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.
Moreover, every intelligent person knows that books that are written in
the form of dialogues, do not always express the author’s individual
views, but that frequently the views and debates of others are handled
in them, either to censure them, expose their errors, or correct them.
Finally, how could it be possible, that any one endowed with reason
and sound judgment should do such contrary things at one and the same
time? We have shown how clearly and correctly he speaks of the baptism
of adults, yea, recommends it, and not only this, but how he, though
he was born of Christian parents, remained unbaptized until he was in
his thirtieth year--how then could he admit infant baptism, seeing he
decisively opposed it by doctrine and example? unless it be shown that
Jerome wrote this article on infant baptism before his conversion, or
that he subsequently apostatized from his adopted views, to infant
baptism; but as I can find no account of either we will hold to our
previous declaration.
JEROME’S VIEWS TOUCHING SEVERAL OTHER MATTERS OF FAITH, ACCORDING TO P.
J. TWISCK’S CHRONIJK, ETC., PAGE 129, COL. 1, 2.
“Jerome, born of Christian parents, and brought up and instructed in
the Christian doctrine, was baptized at Rome, in the thirtieth year of
his age.” _Erasmus, Grondig Bewijs, letter A., Mart. Ball., fol. 102._
“Again, Jerome plainly says, respecting the words of the Supper, that
with this bread Christ intended to prefigure, represent, and show the
truth of his body, and in many places he calls the cup a figure of the
blood.