TERTULLIAN. The testimony of this father would prove that infants were baptized in his day—he died about 240—but that he was not favorable 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 baptized,” 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 case 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 baptized.”
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 baptized 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 baptized within two or three days after they are born; and that the rule of circumcision is to be observed, so that none should be baptized 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,” &c. &c.
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 either of the grace or the miss of it? Shall we baptize 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 death-bed, be speaks strongly and earnestly; comparing the service to the washing of a corpse, rather than to christian baptism.
Basil, bishop of Caesarea, 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,” &c, &c. 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 3:55Jesus answered, 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. (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 baptize infants also,” he says, “though they are not defiled with sin; that there may be superadded to them saintship, 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.” 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 Savior Jesus Christ. Titus 2:11-1511For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, 12Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; 13Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; 14Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. 15These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee. (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 Mm 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 3:55Jesus answered, 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. (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 over all classes and all ages? though many do not hold with baptismal regeneration.
The ancient Christians, Dr. Wall affirms, without the exception of one man, teach that these words of the Savior refer to baptism. Calvin, he believes, was the first man that ever denied this text to mean baptism. 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, 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 3:55Jesus answered, 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. (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 Savior 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 Savior’s was understood to import this, that no man could be saved unless he were baptized, &c. &c 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 3:55Jesus answered, 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. (John 3:5), seeing that so much is built upon it. What is the teaching of John 3:55Jesus answered, 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. (John 3:5)?
The expression “born of water,” we believe, in no way means baptism. The new birth is the Savior’s 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 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 Pet. 1:22, 2322Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: 23Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. (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 brining 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.” (Jas. 1:1818Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. (James 1:18).) “That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.” (Eph. 5:2626That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, (Ephesians 5:26).) “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.” (John 15:33Now 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 3:55Jesus answered, 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. (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 baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death.” (Rom. 6; Col. 2; 1 Pet. 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, and have been since the Reformation, who hold 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.”..... “Else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.”..... “For the promise is unto you, and to your children.”..... “Bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” And many draw their arguments chiefly from the baptism of households, and from the Abrahamic covenant. Mark 10 Cor. 7; Acts 2; Eph. 6; Acts 16; Gen. 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,” &c, must mean, that the person so baptized 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 for 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 to! 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 baptized, 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 true, inward, spiritual meaning and desire of the Lord’s supper were greatly lost sight of; and the most superstitious reverence was expressed for the external symbols of the ordinance.