Part 36
Then he says: “At another day you shall be made acquainted in proper order with the things that are expedient for this mystery” (that is, baptism). In like manner, Christ teaches to instruct the candidates for baptism before they are baptized. Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15,16. John likewise first instructed those whom he baptized. Matt. 3:7,8. Peter first instructed the Jews. Acts 2:38. Philip first instructed the Ethiopian. Acts 8:34,35. Ananias first taught Saul the faith. Acts 9:17,18.
He further adds this wish: “May the almighty God strengthen your hearts, and make you worthy of his baptism.” But who knows not, that newborn infants can not be strengthened in their hearts before baptism? and that, consequently, they cannot receive baptism worthily (that is, with a holy purpose and believing hearts), since they know neither good nor evil, Deut. 1:39; nor their right hand from their left, Jonah 4:11; and do as children do, 1 Cor. 13:11. Hence, this wish of Chrysostom, respecting baptism, cannot apply to them.
Finally, having declared, with what heart and purpose we must go to baptism, namely not with a doubting heart, he says: “You who thus receive baptism that you may serve God.” These are certainly plain words, which prove manifestly, that the baptism of which he speaks is far different from the baptism of infants, since these are incapable, not only of going to baptism with an undoubting or assured heart, but also of going there at all; not less incapable are they of receiving baptism with the purpose of serving God. Compare this with the words of Chrysostom, and you will find that they are as different from infant baptism as heaven is from the earth.
_Bapt. Hist., page 461._ Palladius, in the _Life of Chrysostom_, speaks of an uproar which the Emperor Theophilus[107] raised against bishop Chrysostom, persecuting him; which occurred shortly before Easter. There was no other alternative for those who sided with the bishop, and fasted with him, than to go to the Emperor and the Empress, in the week of confession, and to entreat them with tears, that they would spare the church of Christ, especially on account of the feast, and for the sake of those who were to be baptized, having received sufficient instruction for this purpose; therefore, they should release their bishop.
[107] It is evident here that either the author is mistaken in the name, or that a typographical error occurred. Theophilus was the name of the Patriarch of Alexandria, through whose instigation, with that of the Empress Eudoxia, the Emperor in question, whose name was Arcadius, was induced to persecute Chrysostom.--_Translator._
Here again are several items from which we may perceive that in the church of which Chrysostom was bishop or teacher, baptism was administered after previous instruction, and upon faith. For, in the first place, mention is made of the time in which this took place, namely, shortly before Easter, in the week of confession. Any one who has but a little experience, will find that that was the time and week in which it was customary to instruct the candidates before baptism, hear the confession of their faith, and properly examine them, in order to baptize them on the following Easter days. In the second place, mention is made of those who were to be baptized, and had received sufficient instruction for it; which so plainly illustrates what we have aimed to show, namely, that baptism at that time was administered after previous instruction, that we deem it unnecessary to add anything further with regard to it, and, hence, let it suffice.
OF THE BENEFIT, VIRTUE AND OPERATION OF BAPTISM.
_Chrysostom on Phil., chap. 3, page 405_, says: “Christ has given or ordained baptism as a purgative, and thus we have spewed out all wickedness, and by it have been made free from all our sins. The heat has abated, the fever is checked, all impurities have departed, and through the Spirit all other evil things have been purged out--those springing from fornication as well as those having their origin in the vanity of the mind.”
Again, on Heb. 7: “Therefore God gives baptism, that it may wash away sin, and not increase it.”
Again, on Col. 3: “Truly, before baptism we were very impure, but after it we become golden.”[108]
[108] Pure as precious metal.--_Pub._
Again, on Heb. 11: “What then constitutes brotherhood, if not the washing of regeneration (that is, baptism)?”
Who does not perceive by these passages of Chrysostom, that the baptism of which he speaks, applies in no wise to infants, but only and exclusively to rational persons; for, when he first says to those who wished to receive baptism, that they should (spiritually) take hold of the feet of Christ, and wash them with their tears, and then says that Christ has given or ordained baptism for a purgative, and that they had thus spewed out all wickedness (that is, sin), he sufficiently indicates thereby that he is not speaking of the baptism of infants, since, these cannot do the things which he describes as being connected with baptism.
All these things are still more clearly established by the following passages from his writings, as we shall show.
In _Bapt. Hist., page 406_, Chrysostom, on 1 Cor. 10, says: “The passage of the Jews through the Red Sea was a type of the future baptism.” A little further on, he explains this, saying: “For there it was water, here it is also water; yea, here it is the washing, and there it was the sea; here they all go into the water, there they did likewise. But would you know the truth of the matter? There they were delivered from Egypt, but here from idolatry; there Pharaoh was drowned, but here the devil; there the Egyptians perished, but here the old man of sin is buried.”
Again, on John 3, Hom. 27: “We have committed many and grievous sins, and, from youth to old age, have not refrained from staining our souls therewith; yet God does not require an account from us, but absolves us therefrom, through the washing of regeneration (that is, baptism), and has freely given us righteousness and holiness.”
How could any one speak more plainly and clearly of the true baptism of believers? For, when in the first passage he says that in being baptized we are delivered from idolatry, and that in or through baptism the old man of sin is buried; and in the second passage declares that they, having committed many and grievous sins, from youth to old age, are absolved therefrom through the washing of regeneration, that is, baptism, it again is very evident that this does not at all apply to children, since they, never having lived in idolatry, cannot forsake idolatry; neither can they, who, being yet in their infancy, have never lived according to the old man, much less have died unto it, bury the old man of sin in or through baptism; finally, they who being still infants, have not attained to old age, cannot or need not be absolved through the washing of regeneration (that is, by baptism), from the sins which they have not committed in this life.
_Bapt. Hist., page 410._ That baptism ought not to be deferred, Chrysostom (Hom. 1, on Acts) expounds with these words: “If any one say: I am afraid, I answer: If thou art afraid, thou shouldst have received and observed baptism. But thou wilt say: Even therefore I do not receive it, because I am afraid. But art thou not afraid to die in this condition? Thou sayest: Ah! God is gracious. Well then, therefore receive baptism, seeing he is so gracious, and helps thee.” He says finally: “It is impossible, I say impossible, that he, who on such a hope defers baptism, can do anything good or commendable.”
_Bapt. Hist., page 420._ The teachers of the church sometimes call baptism a consecration; regarding this Chrysostom says (Hom. 1, on Acts): “Who will fully believe me, how it pains me to the heart, when some one dies, who has not been consecrated,” that is, baptized. And, a little further on he writes: “What anguish of soul I experience, when I see how others do not hasten to baptism till their breath is about to leave them,” that is, when they must die.
These passages of Chrysostom indicate how exceedingly sorry he was, that some deferred their baptism to the end of life, who ought to have received it in time; yet not before the time of faith or repentance, much less in infancy, since he speaks only of those persons who had voluntarily, and not less presumptuously, neglected their baptism. Hence it sometimes occurred that persons desired to be baptized in their sickness, yea, on their deathbed, which this good man opposed with conclusive arguments. _Bapt. Hist., page 412_, Chrysostom says: “The mysteries are glorious and greatly to be desired, but let no soul that is about to die, receive the washing; for that is not the time for the mysteries (baptism), but to make a will; the time for the mysteries (baptism) is when the mind is sound, and the soul purified.”
Finally, Chrysostom here again produces two things which do not apply to infant baptism. First, his saying that “the mysteries” (namely, of baptism), “are glorious and greatly to be desired;” for such a desire cannot exist in infants. Secondly, his declaration, that “the time for the mysteries (or, for baptism), is when the mind is sound, and the soul purified;” for infants neither have nor know unsoundness of mind or impurity of soul. Hence neither the soundness of their minds nor the purification of their souls can be promoted or had in view, and baptism can, for this very reason, have no place with them.
CHRYSOSTOM’S VIEWS RESPECTING SEVERAL OTHER ARTICLES OF FAITH, ACCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT OF P. J. TWISCK, IN HIS CHRONIJK VAN DEN ONDERGANK DER TYRANNEN, 5th BOOK, PP. 136 AND 137.
“John Chrysostom,” he writes, “a celebrated, zealous, and eloquent teacher or bishop at Constantinople, was expelled from his bishopric, and relegated into misery; much ignominy and suffering were inflicted on him, and he died in banishment.
“His adherents and people were greatly persecuted by imperial edicts commanding them also to attend church and hear their enemies (namely, those of the Roman church), which they would not do, but held their own meetings in the farthest outskirts of the city. When this was reported to the Emperor by the bishop, a squad of soldiers was immediately sent to the place, who with sticks and stones dispersed the meeting, robbed those who had assembled of their goods, and apprehended such as could not make their escape. Finding it impossible to meet in public, they chose voluntary banishment, and forthwith departed, each his own way. Besides this, the adherents of Chrysostom were unjustly accused of having caused a conflagration, which the common people, out of spite towards Chrysostom, had kindled in the temple in which he had taught; on account of which they had to suffer much; the cruelty practiced being as great as that of the first persecutions.
“Again, the aforesaid John Chrysostom, also called, John Goldenmouth,[109] on account of his golden or excellent teachings, and his eloquent tongue taught from Matt. 5, that we ought not to swear at all, neither rightly nor falsely, and concludes very forcibly, with many words from the passage, Matt. 5:34: ‘Swear not at all,’ that it is not lawful for a Christian to swear. He conclusively refutes all objections, and maintains that now we ought not to swear. Read yourselves his full exposition of said passages.
[109] Although the Papists sometimes have this Goldenmouth in their mouth, they nevertheless regard his teachings as heresies.
Prior to him, likewise Haimus, on Rev. 10, writes, saying, That all swearing is now prohibited unto men, it being lawful only for God and the angels, who neither deceive, nor can be deceived.
Seb. Franck notes the following concerning this Haimus: “Haimus, the teacher also wrote a great deal against the Pope and the Roman church; among other things, that swearing is lawful only for God and the angels, but to men all swearing is forbidden. On Rev. 10, _Chron., Roman. Kett., letter H_.
NOTE.--This view (that we ought not to swear), is also ascribed to Isiodorus. _Tract, Loop der Werelt, page 99._
We return to the account of P. J. Twisck, concerning Chrysostom, _page 136, col. 2_. He writes: “This Goldenmouth, John Chrysostom, taught also mightily against cruelty, tyranny, war, and bloodshed, maintaining that it is altogether improper for Christians to wage war, and that peace and quiet are to be taught in the kingdom of Christ. Christ, he says, compels not, drives not away, oppresses not, but accords to each his free will, saying: ‘If any man will.’”
Read also, on Matt. 13, how he explains that the tares (to which the heretics are compared) are not to be rooted out, which, he says, Christ spoke for the purpose of preventing and forbidding war and bloodshed. No violence is to be employed in heavenly things; the wicked teachings which have proceeded from heretics, are to be reprehended and anathematized; but the men we must spare.
Again, he is also greatly opposed to the worshiping of the saints, saying that God is not like the tyrants, with whom intercession is necessary; and that we are not to confess our sins to any one except to God alone. “Thou must confess thy sins,” he says, “that thou mayest eradicate them. If thou art ashamed to confess to any one, confess them daily in thy soul. I say not, that thou shalt confess them to thy fellow servant, that he may curse them and upbraid thee; but tell them to God, who alone can heal thee from them, and follow herein the prophet, who says: ‘Commit thy way unto the Lord ... and he shall bring it to pass.’” Ps. 37:5.
And on Matt. 23, he says with many excellent words: That with human doctrines, we serve God in vain, and that there is no other testimony of the truth, no other certain test of heresy, than the Holy Scriptures, and no other way by which we may know which is the Christian church.
Again, Chrysostom says: “When the Roman Empire shall be put down, then shall antichrist come.” On Matt. 24, he says: “He speaks not unreasonably, who by the abomination of desolation understands antichrist, who, it is thought, will shortly afterwards rise, and will occupy the holy place of the church, under the name of Christ.” Also, on 2 Thess. 2: “When the Empire shall be waste and vacant, then antichrist shall occupy it, and endeavor to draw to him the kingdom of God and men.”
Further, on Matt. 24: “Beloved, be not moved, when antichrist does the works of Christ, and in the sight of Christians, performs all the offices of Christ; for Satan himself can transform himself into an angel of light. What wonder then, that his servants assume the garb of servants of righteousness, and a semblance of Christianity.
“The Jewish abomination is to be understood as having reference not only to the Jewish war, but, in a spiritual sense, also to antichrist, who in the last time, shall sit in the holy place, occupying the chief places of the church, and leading the souls of men away from God. This is very likely the one of whom Paul says that he shall oppose and exalt himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. He, standing in the holy place, has laid waste the church of God with multitudes of heresies.”
Then he says: “Since the Lord Jesus knew what great destruction would come in the last days, he commanded that the Christians who are in Christendom, if they would always continue in the true faith, should resort only to the Holy Scriptures; for, if they would look to other things, they would be offended and corrupted, and not understand what the true church is, and, in that way, fall into this horrible abomination, which sitteth in the holy place of the church.”
“Thus,” writes Twisck, “Chrysostom, Augustine, Gregory, Ambrose, Jerome, and most of the ancient teachers, though the Papists esteem them greatly with their mouths, would be nothing better than Roman heretics, and if they were still alive, and would teach these doctrines, they would have to expect nothing but fire and sword.”
“Finally, in the year 408 Chrysostom was released from his life of vexation and exile, in which he suffered much, and fell asleep in peace.” _P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th book, pages 137 and 138, col. 1_, from _Chron. Sebastian Franck, fol. 56, 92. Tob. Færi, fol. 73. Merula, fol. 338. Joan. Wales, fol. 166. Cornelius Hillenius, fol. 41._
_A. D. 390._--Jerome, born of Christian parents at Syridon, in Illyria, or Dalmatia, and instructed in the Christian doctrine from his youth, was baptized at Rome, yet not before he was in the thirtieth year of his age. _Bapt. Hist., pages 841, 365, 366, 373, 593. P. J. Twisck, Chron., 4th book, page 29, col. 1. Tract, van den loop der Werelt, page 47_, from _Erasmus and Wicelius, in the life of Jerome_.
In _Bapt. Hist., page 374_, we read the following: “Jerome writes in the 78th epistle, that he received his baptism and white garment at Rome, though we know that he was born of Christian parents, at Syridon, in Dalmatia. Hence, says the author, the Christians of that age must not have hastened so much with infant baptism, as is the case in the present time.” This Jerome, though some pedobaptists, yea, the Papists themselves, declare him a good and upright teacher, nevertheless wrote several things of such a nature, that at the present day they would be pronounced heresy by many of these same pedobaptists, especially by the Roman church; hence he is classed among the Roman heretics, that is, among those whose views are at this day pronounced heresy by the Roman church. _Chron. Seb. Franck, letter H; P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th book, page 138, col. 1._
Touching as to how it stood with baptism at the time of Jerome, I find, in substance, this annotation, _Bapt. Hist., page 335_: “It is certain, that in the time of Jerome adults were still baptized in the occidental churches, as may be seen in his epistle against the errors of John of Jerusalem.”
He, in _Epist. ad Pammach_, and Ambrose, in Epistle 83, testify that those who desired baptism were called _fellow-desirers_.
H. Montanus writes thus: “Jerome, who also lived about that time, and, as some say, was an elder at Rome, or, much earlier, as others suppose, at Jerusalem, also testifies that in his time it was a prevailing custom, to baptize adults who had been brought up in the Christian faith, when they desired baptism, for which reason they were called _Competentes_, as Jerome states in his letter to Pammachius.” _H. Montan. Nietigh., pages 74, 75._
Having now shown how it stood with baptism at the time of Jerome, and that the same was administered in the occidental churches to adults, we shall proceed to Jerome’s individual views and what he has written on this subject, according to ancient writers.
In _Bapt. Hist., page 373_, Jerome writes to Pammachius: “It is customary with us, publicly to instruct for forty days, those who are to be baptized, and enjoin them to pray to the Holy Trinity.”
D. Vicecomes finally shows, _page 375, chap. 41_ and _44_, that Jerome wrote, that in his time they gave those who were baptized, milk and honey to eat, which, the annotator remarks, is no food for new-born infants. Moreover, he shows what is required for true baptism; namely, regeneration, consisting in the mortifying of the old, and resurrection of the new man. This he expresses in the following two passages:
Jerome further writes, _page 323, lib. 12, Comment. in Ezechiel._: “We need not only the first birth, but also the second, in order that we, who are born in the flesh, may be born again after the Spirit.”
Again, _page 328, Apol. Contr. Ruffin._: “We say that the old man entirely dies in baptism, and that the new man is raised with Christ in baptism; that the earthly perishes, and the heavenly is born.”
Then he admonishes the candidates for baptism, how they should conduct themselves before and at baptism; as well as how those who had already been baptized before many witnesses, and had made a good confession, ought to manifest themselves.
Again, _page 374, Epist. 83, ad Ocean_, he writes: “The catechumens who are learning the Christian faith must observe not to have carnal intercourse with women before baptism.”
Again the words of Paul, 1 Tim. 6:12, he expounds as follows: “Thou hast professed a good profession before many witnesses; which was done through thy baptism, when thou didst renounce the world and its pomp, before the elders[110] or teachers, before the ministers, and before the heavenly hosts.”
[110] The translator says _priests_, namely, such priests as John speaks of, Rev. 1:6: “And hath made us kings and priests,” etc.
In the tract called, _Klare en Grondige Bewijsing van den Doop_, printed 1581, it is stated, _letter A_, Jerome on Matthew: “The Lord commanded his apostles, that they should first instruct and teach all nations, and then baptize those instructed, in the sacrament of faith; for it is not possible for the body to receive the sacrament of baptism, unless the soul have previously received the true faith.”
Who could ever believe that this man at any time defended, or at least, not opposed but admitted infant baptism, seeing he opposes it in the places mentioned with such abundant clearness and explicitness? We note only the last mentioned passage, where he certainly says, without the least dissimulation or exception, that it is not possible for the body to receive the sacrament of baptism, unless the soul have previously received the true faith. How can, may, or shall this be explained otherwise than that there cannot be or consist any other baptism than that which is received with true faith? for this is the very idea expressed by his words.
Nevertheless, there are men who ascribe to Jerome a certain dialogue against Pelagius, in which one Critobulus interrogates, and one Atticus answers, in this wise: Critobulus asks: “Why are children baptized?” Atticus replies: “That their sins may be forgiven them in baptism.” “Why, what sins have they committed?” asks Critobulus. Atticus answers: “Dost thou ask me this? let the evangelic trumpet answer thee.”
But, in order to prove that Jerome defended infant baptism, it would first have to be shown incontrovertibly, that this dialogue is Jerome’s own production, which we have great reason to doubt, since the style as well as the matter of the same do not accord with his other writings, especially those in which he treats of baptism; moreover, there have of old been forgers, who, in order to gain greater renown for their own productions, have ascribed them to celebrated men, or have interpolated their own opinions into their writings; thus, it has been proven that the writings of Justin have been interpolated. _Bapt. Hist., page 170. H. Montan., pages 7, 8, 9._ Also, _the writings of Origen. Bapt. Hist., pages 283 and 291. H. Mont., pages 29–34, 42, 43._
Yea, in this manner, a whole book, also touching on infant baptism, has been falsely ascribed to Dionysius, the Areopagite, who, it is testified, lived in the time of the apostles; this the Magdeburg pedobaptists themselves show. _Centur. 1, cap. 2._ Also, _Jac. Mehrning, Bapt. Hist., 177, 293, 341_.
Again, even if it could be shown, which is by no means certain, that this dialogue is Jerome’s own production, it could nevertheless not be proven thereby, that Jerome himself held the views maintained by one party in the dialogue, namely, that infants may be baptized. For, why should we not, with equal justice, ascribe to him the views of the other party, which demands reasons and proof why they may be baptized? For one would certainly be his work as much as the other.