The history of the tumult and massacre at Thessalonica in 390, graves yet deeper lines in the character of Theodosius. In studying this period of his life, we are reminded of David the king of Israel. In this sorrowful affair the enemy gained a great advantage over the christian emperor; but God overruled it for the deeper blessing of his soul.
Botheric, commander in chief of the district, and several of his principal officers, were killed by the populace, on the occasion of a chariot-race. A favorite charioteer had been thrown into prison for a notorious crime, and, consequently, was absent on the day of the games. The populace unreasonably demanded his liberty; Botheric refused, and thus the tumult was raised and the dreadful consequences followed. The news exasperated the emperor, and he ordered the sword to be let loose upon them. Ambrose interceded, and Theodosius promised to pardon the Thessalonians. His military advisers, however, artfully insisted on the heinous character of the crime, and procured an order to punish the offenders; which was carefully kept secret from the bishop. The soldiers attacked the people indiscriminately when assembled in the circus, and thousands were slain, to revenge the death of their officers.
The mind of Ambrose was filled with horror and anguish on hearing of this massacre. As the servant of God he rises to the place of separation from evil, even in his imperial master. He retired into the country to indulge his grief, and to avoid the presence of the emperor. But he wrote a letter to him, in which he set before him, in the most solemn manner, his fearful guilt; and assuring him that he could not be allowed to enter the church of Milan until satisfied of the genuineness of his repentance. The emperor, by this time, was deeply affected by the reproaches of his own conscience, and by those of his spiritual father. He bitterly bewailed the consequences of his rash fury in substituting barbarity for justice; and proceeded to perform his devotions in the church at Milan. But Ambrose met him at the porch, and, laying hold of his robe, desired him to withdraw as a man stained with innocent blood. The emperor assured Ambrose of his contrition; but he was told that private regrets were insufficient to expiate public offenses. The emperor referred to David, a man after God’s own heart. “You have imitated him in his crime, imitate him in his repentance,” was the reply of the undaunted bishop.
The emperor submitted to the priest. For eight months he remained in penitential seclusion; laying aside all his imperial ornaments, until at the Christmas season he presented himself before the archbishop, and humbly entreated re-admission into the church. “I weep,” said he, “that the temple of God, and consequently heaven, is shut from me, which is open to slaves and beggars.” Ambrose was firm, and required some practical fruit of his repentance. He demanded that in future, the execution of capital punishment should be deferred until thirty days after the sentence, in order that the ill effects of intemperate anger might be prevented. The emperor readily agreed, and was then allowed to enter the church. The scene which followed was overwhelming. The emperor pulling off his imperial robes, prayed prostrate on the pavement. “My soul cleaveth to the dust,” he cried, “quicken thou me according to thy word” The people wept and prayed with him, being moved with Ms grief and humiliation.
Ambrose mentions in his funeral oration, that from the time of the emperor’s deep anguish, he never passed a day without recalling to mind, the crime into which he had been betrayed by his great failing—an infirmity of temper.
REFLECTIONS ON THE DISCIPLINE OF AMBROSE, AND THE PENANCE OF THEODOSIUS.
There are few events in the annals of the Church more deeply interesting than the penance of the great Theodosius; and the rigorous conditions of restoration demanded by Ambrose. Stripped of the superstition and formalities peculiar to the times, we have a case before us of the most genuine and salutary discipline. We must not suppose for a moment, that the behavior of Theodosius was the result of weakness or pusillanimity; but of a true fear of God; a real feeling of his guilt; a tender conscience, an acknowledgment of the claims of God, to whom all worldly greatness is subject.
Ambrose was neither haughty nor hypocritical, as we find many of the pontiffs became in later times. He cherished a strong affection for the emperor, and a sincere concern for his soul; but he acted towards him from a solemn sense of his duty. He had a great idea, no doubt, of the dignity with which his office invested him; and he felt himself bound to use it in behalf of justice and humanity and in controlling the power of earthly sovereignty: a character of power, most certainly, never granted by God to a christian minister; and which often proved in after ages to be a most dangerous power, as the priest who holds m his hands the king’s conscience, may inflame to moderate his sanguinary passions. In the case of Ambrose it was pure christian influence. He appeared, though somewhat out of character, as the vindicator of outraged humanity, and as exercising a judicial authority over the meanest and the mightiest of mankind. But it is always disastrous to interfere with God’s order, even when the best of objects seem to be thereby gained.
About four months after his victory over Eugenius, and the chastisement of the assassins of Valentinian, Theodosius the Great died at Milan, in the year 305—not exceeding fifty years of age; the last emperor who maintained the dignity of the Roman name. Ambrose did not long survive his imperial friend. He died at Milan on Easter-eve, 397 He deepened and strengthened the foundations of ecclesiastical power which was to influence Christianity in all future ages. Basil, the two Gregories, and Chrysostom flourished about this time.
Chapter 8
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 the well-being of mankind—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 that nothing can be 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 has been maintained with great determination, 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 pedobaptist’s 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 baptized 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 baptized 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, &c, &c, 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 in 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—baptized—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,” &c. &c. 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, being born again, baptism, are 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 baptized 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.