Ecumenical Christian Library

  • Loading…

V.61. What things in baptism have been dispensed with by the Fathers respecting necessity.

159417 min read

LXI. The ancient it may be were too severe, and made the necessity of baptism more absolute than reason would, as touching infants. But will any man say1 that they, notwithstanding their too much rigour herein, did not in that respect sustain and tolerate defects of local or of personal solemnities belonging to the sacrament of baptism? The Apostles themselves did neither use nor appoint for baptism any certain time. The Church for general baptism heretofore made choice of two chief days in the year, the feast of Easter, and the feast of Pentecost. Which custom when certain churches in Sicily began to violate without cause, they were by Leo Bishop of Rome advised2 rather to conform themselves to the rest of the world in things so reasonable, than to offend men’s minds through needless singularity: howbeit always providing that nevertheless in apparent peril of death, danger of siege, straits of persecution, fear of shipwreck, and the like exigents, no respect of times should cause this singular defence of true safety to be denied unto any. This of Leo did but confirm that sentence which Victor had many years before given3, extending the same exception as well unto places as times.

That which St. Augustine speaketh of women hasting to bring their children to the church when they saw danger, is a weak proof that when necessity did not leave them so much time, it was not then permitted them neither to make a church of their own home.

Which answer dischargeth likewise their example of a sick Jew carried in bed to the place of baptism, and not baptized at home in private.

The cause why such kind of baptism barred men afterwards from entering into holy orders, the reason wherefore it was objected against Novatian4, in what respect and how far forth it did disable, may be gathered by the twelfth canon set down in the council of Neocæsarea after this manner. “A man which hath been baptized in sickness, is not after to be ordained priest.” For it may be thought, “that such do rather at that time, because they see no other remedy, than of a voluntary mind lay hold on the Christian faith, unless their true and sincere meaning be made afterwards the more manifest, or else the scarcity of others enforce the Church to admit them5.”

They bring in Justinian’s imperial constitution, but to what purpose, seeing it only forbiddeth men to have the mysteries of God administered in their private chapels, lest under that pretence heretics should do secretly those things which were unlawful? In which consideration he therefore commandeth that if they would use those private oratories otherwise than only for their private prayers, the Bishop should appoint them a clerk whom they might entertain for that purpose. This is plain by later constitutions made in the time of Leo6: “It was thought good,” saith the emperor, “in their judgment which have gone before, that in private chapels none should celebrate the holy communion but priests belonging unto greater churches. Which order they took as it seemeth for the custody of religion, lest men should secretly receive from heretics, instead of the food the bane of their souls, pollution in place of expiation.” Again7, “Whereas a sacred canon of the sixth reverend synod requireth baptism, as others have likewise the holy sacrifices and mysteries, to be celebrated only in temples hallowed for public use, and not in private oratories; which strict decrees appear to have been made heretofore in regard of heretics, which entered closely into such men’s houses as favoured their opinions, whom under colour of performing with them such religious offices they drew from the soundness of true religion: now that perverse opinions through the grace of Almighty God are extinct and gone, the cause of former restraints being taken away, we see no reason but that private oratories may henceforward enjoy that liberty which to have granted them heretofore had not been safe.”

In sum, all these things alleged are nothing, nor will it ever be proved while the world doth continue, but that the practice of the Church in cases of extreme necessity hath made for private baptism always more than against it.

Yea, “Baptism by any man in case of necessity,” was the voice8 of the whole world heretofore. Neither is Tertullian, Epiphanius, Augustine, or any other of the ancient against it.

The boldness of such as pretending Tecla’s example9, took openly upon them both baptism and all other public functions of priesthood, Tertullian severely controlleth, saying10, “To give baptism is in truth the bishop’s right. After him it belongeth unto priests and deacons, but not to them without authority from him received. For so the honour of the Church requireth, which being kept, preserveth peace. Were it not in this respect the laity might do the same, all sorts might give even as all sorts receive. But because emulation is the mother of schisms11, let it content thee” (which art of the order of laymen) “to do it in necessity when the state of time or place or person thereunto compelleth. For then is their boldness privileged that help when the circumstance of other men’s dangers craveth it.” What he granteth generally to lay persons of the house of God, the same we cannot suppose he denieth to any sort or sex contained under that name, unless himself did restrain the limits of his own speech, especially seeing that Tertullian’s rule of interpretation is elsewhere12, “Specialties are signified under that which is general, because they are therein comprehended.” All which Tertullian doth deny is13 that women may be called to bear, or publicly take upon them to execute offices of ecclesiastical order, whereof none but men are capable.

As for Epiphanius14, he striketh on the very self-same anvil with Tertullian.

And in necessity if St. Augustine allow as much unto laymen as Tertullian doth, his “not mentioning” of women is but a slender proof that his meaning was to exclude women.

Finally, the council of Carthage15 likewise, although it make no express submission, may be very well presumed willing to stoop as other positive ordinances do to the countermands of necessity.

Judge therefore what the ancient would have thought if in their days it had been heard which is published in ours16, that because “the substance of the sacrament doth chiefly depend on the institution of God, which is the form and as it were the life of the sacrament,” therefore first, “if the whole institution be not kept, it is no sacrament;” and secondly, if baptism be private his institution is broken, inasmuch as, “according to the orders which he hath set for baptism it should be done in the congregation,” from whose ordinance in this point “we ought not to swerve, although we know that infants should be assuredly damned without baptism.” O sir, you that would spurn thus at such as in case of so dreadful extremity should lie prostrate before your feet, you that would turn away your face from them at the hour of their most need, you that would dam up your ears and harden your heart as iron against the unresistible cries of supplicants calling upon you for mercy with terms of such invocation as that most dreadful perplexity might minister if God by miracle did open the mouths of infants to express their supposed necessity, should first imagine yourself in their case and them in yours. This done, let their supplications proceed out of your mouth, and your answer out of theirs. Would you then contentedly hear, “My son, the rites and solemnities of baptism must be kept, we may not do ill that good may come of it17, neither are souls to be delivered from eternal death and condemnation, by breaking orders which Christ hath set;” would you in their case yourself be shaken off with these answers, and not rather embrace enclosed with both your arms a sentence which now is no Gospel unto you, “I will have mercy and not sacrifice18?”

To acknowledge Christ’s institution the ground of both sacraments, I suppose no Christian man will refuse: for it giveth them their very nature, it appointeth the matter whereof they consist, the form of their administration it teacheth, and it blesseth them with that grace whereby to us they are both pledges and instruments of life. Nevertheless seeing Christ’s institution containeth, besides that which maketh complete the essence or nature, other things that only are parts as it were of the furniture of sacraments, the difference between these two must unfold that which the general terms of indefinite speech would confound. If the place appointed for baptism be a part of Christ’s institution, it is but his institution as Sacrifice, baptism his institution as Mercy, in this case. He which requireth both mercy and sacrifice rejecteth his own institution of sacrifice, where the offering of sacrifice would hinder mercy from being shewed. External circumstances even in the holiest and highest actions are but the “lesser things of the law19,” whereunto those actions themselves being compared are “the greater;” and therefore as the greater are of such importance that they must be done, so in that extremity before supposed if our account of the lesser which are not to be omitted, should cause omission of that which is more to be accounted of, were not this our strict obedience to Christ’s institution touching “mint and cummin,” a disobedience to his institution concerning love? But sith no institution of Christ hath so strictly tied baptism to public assemblies as it hath done all men unto baptism, away with these merciless and bloody sentences, let them never be found standing in the books and writings of a Christian man, they savour not of Christ nor of his most gracious and meek spirit, but under colour of exact obedience they nourish cruelty and hardness of heart.

← What kind of necessity in outward baptism ha · Contents · Whether baptism by women be true baptism, go →

Footnotes

  1. T. C. lib. i. p. 146. [115.] “The authors themselves of that error that they cannot be saved which are not baptized, did never seek no remedy of the mischief in women’s or private baptism.” T. C. lib. iii. 219. “What plainer testimony can there be than that of Augustine, which noteth the use of the Church to have been to come to the church with their children in danger of death, and that when some had opinion that their children could not be saved if they were not baptized? (Cont. Lit. Parm. lib. ii. c. 13.) I would also know of him what he will answer to that which is noted of a Christian Jew desperately sick of the palsy, that was with his bed carried to the place of baptism. (Socr. lib. vii. cap. 4.) What will he answer to this, That those which were baptized in their beds were thereby made unapt to have any place amongst the clergy, (as they call them,) doth it not leave a note of infamy in those which had procured that baptism should be ministered in private houses? (Euseb. lib. vi. cap. 43.) What unto the emperor’s decree, which upon authority of the ancient laws and of the Apostles, forbiddeth that the holy things should be administered in any man’s private house? (Just. Novel. 57.)” [58. p. 91. in Corp. Jur. Civ.] ↩

  2. Leo Epist. iv. ad Episc. Sicil. [§ 1. “Miror vos, vel præcessores vestros, tam irrationabilem novitatem usurpare potuisse, ut confuso temporis utriusque mysterio, nullam esse differentiam crederetis inter diem, quo adoratus est Christus a Magis, et diem quo resurrexit a mortuis … § 3. Ipsa operis qualitas docet celebrandæ generaliter gratiæ eum esse legitimum diem, in quo orta est et virtus muneris et species action is… . Additur sane huic observantiæ etiam Pentecostes ex adventu Spiritus Sancti consecrata solennitas, quæ de Paschatis festi pendet articulo … § 5, 6. Unde quia manifestissime patet baptizandis in Ecclesia electis hæc duo tempora … esse legitima, dilectionem vestram monemus, ut nullos alios dies huic observationi misceatis. Quia etsi sunt alia quoque festa quibus multa in honorem Dei reverentia debeatur, principalis tamen et maximi sacramenti custodienda nobis est mysticæ rationis exceptio: non interdicta licentia quæ in baptismo tribuendo quolibet tempore periclitantibus subvenitur. Ita enim ad has duas festivitates connexas, atq e sibimet cognatas, incolumium et in pacis securitate degentium libera vota differimus, ut in mortis periculo, in obsidionis discrimine, in persecutionis angustiis, in timore naufragii, nullo tempore hoc veræ salutis singulare remedium cuiquam denegemus.” p. 99, 100.] ↩

  3. Vict. Ep. ad Theoph. Alexand. in Pontif. Damas. [Conc. i. 591, 593. He fixes Easter as the proper time for baptism, adding, “Si necesse fuerit, aut mortis periculum ingruerit, gentiles ad fidem venientes quocunque loco vel momento, ubicunque evenerit, sive in flumine, sive in mari, sive in fontibus, tantum Christianæ confessione credulitatis clarificata, baptizentur.” The letter, if genuine, was written to Theophilus of Cæsarea in Palestine. Eus. E. H. v. 22. circ. ad 197. The book from which Hooker quotes is the “Liber Pontificalis” or “De Vitis Rom. Pontificum;” the earlier portion of which work was formerly ascribed to Damasus; and the whole of it since to Anastasius Bibliothecarius, ad 870. But it seems now agreed that it is a compilation by various authors. It has been usual to insert it in editions of the Councils. Cave, H. L. i. 183.] ↩

  4. [Cornelius in Euseb. E. H. vi. 43. p. 246, ed. Vales. says of the Bishop who ordained Novatian, Διακωλυόμενος ὑπὸ παντὸς του̑ κλήρου, ἀλλὰ καὶ λαϊκω̑ν πολλω̑ν· ἐπεὶ μὴ ἐξὸν ἠ̑ν τὸν ἐπὶ κλίνης διὰ νόσον περιχυθέντα, ὥσπερ καὶ οὑ̑τος, εἰς κλη̑ρόν τινα γενέσθαι· ἠξίωσε συγχωρηθη̑ναι αὐτῳ̑ του̑τον μόνον χειροτονη̑σαι.] ↩

  5. [Ἐὰν νοσω̑ν τις ϕωτισθῃ̑, εἰς πρεσβύτερον ἄγεσθαι οὐ δύναται. οὐκ ἐκ προαιρέσεως γὰρ ἡ πίστις αὐτου̑, ἀλλ’ ἐξ ἀνάγκης· εἰ μὴ τάχα διὰ τὴν μετὰ ταυ̑τα αὐτου̑ σπουδὴν καὶ πίστιν, καὶ διὰ σπάνιν ἀνθρώπων. Concil. t. i. 1484.] ↩

  6. Leo (VI.) Const. iv. (887-893) [p. 240 in Corp. Jur. Civ. τοι̑ς μὲν ἀρχαιοτέροις ἔδοξε τὰς κατ’ οἴκους ἱερατείας καὶ συνάξεις ὑπὸ μόνων ἐκτελει̑σθαι τω̑ν ται̑ς καθολικαι̑ς ἐκκλησίαις διαϕερόντων ἱερέων· … του̑το δ’ ἔοικεν ἕνεκά γε τη̑ς περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἀσϕαλείας εἰς ἐνθύμιον αὐτοι̑ς ἐπελθει̑ν ἀποθεσπίσαι· ὡς ἂν μὴ, ὡς εἰκὸς, τινω̑ν ἐπικρυπτόντων ἀποστασίας ὄλεθρον ἐν τῳ̑ τη̑ς ἱερωσύνης σχήματι, συμβαίνοι, ἀντὶ του̑ ἁγιάζεσθαι, μα̑λλον πλει̑ον βεβηλου̑σθαι τοὺς τη̑ς ἐκείνου μετέχοντας ἀνιέρου τελετη̑ς.] ↩

  7. Leo Const. xv. [p. 244. Ὁ τη̑ς σεβασμίας ἑκτη̑ς συνόδου κανὼν ἱερὸς … τὸ θει̑ον τη̑ς ἀναγεννήσεως λουτρὸν ἐν τοι̑ς κατ’ οἰ̑κον εὐκτηρίοις τελει̑σθαι οὐ βούλεται, ἀλλὰ ἐν μόνοις τοι̑ς πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν ἀνιερωμένοις ναοι̑ς… . τὴν γὰρ τοιαύτην ἀκρίβειαν δοκει̑ μοι πεποιη̑σθαι τὸ ἱερὸν τη̑ς συνόδου διάταγμα, διὰ τοὺς ἐν ἱερέων ὀνόματι ἀνιέρους καὶ βεβήλους τοὺς ὑπ’ αὐτω̑ν προσαγομένους τῳ̑ λουτρῳ̑ ποιου̑ντας· οἳ, ὡς εἰκὸς, ἐν τοι̑ς τω̑ν ὁμοδόξων οἴκοις ὑποδυόμενοι, οὐ τελου̑σιν, ἀλλὰ συντελου̑σι τοι̑ς αὐτοι̑ς προερχομένοις· … πλὴν ἀλλά γε νυ̑ν θείᾳ χάριτι πάσης κακοδοξίας ἀπεσκορακισμἑνης, οὐδὲν καὶ κατὰ του̑το τὸ μέρος ὁρω̑ μοι τὸ δόγμα προβαλλόμενον ἀναγκαι̑ον, εἰς τὸ κωλύειν ἐν τοι̑ς κατ’ οἰ̑κον εὐκτηρίοις τὸ λου̑τρον τη̑ς ἀναγεννήσεως.] ↩

  8. “To allow of women’s baptizing is not only contrary to the learned writers now, but also contrary to all learned antiquity, and contrary to the practice of the Church whilst there was any tolerable estate. Tertull. de Virg. veland. et lib. de Baptism. Epiphan. lib. i. et lib. ii. cont. Hæres. St. Augustine, although he seem to allow of a layman’s baptism in time of necessity (Cont. Epist. Parm. lib. ii. cap. 13. [t. ix. 44.]) yet there he mentioneth not women’s baptism; and in the fourth council of Carthage, can. 100. it is simply without exception decreed that a woman ought not to baptize.” T. C. i. 145. [114.] ↩

  9. [“Quod si, quæ Pauli perperam scripta legunt, exemplum Teclæ ad licentiam mulierum docendi tingendique defendunt: sciant in Asia presbyterum, qui eam Scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse, loco discessisse.” Tertull. de Baptismo, 17. See Jones’s Canon of the N. T. ii. 375, 378, 380, or Grabe, Spicileg. Patrum, i. 111, 115.] ↩

  10. Tertull. de Baptis. [c. 17. Dandi quidem habet jus summus sacerdos, qui est episcopus: dehinc presbyteri et diaconi, non tamen sine episcopi auctoritate, propter ecclesiæ honorem. Quo salvo, salva pax est. Alioquin etiam laicis jus est. Quod enim ex æquo accipitur ex æquo dari potest… .Æmulatio, schismatum mater est. Omnia licere dixit sanctissimus Apostolus, sed non omnia expedire. Sufficiat scilicet in necessitatibus ut utaris, sicubi aut loci aut temporis aut personæ conditio compellit. Tunc enim constantia succurrentis excipitur, quum urget circumstantia periclitantis.”] ↩

  11. Tertull. [ibid.] ↩

  12. “Subjectum est generali speciale. In ipso significatur, quia in ipso continetur.” Tertull. de veland. Virg. [c. 4.] Posito genere supponitur species. Azoar. in lib. ii. Cod. De Transact. [p. 73. Basil. 1563. The words are, “A quocunque removetur genus, ab eodem removetur et species.”] ↩

  13. “Non permittitur mulieri in ecclesia loqui, sed nec docere, nec tingere, nec offerre, nec ullius virilis muneris nedum sacerdotalis officii sortem sibi vindicare.” Tertull. de veland. Virg. [c. 9.] ↩

  14. [T. C. ubi supr. “Epiphanius upbraideth Marcion that he suffered women to baptize.” (Epiph. lib. i. hæres. xlii. § 4. δίδωσι καὶ ἐπιτροπὴν γυναιξὶ βάπτισμα διδόναι· παρ’ αὐται̑ς γὰρ πάντα χλεύης ἔμπλεα, καὶ οὐδὲν ἕτερον· ὅποτε καὶ τὰ μυστήρια ἐνώπιον κατηχουμένων ἐπιτελει̑ν τολμω̑σιν.) “And in another book he derideth them that they made women bishops: lib. ii. ubi de Phrygib. et Priscil.” (Hær. xlix. § 2. ἐπίσκοποί τε παρ’ αὐτοι̑ς γυναι̑κες, καὶ πρεσβύτεροι γυναι̑κες, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα· ὡς μηδὲν διαϕέρειν ϕησίν· ἐν γὰρ Χριστῳ̑ Ἰησου̑ οὔτε ἄρσεν, οὔτε θη̑λυ.) “And in another book he saith, it was not granted to the holy mother of Christ to baptize her son: lib. iii.” (Hær. lxxix. c. iii. εἰ ἱερατεύειν γυναι̑κες Θεῳ̑ προσετάσσοντο, ἢ κανονικόν τι ἐργάζεσθαι ἐν τῃ̑ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἔδει μα̑λλον αὐτὴν τὴν Μαρίαν ἱερατείαν ἐπιτελέσαι ἐν καινῃ̑ διαθήκῃ·… . ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ βάπτισμα διδόναι πεπίστευται· ἐπεὶ ἠδύνατο ὁ Χριστὸς μα̑λλον παρ’ αὐτη̑ς βαπτισθη̑ναι, ἤπερ παρὰ Ἰωάννου.) He is arguing against the heresy of the Collyridians, who had a sort of priestesses to offer meat-offerings to (or in memory of) the Virgin: and much of his argument turns upon the point that it was impossible for a woman to perform any office properly sacerdotal. Comp. § 2, 4, 7.] ↩

  15. [iv. Conc. Carth. ad 378. can. 100. “Mulier baptizare non præsumat.” t. ii. 1207. St. Augustine being one of the subscribers.] ↩

  16. T. C. lib. i. p. 144. [114.] “The substance of the sacrament dependeth chiefly of the institution and word of God, which is the form and as it were the life of the sacrament.” Ibid. “Although part of the institution be observed, yet if the whole institution be not, it is no sacrament.” T. C. lib. i. p. 146. [115.] “The orders which God hath set are, that it should be done in the congregation and by the minister.” Ibid. “And I will further say, that although the infants which die without baptism should be assuredly damned, (which is most false,) yet ought not the orders which God hath set in his Church to be broken after this sort.” ↩

  17. “Nostro peccato alterius saluti consulere non debemus.” Aug. lib. cont. Mend. cap. 17. [t. vi. 468. in substance.] ↩

  18. Matt. ix. 13. ↩

  19. Matt. xxiii. 23. ↩

Backlinks