CLINICI. - By this name (from κλίνη = bed), which in Latin referred both to physicians and to the sick confined to bed (notable examples of this second meaning are found in Christian writers: cf. Thesaurus linguae latinae, III, 1350, 15 ff.), from the 3rd century onward those who received Baptism while in danger of death were designated.
This Baptism was always regarded with little favor, especially because of the baptized person’s inadequate preparation and its lesser solemnity (among other things, it was almost always administered by infusion rather than immersion); and the disfavor necessarily had to be 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 through fear (a fear encouraged by Novatianist heresy: cf. s. Ambrogio, De paenitentio, II, 11, 98 ff.; PL. 16, 521 ff.) that they might not be absolved from the sins they committed after receiving Baptism. A recollection of this more serious abuse is found in the legendary Passio s. Genesii ex mimo martyris, n. 1 (BHL, 3315).
Certainly, Tertullian had written in an entirely different sense that “according to each person’s condition, disposition, and age, it may be useful to defer Baptism” (De Baptismo, 18, 4), although what follows (in n. 6) might provide grounds for justifying the c.
To give an idea of the large number of c., it may be recalled that in the De rebaptismate, chap. 4 (by an anonymous author of 256 or shortly thereafter), it is said that at that time it was extremely common for many to die after Baptism without having had time to receive the laying on of hands from the bishop (PL 3, 1188); s. Agostino (Sermo de verbis excidio, 6, 7; PL 40, 722) relates that at Constantinople, during the reign of Arcadius, when widespread panic had broken out, everyone ran to be baptized; and in the Confessioni (IX, 3) he tells of his friend Verecondo, who was baptized at the point of death; moreover, many funerary inscriptions of adult neophytes (including Giunio Basso) suggest that at least some of them were persons baptized during their final illness (cf. E. Dichi, Inscriptiones latinae christianae veteres, I, Berlin 1925, nn. 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, 4755, etc.). The most famous case was that of Costantino (cf. F. I. Dölger, Die Taufe Konstantins und ihre Probleme, in Konstantin der Grosse und seine Zeit, Freiburg im Br. 1913, p. 381 ff.); and it seems that Giuliano l'Apostata had precisely this event in mind (in the work I Cesari, p. 336 of the ed. C. J. Neumann, Leipzig 1880) when ridiculing Costantino.
It is therefore unsurprising that many Fathers, especially Greek ones, insisted against this practice (cf. Pseudo-Basilio, Homil., 13, especially n. 3 ff.; PG 31, 424 ff.; s. Gregorio Nazianzeno, Orationes, 40, 11-14; PG 36, 373 ff.; s. Gregorio Nisseno, Adversus eos qui differunt Baptismum: PG 46, 415 ff.; s. Giovanni Crisostomo, Homiliae in Acta Apostolorum, 1, 6-8, and 23, 4; PG 60, 23 ff., 182 ff.; id., Catechesis ad illuminandos, I, 1; PG 49, 224 ff.).
There was also some doubt regarding the validity of these Baptisms. S. Cipriano, who disapproves of the designation c., used instead of Christians (Epist., 69, 13), maintains precisely, against those who had called it into question, the validity of their Baptism (ibid., nn. 12-13), and indeed specifically defends the c. against the accusation made against them—which was often true—that they had received Baptism without adequate doctrinal preparation and without the requisite dispositions; but at the same time as s. Cipriano, Pope Cornelio, in a letter to Fabio, bishop of Antioch, from 252 (Eusebio, Hist. eccl., VI, 43, 5-22), speaking of the Baptism received by Novaziano at the point of death, adds: “if one must really say that he received it” (ibid., n. 14), although the doubt may be rhetorical or based on the lack of proper disposition. Later, s. Basilio is evidently found to presuppose the validity of such Baptisms (Epistolae, 269, 2, : PG 32, 1001, although this concerns a case in which the delay had not been culpable).
Ecclesiastical legislation soon established provisions concerning the c. It never prohibited the conferral of Baptism on those who requested it at the point of death; but it required a prior investigation of the baptized person’s dispositions, although later it became more lenient, especially in cases of Baptism administered to someone who had lost consciousness (cf., with a more or less close connection to this subject, can. 39 of the Council of Elvira, ca. 305; can. 34 of the III Council of Carthage, 397; can. 12 of the Council of Oranges, 441; s. Agostino, De coniugis adulterinis, I, 26, 33; 28, 35; PL 40, 469 ff.; Fulgenzio da Ruspe, Epist., 12, 10, 21-23; PL 45, 389 ff.).
The origin of the rule obliging the c., should they recover, to ask the bishop to supply the ceremonies possibly omitted in Baptism (perhaps including the consignatio or confermazione) is unknown: this rule is mentioned as already in force in the aforementioned letter of Pope Cornelio (Eusebio, loc. cit., 15), and also, more generally, by s. Cipriano (Epist., 73, 9) and by the anonymous author of the De rebaptismate (chap. 10). It was subsequently enacted by the Council of Elvira (can. 38), and, regarding 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 regarded as an impediment or irregularity for ordination (cf. the aforementioned letter of Pope Cornelio, n. 17, where mention is made of the dispensation that had been granted from this prohibition when Novaziano was ordained priest). And can. 12 of the Council of Neocaesarea (between 314 and 325), also reproduced in the Decreto of Graziano (c. 1 D. 57), prohibited the ordination to the priesthood of those who had been baptized while ill (at least—and this according to the more common interpretation—if their failure to have been baptized earlier had been due to their own fault), unless they had given a good account of themselves and there was a shortage of personnel; this canon was subsequently reproduced and reaffirmed in chap. 8 of the Council of Paris of 829 (MGH, Leges, III, II, p. 615), and was later customarily extended to all ordinations and also to the first tonsure.
Finally, it should be noted that sometimes, as a canonical penance, the Church itself withheld Baptism until the point of death (can. 68 of the Council of Elvira, for female catechumens who had committed adultery and become pregnant as a result).
At the beginning of the Middle Ages, the designation grabatarii is found, using a more Latin word for those who had previously been called c. (cf. can. 18 of the Council of Auxerre of 573-603, in MGH, Leges, III, I, p. 181; and, even more clearly, chap. 8 of the Council of Paris of 829, cited above).
With the spread of the practice of baptizing infants, the c. also became increasingly rare (although examples are found even in large numbers in mission areas as late as the 18th century: cf. Pastor XVI, I, p. 319); ecclesiastical legislation no longer spoke of them, limiting itself to establishing rules (found as early as the first centuries) for administering Baptism to the sick and the dying (v. BATTESIMO), and prohibiting the ordination of neophytes.