for the forgiveness of sins, but is the Mystery of Christ, Who baptises with water (and therefore does not reject water) and with the Holy Spirit, and which also entails burial and resurrection with Christ: ‘And this is the reason why the Church has not chosen to celebrate the feast of Baptism on the eve of the Epiphany (that is, on the eve of the Baptism of our Lord Jesus Christ), when Christ was baptised in the Jordan, but on Great Saturday, when He was baptised—that is to say, when Christ was laid in the tomb at Golgotha’18”.
The author then shows, in chapter 31, that the material, natural and visible elements—water, bread, wine, oil—must not be neglected or downplayed, for Christ transformed them into the Sacraments: water being used in Holy Baptism, bread and wine in Holy Communion, and oil in the Holy Anointing; thus, matter has not been rejected, but utilised in Christianity, in the Sacraments of the Church: ‘And take special note of the great humility, condescension and mercy of our Lord, for He has transformed the things common to mankind into sacraments’19 In this context, whilst discussing the Holy Sacraments, Eustratius notes that Westerners have altered not only the practice of Baptism—preferring sprinkling to immersion—but also other Sacraments, such as Holy Unction. This, the author continues, is administered in the West not to the sick, as among the Orthodox, but only to those on their deathbed, a custom: ‘which is entirely contrary to the Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel according to Mark, chapter 6, and the commandment of Saint James’20”. Similarly, the Divine Liturgy differs among the Westerners: the bread used is unleavened, as among the Jews, and ‘the blessing by which the Sacrament is celebrated’21 (that is, the Epiclesis in the Orthodox Church) has been omitted. The Apuseni, Eustratius continues, “have barred the simple folk 22 from the Holy Chalice 23 and have driven the innocent children of Christians away from the Table of their Lord”21.
Moreover, whilst in Egypt between 1748 and 1751, whilst helping Patriarch Matthew of Alexandria to counter Catholic propaganda, had a meeting with two Catholic missionaries on the subject of the form of Christian communion. Following this discussion, Eustratius wrote the treatise On the Lord’s Supper. The book was also well received in Antiochian circles, which were themselves facing similar issues, so much so that Patriarch Sylvester of Antioch ordered it to be translated into Arabic, and part of it was published. In Greek, the work appeared in 1760 in Leipzig and in 1845 in Nafplio, containing only the section on unleavened bread: ‘Treatise against the <use> of unleavened bread’ 24. Kallistos Ware surmised, in view of certain Arabic texts of the work, dated 1740 and 1742 (and thus prior to Arghentie’s visit to Egypt), that, should the dates of the Arabic texts be correct, it cannot be ruled out that Arghentie may have written on such topics even earlier 25.
Consequently, in response to the active Catholic propaganda, with all its doctrinal and liturgical innovations, directed at the Orthodox population, Eustratius, in order to prevent these new practices from being adopted – whether out of ignorance or as a fashion – even by the Greeks, responds through his writings: the present one on Baptism, the one on the Holy Eucharist, and the one against papal primacy, which he quotes here, supported in his endeavour by Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril V, other Greek hierarchs and theologians of the time, but also criticised by another section of them. However, Eustratius states that he himself had known Western theologians who praised the dogmas and practices of the Orthodox Church: ‘I myself have heard and seen these things, and I have heard many wise theologians in Europe, and I have read plenty of writings by Latin theologians, some of which I possess, in a theological voice, praise most of our dogmas, especially those relating to the Sacraments. And they often say and declare that this is an ancient <a> dogma and that it stems from the apostolic tradition. And again they say this: <that> they do not know why our Latins have changed it”26. We recall that Eustratius had studied in his youth not only in Chios and Constantinople, but also in Italy and Germany, learning Latin and Italian 27; thus, he had indeed come into contact with Western theological culture, to which he refers in this passage. Elsewhere, the author mentions the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, convened by Pope Innocent III, where the papal primacy was also discussed, at a time when papal power had reached its zenith and was dominating even secular power in the West.
Catholic propaganda was at times accompanied by the oppression of the Orthodox; for example, their churches had been seized – as in Rome, Messina and Jerusalem – or they had been forced to unite with Rome, as in Hungary or Lehia [Poland], as Evstratie points out in chapter 32 of his work 28. By ‘Hungary’ we also mean the Orthodox Christians of Transylvania, who were persecuted in the 18th century following the union with Rome decreed by Athanasie Anghel around the year 1700. Similarly, in Lehia, the Union of Brest-Litovsk in 1596 had led to the creation of a church united with Rome. We also recall that in Antioch, after 1724, during the patriarchate of Silvestru, a community united with Rome—29—was established.
Eustratiu Arghentie’s conclusion is that baptism by sprinkling cannot be accepted as valid, as it overlooks the burial and resurrection with Christ of the newly baptised, through immersion in water three times in the name of the Holy Trinity. For this reason, he recommended the re-baptism of those who had previously practised this custom, whom he did not regard as having been baptised a second time, but as unbaptised. Thus, the author did not advocate rebaptism, as this is forbidden by the canons, but rather valid baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity by immersion.
‘Thus, from what has been said throughout this little book, we rightly conclude that Westerners are unbaptised; upon coming to Orthodoxy, they are obliged to be baptised. And this act is not called a second baptism, for they are baptised as though they were entirely unbaptised, and not as though they had been badly baptised. For whatever they call ‘Baptism’ is a false name and is not true Baptism. Firstly: the term and designation ‘Baptism’ are not correctly applied. Secondly: it does not correspond to what is understood by the Sacrament of Baptism, which is burial and resurrection together with Christ. Thirdly: the Second Ecumenical Council commands that those baptised by immersion be baptised a second time, thereby regarding them as unbaptised. Fourthly: for this is a teaching of the Eunomians and not of the Ecumenical Church Tradition. Fifthly: for it does not resemble the practice of Christ, nor that of the Apostles, nor that of the early Christians. Sixthly: for it rejects the holy font, that is, the baptismal bath, which is the spiritual mother <a> of Christians and makes us brothers. Seventh: for the false Baptism does not even accord with the ancient practice of the Church of Rome itself. Eighth: for of the significant elements of Baptism, nothing in the false, Latin Baptism corresponds to the true one, since 30, it shows neither the burial, nor the resurrection of man, nor the font, 30 the second birth, nor the resurrection, nor the adoption as sons, nor the enlightenment, nor the rebirth, nor the cleansing, nor the remission of sins, nor the communion with the Holy Spirit. For all these things pertain to the whole body of man, and not by an understanding from without, at the forehead alone, since the body is not a single member, but many, in Christ Jesus. Amen 31.
Having read through the work, which I have read and transcribed in its entirety, I have observed that Eustratius based his assertions on quotations from the Old and New Testaments, on the writings of the early Fathers, on the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils concerning Baptism, and on examples from the tradition of the Church and from Western medieval writers who described Baptism. The author’s language is incisive; the firmness of his assertions stems from his deep conviction that Baptism must be performed by three immersions, in the name of the Holy Trinity, symbolising, at the same time, the burial and resurrection with Christ of the person being baptised. At times the author is ironic, but not offensive: ‘For the Westerners, little by little, have shorn off (along with the hair of their heads and beards) all their Sacraments’32; the author referring here to the change in their appearance, but also to the shortening and simplification of certain services, practices, etc.
Consequently, the author, observing that in the West the simple sprinkling of water on a part of the body was preferred, with immersion being dispensed with – though not due to a material lack of water, for this is not what he criticises – but rather because of the minimisation or denial of the significance of immersion, as practised from ancient times, which had dogmatic consequences; the author therefore regarded those who were sprinkled as unbaptised. For this reason, he recommended that they be baptised with the true Baptism of the Church, through complete immersion in the water of the baptismal font, three times, in the Name of the Holy Trinity. Eustratius did not support a second baptism or rebaptism, as he regarded those who had been sprinkled as entirely unbaptised; just as in ancient times, when they wished to convert to Orthodoxy, the Eunomians—who practised a baptism involving a single immersion—were also baptised, a rite deemed invalid by the Second Ecumenical Council, a view also accepted by the Western Churches.
Eustratius’s conclusions were not shared by all Greek theologians of the eighteenth century; there were, as is well known, intense disputes on this subject, which, in the application of the canons, oscillated between the principles of oikonomia and akribeia, just as had been the case in previous centuries, since in the West, too, various practices had alternated over time. However, the Fathers of Mount Athos also reached conclusions identical to those of Eustratios, for example Evgenios Vulgaris, Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite and Saint Athanasius of Paros, who also wrote similar works, generally opposing any deviation from the dogma and practice of the Church of old.
We would also emphasise that Greek theologians, as they themselves attested, did not compose such works in a polemical spirit, out of an intellectual desire to contradict, but because they saw – against the political backdrop of the Venetian conquests of certain Greek islands and the intensification of Catholic propaganda even in the Eastern world, in Antioch or Alexandria in Egypt 33 – these Western practices spreading into the Greek Orthodox world as well. Thus, Greek theologians wrote these treatises for practical purposes, out of necessity, to make Christians aware of the importance of Orthodox Baptism, with its traditional liturgical practice, and to warn them that it was not a matter – in the case of sprinkling – a mere fashion or simplistic alternative to baptism by immersion, but rather a disregard for the significance of baptism, in the Name of the Holy Trinity, as burial and resurrection with Christ. They were not referring to rare, practical instances where there was insufficient water, but to the denial of the importance of immersion in the Name of the Holy Trinity.
In conclusion, we consider that Evstratie Arghentie’s work – a historical source hitherto unknown to the Romanian public – is important for illustrating the theological debates in the Greek world of the eighteenth century, but also because it brings together the main references to the Sacrament of Baptism found in the Holy Gospel and in the writings of the early-church fathers.
- 1
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom. 426, f. 40v.
- 2
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom. 426, f. 41v.
- 3
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom. 426, f. 42 r.
- 4
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom. 426, f. 43v. See also the canon in Gheorghe METALLINOS, I Confess a Baptism..., pp. 7–8.
- 5
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom. 426, f. 44r.
- 6
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom. 426, f. 45v. Matthew 3:16: “And after he had been baptised, Jesus came straight out of the water”; Mark 1:9–10: “And in those days, Jesus came to Nazareth of Galilee and was baptised in the Jordan by John. And immediately, as He came up out of the water, He saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove”.
- 7a7b
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom 426, f. 46 r.
- 8
Acts of the Apostles 8:36: ‘As they were travelling along the road, they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Here is water. What is to prevent me from being baptised?’ Philip said, ‘If you believe with all your heart, it is possible.’ And he replied, ‘I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.’ So he ordered the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water – both Philip and the eunuch – and he baptised him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more. And he went on his way, rejoicing.”
- 9
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom 426, f. 48 r.
- 10
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom 426, f. 51r.
- 11
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom 426, f. 62v.
- 12a12b
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom 426, f. 63r.
- 13
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom 426, f. 53 r.
- 14
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom 426, f. 53v.
- 15
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom 426, f. 54r.
- 16
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom 426, f. 54 r.
- 17
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom 426, f. 55 r.
- 18
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom 426, f. 57 r.
- 19
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom 426, f. 59 r.
- 20
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom 426, f. 60 r, 61 v. Mark 6:13.
- 21a21b
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom 426, f. 61r.
- 22
Meaning ‘ordinary’ or ‘common’.
- 23
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom 426, f. 61 r.
- 24
Kallistos WARE, Greek Polemical Theology during the Period of Ottoman Rule. The Contribution of Eustratie Argenti..., pp. 84–86.
- 25
Kallistos WARE, Greek Polemical Theology during the Ottoman Period. The Contribution of Eustratios Argenti..., p. 86.
- 26
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom 426, f. 67 v.
- 27
Kallistos WARE, ‘Greek Polemical Theology during the Period of Ottoman Rule. The Contribution of Eustratios Argenti…’, p. 74.
- 28
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom 426, f. 68 r.
- 29
Ioana FEODOROV, A Text for Arab Christians: Antim Ivireanul, Athanasie Dabbaș and Silvestru of Antioch, Brăila, Istros Publications of the Brăila Museum, 2016, pp. 216, 221.
- 30a30b
Repeated word.
- 31
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom. 426, f. 69 r–v.
- 32
BAR, Manuscripts–Rare Books, Ms. rom 426, f. 61v.
- 33
In 1741, Evstratie Arghentie had been urged by Patriarch Cosmas III of Alexandria to write theological works for the salvation of Christians, and during the patriarchate of Matthew of Alexandria, Eustratios travelled to Egypt, around 1748, where he assisted the patriarch in countering the Catholic propaganda that was active in Alexandria at that time. Kallistos WARE, Greek Polemical Theology during the Ottoman Period. The Contribution of Eustratius Argenti..., pp. 78, 81.