Andrew Miller · 22 of 28

Chapter 12 · Part 1

THE INTERNAL

HISTORY OF THE CHURCH

THE century, which closes with the death of the great Theodosius and Ambrose, has been full of the deepest interest to the Christian reader. Events, the most momentous —affecting the majesty and glory of God, and mankind’s well being —have transpired. From 303 till 313, the church passed through her most trying ordeal under Diocletian. Ten years she was in a fiery furnace; but in place of being consumed, as her enemies vainly imagined, she seemed to increase in numbers as well as in purity and power. Satan was permitted to do his utmost against her; and he so moved and stirred up the heathen population, that in all parts of the empire they arose in arms; first, to defend their ancient polytheism; and, secondly, to root out Christianity, by persecuting the Christians, and destroying their sacred books. Thus the century commenced with the great and final struggle between paganism and Christianity, and closed with the total ruin of the former, and the complete triumph of the latter. The contest ended with the fourth century, and victory has rested with Christianity ever since.

Such has been the external history of the church, and the accomplishment, so far, of the word of the Lord in the Epistles to Smyrna and Pergamos. But there are other things which most reasonably demand a little of our attention before entering on the fifth century; and no part of the wide field which lies before us seems to have a stronger claim than the sphere and influence of the great prelates of the East and the West. It must also have occurred to our readers from the necessary allusions to baptism, that the observance of that rite had an immense place in the minds of those early Christians. They believed that the waters of baptism purified the soul completely. We have thought, then, of combining the two —of giving a brief history of baptism from the writings of the Fathers; which will, at the same time, give us an opportunity of seeing what views they held, not only on baptism, but on the fundamental truths of the gospel.

ECCLESIASTICAL

VARIATIONS OF BAPTISM

In the New Testament there is perfect uniformity, both as to precept and example, on the subject of baptism; but in our own day, and ever since the beginning of the third century, we find in the professing church endless variations both as to theory and practice on this important subject. Those not acquainted with ecclesiastical history naturally inquire, when, and by what means, did such differences arise in the church?

As it has been our plan all through these “Short Papers” to find out the beginnings of great questions which have affected the peace and prosperity of the church, we will endeavor, very briefly, to point out the beginning and early history of ecclesiastical baptisms. We use the term ecclesiastical, as distinguished from scriptural. Nothing is of divine authority, either in theory or practice that was introduced after the days of the inspired apostles, so nothing can be a Christian baptism that varies from the institution of Christ and the practice of His apostles. To bring in alterations is to change the thing itself, and make it not the same, but another baptism; hence we find in history there were baptisms many.

As the early history of these variations, and not controversy, is our object, we will avoid giving any opinion on the long agitated question. For more than sixteen hundred years the controversy (with great determination) has been maintained, and by able men on both sides. No controversy in the history of the church has been of such continuance, or conducted with such confidence of victory by both parties. As there is no express mention of infant baptism in scripture, the Baptists think that their position is beyond question: and the paedobaptists, just as firmly, believe that it may be inferred from several well-known passages that infant baptism was practiced in the days of the apostles. There has not been so much controversy as to the mode of baptism. The Greeks, Latins, Franks, and Germans, appear to have baptised by immersion. “Baptism is a Greek word,” says Luther, “and in Latin it may be rendered mersio, immersion… and though among the greater part of us this practice has fallen into disuse, nevertheless they that are baptised ought to be entirely immersed, and forthwith lifted out of the water, and this the etymology of the word indicates, as also in the German language.” Neander’s testimony is to the same effect: “Baptism was originally administered by immersion; and many of the comparisons of St. Paul allude to this form of its administration. The immersion is a symbol of death, of being buried with Christ; the coming forth from the water is a symbol of resurrection with Christ; and both, taken together, represent the second birth, the death of the old man, and a resurrection to a new life.” Cave, Tillotson, Waddington, etc, etc, speak of the mode of baptism in a similar way. And as all these testimonies are from paedobaptists, we may dismiss this part of the subject as fairly proved in church history; nevertheless faith can only stand on the word of God. We follow not the Fathers, but Christ.

IRENAEUS, bishop of Lyons, is the first of the Fathers that alludes to infant baptism. He died about the year 200, so that his writings are placed towards the close of the second century. The apostolical fathers never mention it. By this time superstition, to a great extent, had taken the place of faith, so that the reader must be prepared to hear some extravagant notions advanced by some of the great doctors, yet many of them, we doubt not, were true earnest Christians. “Christ came to save all persons by Himself,” says Irenaeus, “all, I mean, who by Him are regenerated —baptised —unto God: infants and little ones; children and youths, and elder persons. Therefore He went through the several ages: for infants being made an infant, sanctifying infants: to little ones He was made a little one, sanctifying those of that age: and also giving to them an example of godliness, justice, and dutifulness: to youths He was a youth,” etc. etc. Baptism was thus taught to be a complete lustration of the soul for all ages and conditions of mankind. But the controversy soon resolved itself into the one question —infant or adult. Regeneration, born again, baptism, is used as interchangeable terms, and as meaning the same thing, in the writings of the Fathers.

Here we have the origin, so far as ecclesiastical antiquity informs us, of infant baptism. The passage is somewhat obscure and extremely fanciful; but it is the first trace we have of the yet unsettled question, and probably the root of all its variations ecclesiastically viewed. The effect of such teaching on superstitious minds was immense. Anxious parents hastened to have their delicate infants baptised lest they should die under the curse of original sin, and the man of the world delayed his baptism until the near approach of death to avoid any subsequent stain, and that he might emerge from the waters of regeneration to the realms of pure and unmingled blessedness. The example and reputation of Constantine led many thus to delay their baptism, though the clergy testified against the practice.

TERTULLIAN. The testimony of this Father would prove that infants were baptised in his day —he died about 240 —but that he was not favourable to the practice: as he says, “But they whose duty it is to administer baptism are to know that it must not be given rashly… Therefore according to every man’s condition and disposition, and also their age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially in the case of little children. For what need is there that the godfathers should be brought into danger? —because they either fail of their promises by death, or they may be mistaken by a child’s proving of wicked disposition.”

ORIGEN, in discoursing on the sin of our nature, alludes to baptism as the appointed means for its removal. “Infants are baptised,” he says, “for the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins? or, when have they sinned? or, how can any reason of the laver in their ease hold good, but according to that sense that we mentioned even now: none is free from pollution, though his life be but of the length of one day upon the earth? And it is for that reason, because by the sacrament of baptism the pollution of our birth is taken away, that infants are baptised.”

CYPRIAN, bishop of Carthage, about the year 253, received a letter from one Fidus, a country bishop, inquiring whether an infant, before it was eight days old, might be baptised if need required. The answer proves, not only that infant baptism was then practiced, but the necessity of it in their minds because of its efficacy. Cyprian, with sixty-six bishops in council, says, “As to the case of infants; whereas you judge that they must not be baptised within two or three days after they are born; and that the rule of circumcision is to be observed, so that none should be baptised and sanctified before the eighth day after he is born: we were all in our assembly of the contrary opinion. For as for what you thought fitting to be done, there was not one that was of your mind; but all of us, on the contrary, judged that the grace and mercy of God is to be denied to no person that is born. For whereas our Lord in His gospel says, “the Son of man came not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them,” so far as lies in us, no soul, if possible, is to be lost, etc. etc.

Gregory Nazianzen, bishop of Constantinople, was a Father of great note about the year 380. He was the means of destroying the power of Arianism in the Eastern capital, where it had been maintained in great strength for nearly forty years. He had to encounter much opposition and even persecution at first; but by degrees his eloquence, the practical and serious tone of his teaching, and the influence of his godly life, began to tell, and gained him a firm footing, though he never liked the imperial style of the capital.

Dr. Wall quotes largely from Gregory on baptism; our extracts will be brief. Like the rest of the Fathers, he is wild on this subject. “What say you to those that are as yet infants, and are not in capacity to be sensible of either the grace or the lack of it? Shall we baptise them too? Yes, by all means, if any danger make it requisite. For it is better that they be sanctified without their own sense of it, than that they should die unsealed and uninitiated. And a ground of this to us is circumcision, which was given on the eighth day, and was a typical seal, and was practiced on those that had no use of reason.” Against the practice of delaying baptism till a deathbed experience he speaks strongly and earnestly, comparing the service to the washing of a corpse, rather than to Christian baptism.

Basil, bishop of Cæsarea, is constantly associated with the two Gregories. Gregory of Nyssa was his brother, the other, his chief friend. Cappadocia gave birth to the three Fathers. Basil was faithful to the Athanasian creed during its days of depression and adversity, but did not live to behold its final triumph. He died about 379. He was a great admirer and a true example of monastic Christianity. He embraced the ascetic faith, abandoned his property, and practiced such severe austerities as to injure his health. He fled into the desert; his fame collected, as it were, a city around him; he built a monastery, and monasteries sprang up on every side.

His views of baptism are similar to those of his friend Gregory; he urges the necessity of it from the same superstitious feeling that they all had. “If Israel had not passed through the sea,” he says, “they had not got rid of Pharaoh: and unless thou pass through the waters of baptism, thou shalt not be delivered from the cruel tyranny of the devil,” etc. etc. This he would apply to all ages, and enforce it by the words of the Lord to Nicodemus, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Ambrose, bishop of Milan, like all the Fathers we have yet met with, is thoroughly mistaken as to the meaning of John 3:5: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” “You see,” he says, “that Christ excepts no person, not an infant, not even one that is hindered by unavoidable accident.”

JOHN, surnamed CHRYSOSTOM, which means the golden-mouthed; he obtained this name from his smooth, flowing eloquence. He was such a favorite of the people, that they used to say, “We had rather the sun should not shine, than that John should not preach.” He was evidently in favor of infant baptism, though it is not clear that he believed in original sin. “For this cause we baptise infants also,” he says, “though they are not defiled with sin; that there may be superadded to them saint-ship, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, a brotherhood with Christ, and to be made members with Him.” It would be difficult to say more as to the alleged benefits of baptism than what we have here enumerated. But extravagant as the whole sentence may seem, it has been the text of the paedobaptists from that day to this. Most of our readers are familiar with these words, “Baptism, wherein I was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.” These words are taken, not from scripture, but from Chrysostom.

Dr. Wall is anxious to make it appear, that this great doctor was not unsound as to original sin. He suggests that the meaning of his words may be, “they are not defiled with their own actual sins.” But Chrysostom does not say with their own, but that they are not defiled with sin. And surely every child is defiled, as saith the Psalmist, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” (Psalm 51:5) In vain do we look for soundness on many of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity among the Fathers; to say nothing of what they all overlooked, such as the presence of the Holy Ghost in the assembly, the heavenly calling, and the heavenly relations of the church, the difference between the house of God and the body of Christ, and the blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. (See Titus 2:11 – 15)

REFLECTIONS ON THE

HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM

Enough, we believe, for our present purpose, has been said on the subject of infant baptism. The reader has before him the testimony of the most trustworthy witnesses for the first two hundred years of its history. The practice seems to have taken its rise, and derived all its wondrous influence, from a misinterpretation of John 3:5: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God,” It was argued from this passage that baptism was necessary to salvation and all the blessings of grace. The efficacy of the blood of Christ, the purifying power of the word of God, and the gracious operations of the Holy Spirit, were all attributed to the due observance of external baptism. And need we wonder at the place it has held in the professing church these sixteen hundred years, or at its mighty influence on all classes and all ages? though many do not hold baptismal regeneration.

The ancient Christians, Dr. Wall affirms, without the exception of one man, teach that these words of the Saviour refer to baptism. Calvin, he believes, was the first man that ever objected to this interpretation, or that refused to accept it as teaching the necessity of baptism to salvation. Supposing these statements to be correct, they prove, that the great ecclesiastical fabric that arose out of baptism was founded on a misinterpretation. The Church of Rome, Lutherans, Greeks and Anglicans, continue to follow the Fathers in this misapplication of the truth. “Shall that,” says Hooker, referring to Calvin’s new interpretation of John 3:5, “which hath always received this and no other construction be now disguised with the toy of novelty? God will have baptism embraced, not only as a sign or token of what we receive, but also as an instrument or means whereby we receive grace.” Bishop Burnet also observes, speaking of the ancient times: “The words of our Saviour to Nicodemus were expounded so as to import the absolute necessity of baptism in order to salvation. These words ‘the kingdom of God,’ being taken to mean eternal glory, that expression of our Saviours was understood to import this, that no man could be saved unless he were baptised.” Calvin taught, that the benefits of baptism were limited to the children of the elect, and thus introduced the idea of hereditary Christianity. The Presbyterians follow Calvin; and, as a consequence of his teaching, circumcision becomes both the warrant and the rule of infant baptism. But some of our readers may be anxious to know what we believe to be the true interpretation of John 3:5, seeing that so much is built upon it.

THE TEACHING OF JOHN 3:5

The expression “born of water,” we believe, in no way means baptism. The new birth is the Saviours theme, without which no man can see or enter into the kingdom of God. It was not yet come visibly —“not with observation” —but it was there among them, as God’s new sphere of power and blessing. Flesh cannot even perceive this kingdom. Christ had not come to teach and improve the flesh, as Nicodemus seemed to think, but that man might be partaker of a divine nature, which is imparted by the Spirit. No mere external rite admits to the kingdom. There must be a new nature or life suited to the new order of things. “And Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Then the Lord shows Nicodemus the only way of entering into the kingdom. “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Water is here used as the symbol of the cleansing and purifying power of the word of God; as in Peter, “seeing that ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit.” Here, the truth is spoken of as the instrument, and the Spirit as the agent, in the new birth as he goes on to say, “Being born again not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God.” Two things are necessary —the word and the Spirit. (1 Peter 1:22, 23)

The passage obviously means the application of the word of God in the power of the Spirit —operating in the heart, conscience, thoughts, and actions; and thereby bringing in a new life from God, in which we have His mind, and His thoughts about the kingdom. The following passages will make it still plainer. “Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth.” (James 1:18) “That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.” (Eph. 5:26) “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.” (John 15:3) Here we have the moral cleansing or purifying of the soul, by the application of the word through the Spirit which judges all things, and which works in us new thoughts and affections, suitable to the presence and glory of God.

As a question of interpretation, then, we see no allusion to baptism in John 3:5: baptism may set forth that which is conveyed by it, but baptism itself conveys nothing. On the other hand —according to the inspired commentaries in the Epistles —baptism is the sign of death, not of giving life, as the Fathers uniformly affirm. “Know ye not,” says the apostle, “that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ were baptised into his death? Therefore are we are buried with him by baptism into death.” (Rom. 6; Col. 2; 1 Peter 3) Besides it is perfectly plain that Nicodemus could not possibly have known anything of proper Christian baptism, as it was not instituted by our Lord till after He arose from the dead.

MODERN PAEDOBAPTISTS

The Church of Rome and all who follow the Fathers confess that the origin of their practice is tradition. But there are many in our day, as there have been since the Reformation, who holds infant baptism from the writings of the New Testament.

The following are the principal passages they refer to: “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:14B) “Else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” (1 Cor. 7:14B) “For the promise is unto you, and to your children.” (Acts 2:39A) “Bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.”(Ephesians 6:4B) And many draw their arguments chiefly from the baptism of households, (Acts 16:15) and from the Abrahamic covenant. (Genesis 17)

ANTI-PAEDOBAPTISTS, or “the Baptists,” as they call themselves, simply affirm, that in all the allusions to baptism in the writings of the apostles, it is uniformly coupled with faith in the gospel; and that such expressions as “buried with him by baptism,” and “planted together in the likeness of his death,” etc., must mean, that the person so baptised has part with Christ by faith. And, further, that as baptism is an ordinance of Christ, it must of necessity be celebrated exactly as He appointed. Nothing, it is said, but “direct scripture” ought to be the foundation of our faith and practice in divine things. And since to the very being of baptism a subject to whom it must be administered is necessary, and a mode of administering, without which it would only be a notion in the human mind, these things, therefore, are as necessary as baptism itself. And hence it follows that the true subjects, which are professed believers only, and the true mode, which is immersion only, are necessary to true Christian baptism.

THE ORIGIN OF INFANT COMMUNION

When superstition in general takes the place of faith, and human notions the place of God’s word, where will even serious and enlightened men not be carried! Augustine strongly advocated the practice of infant communion. But it followed infant baptism as a necessary consequence. The Fathers affirmed that the grace of God bestowed upon the subjects of baptism was given without measure, and without any limitation as to age; therefore, they reasoned, that the Lord’s supper might consistently be administered to all who had been baptised, whether infants or adults. The custom prevailed for many ages; it is still observed by the Greek Church; but we refrain from details. In general, the inward spiritual meaning and true design of the Lord’s Supper was greatly lost sight of and the most superstitious reverence was expressed for the external symbols of the ordinance.

THE POSITION AND CHARACTER

OF THE CLERGY

In studying the internal history of the church during the fourth century, innumerable things crowd for a brief notice: but we can only refer to those, which characterise the period. The altered position of the clergy is an important one, and will account for many changes that were introduced by them. From the time of Constantine, the members of the Christian ministry attained a new social position with certain secular advantages. This led great numbers to join the sacred order from the most unworthy motives. Hence the sorrowful influence of this unhallowed mixture on the whole professing church. We constantly meet with it in the pride, arrogance, luxury, and assumed dignity of the whole clerical order. Thus, it is said that Martin of Tours, when at the court of Maximus, allowed the Empress to wait on him at table; and that when the Emperor had desired him to drink before him, and expected to receive the cup back after the bishop had drunk, Martin passed it to his own chaplain, as being higher in honour than any earthly potentate. This circumstance shows us where the clergy now were, what they thought of themselves and of spiritual dignity in opposition to secular rank. The church had now become like “a great house, wherein are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour and some to dishonour.” And such it has been ever since, and such it will be to the end; but the path of the faithful is plain. “If a man therefore purge himself from these, [the vessels to dishonour] he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work.” (2 Timothy 2:20, 21)

THE ORIGIN AND GROWTH

OF MONASTICISM

Before we approach the period of “the Church of Thyatira,” it may be well to notice the rise and growth of the early ascetic tendencies. The influence of monasticism was indeed great during the dark ages, and throughout the Western churches. Let us trace it to its source. It is well to know the beginning of things, especially of important and influential things.

During the violence of the Decian persecution, about the year 251, many Christians fled into voluntary exile. Among these was a young man named PAUL of Alexandria; who took up his abode in the desert of Thebais, or Upper Egypt. By degrees he became attached to the mode of life he had adopted from necessity, and is celebrated as the first Christian hermit, though without fame or influence at the time. Not so with his immediate and great successor.

ANTONY, who is regarded as the father of monasticism, was born at Coma, in Upper Egypt, about the year 251. In boyhood and youth, it is said, he was thoughtful, serious, and of a retiring disposition. He cared little for worldly learning, but desired earnestly the knowledge of divine things. Before reaching the age of nineteen, he lost his parents, and came into possession of considerable property. One day while in church, it so happened that the gospel concerning the rich young man was read before the assembly. Antony considered the words of the Saviour as addressed from heaven to himself: “Sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.” (Luke 18:22) He forthwith made over his land to the inhabitants of his village, turned the rest of his estates into money, and gave all to the poor, except a small portion, which he reserved for the maintenance of his only sister. On another occasion he was deeply impressed with the words of the Lord, “Take no thought for the morrow” (Matt. 6:25 - 34), and taking these words in a literal sense, he parted with the remainder of his property, placed his sister with a society of pious virgins, that he might be free from all cares about earthly things and embraced a life of rigid asceticism.

Antony is said to have visited Paul the hermit, and all the most famous ascetics he could hear of, endeavouring to learn from each his distinguishing virtue, and to combine all their graces in his own practice. He shut himself up in a tomb, where he lived ten years. By excessive fastings, exhaustion, and an overexcited imagination, he fancied himself beset by evil spirits, with whom he had many and severe conflicts. Antony became famous. Many visited the unnatural place of his abode in the hope of seeing him, or of hearing the noise of his conflicts with the powers of darkness. But he left his tomb, and dwelt in a ruined castle near the Red Sea for other twenty years. He increased his mortifications with the view of overcoming the evil spirits, but the same temptations and conflicts followed him.

Strange as it may seem, this remarkable and deluded man had a true heart for Christ, and a tender heart for his people. The persecution under Maximus (A.D. 311) drew him from his cell to the public scenes in Alexandria. His appearance produced a great effect. He attended on the sufferers, exhorting them to unwavering confidence in their confession of Christ, and manifested great love to the confessors in the prisons and in the mines. He exposed himself in every way to danger, yet no one ventured to touch him. A kind of inviolable sanctity was supposed to surround these unearthly, ghostly looking men. When the fury of the persecution was past, he escaped to a new place of solitude in the side of a lofty mountain. Here he cultivated a small piece of ground; multitudes flocked to him; great numbers imitated him. Mourners came to him to be comforted, the perplexed to be advised, and enemies to be reconciled. Miracles were ascribed to him and his influence seemed boundless.

In the year 352, when he was a hundred years old, he appeared a second time in Alexandria. This was to counteract the spread of Arianism, and defend with all his influence the true orthodox faith. His appearance produced a great sensation; multitudes thronged to see the monk —the man of God, as he was called —and hear him preach; and many pagans were converted to Christianity by his means. Antony and his monks were steady and powerful supporters of the Nicene Creed. He lived to the age of a hundred and five, and died only a few days before Athanasius found a refuge among the monks of the desert in 356.