CLINICI. - By this name (from χλίνη = bed), which in Latin referred both to physicians and to bedridden patients (notable examples of this latter meaning are found in Christian writers: cf. Thesaurus linguae latinae, III, 1350, 15 ff.), those who received Baptism while in danger of death were called by this term from the 3rd century onward.
Such Baptism was always regarded with little favor, chiefly because of the insufficient preparation of the baptismal candidate and the lack of solemnity (among other things, it was almost always administered by infusion rather than immersion); and disfavor was necessarily greater in those very numerous cases in which catechumens deliberately postponed their Baptism until the point of death, in order to lead a freer life for as long as possible, and out of fear (facilitated by the Novatian heresy: cf. St. Ambrose, De paenitentia, II, 11, 98 ff.: PL 16, 521 sg.) of not being able to obtain absolution for sins committed after receiving Baptism. A recollection of this more serious abuse is found in the legendary Passio s. Genesii ex mimo martyris, n. I (BHL, 3315).
Certainly in quite another sense Tertullian had written that "according to the condition, disposition, and age of each person, it may be useful to postpone Baptism" (De Baptismo, 18, 4), even though what follows (at n. 6) might provide grounds for justifying the c.
To give an idea of the great number of c., it is recalled that in De rebaptismate, cap. 4 (anonymous, from 256 or shortly after) it is said that at that time it was very common for many to die after Baptism without having time to receive the laying on of hands from the bishop (PL 3, 1188); St. Augustine (Sermo de urbis excidio, 6, 7: PL 40, 722) relates that in Constantinople, during the reign of Arcadius, when a great panic spread, everyone rushed to be baptized; and in the Confessions (IX, 3) he tells of his friend Verecundus, who was baptized at the point of death; moreover, many funerary inscriptions of adult neophytes (among them Junius Bassus) suggest that at least some of them were persons baptized during their last illness (cf. E. Diehl, Inscriptiones latinae christianae veteres, I, Berlin 1925, nos. 90, 965, 1478, 1480, 1482, 1483, 1484, 1485 B, 1488, 1488 B, 1489 DF, 1492, 1493, 1495, 1503, 1529, 1537, 2764, 3053 A, 3352, 3802 A, 4338 C, 4753, etc.). The most celebrated case was that of Constantine (cf. F. J. Dölger, Die Taufe Konstantins und ihre Probleme, in Konstantin der Grosse und seine Zeit, Freiburg in Br. 1913, p. 381 ff.); and it seems that Julian the Apostate had this very fact in mind (in the work I Cesari, p. 336 of the ed. C. J. Neumann, Leipzig 1880) when he ridiculed Constantine.
It is therefore not surprising that many Fathers, especially the Greek ones, insisted against this practice (cf. Pseudo-Basil, Homil., 13, esp. nn. 3 ff.: PG 31, 424 sg.; St. Gregory Nazianzen, Orationes, 40, 11-14: PG 36, 373 sg.; St. Gregory of Nyssa, Adversus eos qui differunt Baptismum: PG 46, 415 ff.; St. John Chrysostom, Homiliae in Acta Apostolorum, 1, 6-8, and 23, 4: PG 60, 23 ff., 182 sg.; id., Catecheses ad illuminandos, I, 1: PG 49, 224 sg.).
There was also some doubt about the validity of these Baptisms. St. Cyprian, who does not approve of the term c., used instead of "Christians" (Epist., 69, 13), maintains precisely, against those who had cast doubt upon it, the validity of their Baptism (ibid., nn. 12-13), and indeed defends the c. from the accusation often leveled against them—one that was frequently true—of having received Baptism without adequate doctrinal preparation and without due dispositions; but at the same time as St. Cyprian, Pope Cornelius, in a letter to Fabian, Bishop of Antioch, of 252 (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI, 43, 5-22), speaking of the Baptism received by Novatian at the point of death, adds: "if indeed it must be said that he received it" (ibid., n. 14), where, however, the doubt may be rhetorical, or based on a lack of proper disposition. Later we find that St. Basil evidently assumes the validity of such Baptisms (Epistolae, 269, 2: PG 32, 1001, though this concerns a case in which the delay was not culpable).
Church legislation soon made provisions regarding the c. It never forbade the conferral of Baptism on those who requested it at the point of death; but it required a prior assessment of the dispositions of the baptismal candidate, though later there was considerable leniency especially in the case of Baptism for those who had lost consciousness (cf., with more or less close connection to this subject, can. 59 of the Council of Elvira, c. 305; can. 34 of the Third Council of Carthage, 397; can. 12 of the Council of Orange, 441; St. Augustine, De coniugiis adulterinis, I, 26, 33; 28, 35: PL 40, 469 ff.; Fulgentius of Ruspe, Epist., 12, 10, 21-23: PL 45, 389 ff.).
The origin of the rule that obliged the c., if they recovered, to ask the bishop to supply any ceremonies omitted in the Baptism (among which perhaps also the consignatio or Confirmation) is unknown; this rule is mentioned as already in force in the cited letter of Pope Cornelius (Eusebius, loc. cit., 15), and more generally by St. Cyprian (Epist., 73, 9), and by the anonymous author of De rebaptismate (cap. 10). It was later sanctioned by the Council of Elvira (can. 38), and, with regard to the necessity of completing religious instruction, by can. 47 of the Council of Laodicea (between 343 and 381).
Moreover, having received Baptism at the point of death was often considered an impediment or irregularity for ordination (cf. the cited letter of Pope Cornelius, n. 17, where mention is made of the dispensation that had been granted in the case of Novatian's ordination to the priesthood). And can. 12 of the Council of Neocaesarea (between 314 and 325), also included in the Decretum of Gratian (c. I D. 57), forbade the ordination of priests of those who had been baptized while ill (at least, and this according to the most common interpretation, if their not having been baptized earlier was due to their own fault), unless they had given proof of themselves and there was a scarcity of personnel; this canon is then reproduced and reconfirmed in cap. 8 of the Council of Paris of 829 (MGH, Leges, III, II, p. 615), and was later customarily extended to all ordinations and even to the first tonsure.
It should finally be noted that at times, as a canonical penance, the Church itself refused Baptism until the point of death (can. 68 of the Council of Elvira, for catechumens who had committed adultery and were pregnant as a result).
At the beginning of the Middle Ages the term grabatarii is found, used to indicate with a more Latin word those who had previously been called c. (cf. can. 18 of the Council of Auxerre of 573-603, in MGH, Leges, III, 1, p. 181; and, even better, cap. 8 of the Council of Paris of 829, cited above).
With the spread of the practice of baptizing infants, the c. became increasingly rare (though examples of them in large numbers are still found in mission lands as late as the 18th century: cf. Pastor XVI, 1, p. 319); ecclesiastical legislation no longer spoke of them, confining itself to laying down rules (which date from the early centuries) on the administration of Baptism to the sick and dying (v. BAPTISM), and forbidding the ordination of neophytes.