A History of the Baptist, Chapter 3 - The Struggle Against Corruption

At first there was unity in fundamental doctrines and practices. Step by step some of the churches turned aside from the old paths and sought out many inventions. Discipline became lax and persons of influence were permitted to follow a course of life which would not have been tolerated under the old discipline. The times had changed and some of the churches changed with the times. There were those who had itching ears and they sought after novelties. The dogma of baptismal regeneration was early accepted by many, and men sought to have their sins washed away in water rather than in the blood of Christ. Ministers became ambitious for power and trampled upon the independence of the churches. The churches conformed to the customs of the world and the pleasures of society.

There were, however, churches which remained uncorrupted, and there were faithful men who raised their voices against the departure from apostolic practice. An account will be given of some of the early reformers who offered their protest and called the people back to the simplicity of the gospel.

Chevalier Christian Charles Bunsen, while Prussian ambassador to London, walking in the light and breathing in the atmosphere of a purer age. held holy communion with the early churches. He used these earnest words:

Take away ignorance, misunderstanding, and forgeries, and the naked truth remains; not a spectre, thank God, carefully to be veiled; but an Image of divine beauty radiant with eternal truth! Break down the barriers which separate us from the communion of the primitive church—I mean, free yourselves from the letter of the later formulas, canons, and conventional abstractions—and you move unshackled in the open ocean of faith; you hold fellowship with the spirits of the heroes of Christian antiquity; and you are able to trace the stream of unity as it rolls through eighteen centuries in spite of rocks and quicksands (Bunsen, Hippolytus, p. 4).

The first protest in the way of separation from the growing corruptions of the times was the movement of the Montanist churches. This Montanus, the leader, was a Phrygian, who arose about the year A. D. 156. The most distinguished advocate of Montanism was Tertullian who espoused and defended their views. They held that science and art, all worldly education or gay form of life, should be avoided, because such things belonged to paganism. The crown of life was martyrdom. Religious life they held to be austere. Against a mortal sin the church should defend itself by rightly excluding him who committed it, for the holiness of the church was simply the holiness of the members. With such principles they could not fail to come in conflict with the popular Christianity of the day. The substance of the contentions of these churches was for a life of the Spirit. It was not a new form of Christianity; it was a recovery of the old, the primitive church set over against the obvious corruptions of the current Christianity. The old church demanded purity; the new church had struck a bargain with the world, and had arranged itself comfortably with it, and they would, therefore, break with it (Moeller, Montanism in Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, III.1562).

Their contention was not so much one of doctrine as of discipline. They insisted that those who had "lapsed" from the true faith should be rebaptized, because they had denied Christ and ought to be baptized anew. On this account they were termed "Anabaptists," and some of their principles reappeared in Anabaptism (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, II. p. 427). Infant baptism was not yet a dogma, and we know that it was rejected by the Montanists. Tertullian thought only adults ought to be immersed. The Montanists were deeply rooted in the faith, and their opponents admitted that they received the entire Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments, and they were sound in their views of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Epiphanius, Hoer, XLVIII. 1). They rejected episcopacy and the right of the bishop’s claim to exercise the power of the keys.

The movement spread rapidly through Asia Minor and North Africa, and for a time in Rome itself. It appealed very powerfully to the sterner moralists, stricter disciplinarians, and more deeply pious minds among all Christians. Montanism had the advantage of claiming divine revelation for stricter principles. Montanism had made so much stir in Asia Minor, before the close of the second century, that several councils were called against it, and finally the whole movement was officially condemned. But Montanism continued for centuries, and finally became known under other names (Eusebius, The Church History, 229 note 1 by Dr. McGiffert). In Phrygia the Montanists came in contact with, and probably in actual communion with, the Paulicians. We know that they were still in existence in the year 722 (Theophanes, p. 617. Bond ed.)

The rise of the Novatian churches was another outcropping of the old strife between the lax and strict discipline. In the year 250 Novatian strenuously opposed the election of Cornelius as the pastor of the church in Rome. Novatian declared that he did not wish the office himself, but he pleaded for the purity of the church. The election of Cornelius prevailed, and Novatian carried many churches and ministers with him in his protest. The vast extent of the Novatian movement may be learned from the authors who wrote against him, and the several parts of the Roman empire where they flourished.

These churches continued to flourish in many parts of Christendom for six centuries (Walch, Historic der Ketzereyen, II. p. 220). Dr. Robinson traces a continuation of them up to the Reformation and the rise of the Anabaptist movement. "Great numbers followed his (Novatian’s) example," says he, "and all over the Empire Puritan churches were constituted and flourished through two hundred succeeding years. Afterwards, when penal laws obliged them to lurk in corners, and worship God in private, they were distinguished by a variety of names, and a succession of them continued till the Reformation" (Robinson, Ecclesiastical Researches, p. 126. Cambridge, 1792).

On account of the purity of their lives they were called the Cathari, that is, the pure. "What is still more," says Mosheim, "they rebaptized such as came over to them from the Catholics" (Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History I. p. 203. New York, 1871). Since they baptized those who came to them from other communions they were called Anabaptists. The fourth Lateran Council decreed that these rebaptizers should be punished by death. Accordingly, Albanus, a zealous minister, and others, were punished with death. They were, says Robinson, "trinitarian Baptists." They held to the independence of the churches; and recognized the equality of all pastors in respect to dignity and authority.

The Donatists arose in Numidia, in the year 311, and they soon extended over Africa. They taught that the church should be a holy body. Crespin, a French historian, says that they held the following views:

First, for purity of church members, by asserting that none ought to be admitted into the church but such as are visibly true believers and true saints. Secondly, for purity of church discipline. Thirdly, for the independency of each church. Fourthly, they baptized again those whose first baptism they had reason to doubt. They were consequently termed rebaptizers and Anabaptists.

In his early historical writings David Benedict, the Baptist historian, wrote with much caution of the denominational character of the Donatists. He followed closely the statements of other writers in his history; but in his last days he went into the original sources and produced a remarkable book called a "History of the Donatists" (Pawtucket, 1875). In that book he recedes from his noncommittal position and classes them as Baptists. He quite freely shows from Augustine and Optatus, who were contemporaries, that the Donatists rejected infant baptism and were congregational in their form of government.

Dr. Heman Lincoln dissented from some of the conclusions of Dr. Benedict and called them fanciful. But that they held some Baptist principles he did not doubt. He says:

It is evident that the Donatists held, at some period of their history, many of the principles which are regarded as axioms by modern Baptists. In their later history, after a stern discipline of persecution, they maintained, as cardinal truths, absolute freedom of conscience, the divorce of church and state, and a regenerate church membership. These principles, in whose defense they endured martyrdom coupled with their uniform practice of immersion, bring them into close affinity with Baptists (Lincoln, The Donatists. In The Baptist Review, p. 358, July, 1880).

This is the position of an extreme conservative. Perhaps Dr. Lincoln underestimated the coloring which the enemies of the Donatists gave to the controversy, and he certainly did not give due credit to what Augustine says on infant baptism in his opposition to them. It has been affirmed that some of the Donatists placed too much stress upon the efficiency of baptism and affirmed episcopacy. This however is a matter of controversy of no great interest, and does not here concern us.

Augustine’s third and fourth books against the Donatists demonstrated that they denied Infant baptism, wherein he maintained the argument for Infant baptism against them with great zeal, enforcing it with severe arguments (D’Anvers, A Treatise on Baptism. 223, London, 1674).

Augustine makes the Donatists Anabaptists (Migne, Patrologis Lat., XLII.). The form of baptism, according to Optatus, was immersion. Lucas Osiander, Professor in and Chancellor of the University of Tubingen, wrote a book against the Anabaptists, in 1605, in which he says: "Our modern Anabaptists are the same as the Donatists of old" (Osiander, Epist cent 16. p.175. Wittenberg, 1607). These rigid moralists, however, did not count themselves Anabaptists; for they thought that there was one Lord, one faith, one baptism and that their own (Albaspinae, Observat. In Optatus, i). They took no account of the baptism of others, and contended that they were wrongly called Anabaptists.

The Donatists stood for liberty of conscience, and they were opposed to the persecuting power of the State Church, They were, says Neander, "the most important and influential church division which we have to mention in this period" (Neander, General History of the Christian Religion and Church, III. 258). Neander continues:

That which distinguishes the present case is, the reaction, proceeding out of the essence of the Christian church, and called forth, in this instance, by a peculiar occasion, against the confounding of the ecclesiastical end political elements; on which occasion, for the first time, the ideas which Christianity, as opposed to the papal religion of the state, had first made men distinctly conscious of, became an object of contention within the Christian church itself,—the ideas concerning universal, inalienable human rights; concerning liberty of conscience; concerning the rights of free religious conviction.

Thus the Bishop Donatus, of Carthage, in 347, rejected the imperial commissioners, Paulus and Marcarius, with the acclamation: "Quid est imperatori cum eccleaia?" (Optatus, Milev., De Schismati Donat. 1. iii. c. 3). And truly indeed the emperor should not have had anything to do with the control of the church. The Donatist Bishop Petilian, in Africa, against whom Augustine wrote, appealed to Christ and the apostles who never persecuted. "Think you," says he, "to serve God by killing us with your hand? Ye err, if ye, poor mortals, think this; God has not hangmen for priests. Christ teaches us to bear wrong, not to revenge it," The Donatist bishop Gaudentius says: "God appointed prophets and fishermen, not princes and soldiers, to spread the faith."

The position of these Christians was not only a protest but an appeal. It was a protest against the growing corruptions and worldliness of those churches which had sadly departed from the faith in doctrine and discipline; it was an appeal, since they were fervently called back to purity of life and apostolic simplicity. All through the days of darkness their voice was not hushed, and there was not wanting a people to stand before God. Maligned, they suffered with patience; reviled, they reviled not; and the heritage of these people is liberty of conscience to a world. All hail, martyrs of God.

Did Tertullian Reject Infant Baptism?

This discussion took place on FidoNet RCatholic in April 1998 with Sean Brooks ( quoted as SB> responding to a prison chaplain, Charlie Ray quoted as CR> ). Answers the question whether Tertullian (and the church in North Africa) rejected Infant Baptism (Paedobaptism). The passage in question from Tertullian is cited by Sean below:
Tertullian, treatise on BAPTISM 18,4 (c. AD 200-206)

“According to circumstance and disposition and even age of the individual person, it may be better to delay Baptism; and especially so in the case of little children. Why, indeed, is it necessary — if it be not a case of necessity — that the sponsors to be thrust into danger, when they themselves may fail to fulfill their promises by reason of death, or when they may be disappointed by the growth of an evil disposition? Indeed the Lord says, ‘Do not forbid them to come to me’ [Matt 19:14; Luke 18:16].

“Let them come, then, while they grow up, while they learn, while they are taught to whom to come; let them become Christians when they will have been able to know Christ! Why does the innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? ...For no less cause should the unmarried also be deferred, in whom there is an aptness to temptation — in virgins on account of their ripeness as also in the widowed on account of their freedom — until they are married or are better strengthened for continence. Anyone who understands the seriousness of Baptism will fear its reception more than its deferral. Sound faith is secure of its salvation!”

Date: 04-15-98 / From: CHARLIE RAY / To: SEAN M. BROOKS / Subj: Infant Baptism

Hi Sean:

Quote: “It is perhaps not without significance, that the very tractate on baptism by Tertullian which plays such an important role in McDonnell’s argumentation explicitly opposes infant baptism. This means both that around 200 infant baptism was already a reality in North Africa and that Tertullian’s tractate must possibly be read in polemical context. Thus he may not just be describing the baptismal practice of his community, but also prescribing it.”

From: CYBERJOUNRAL FOR PENTECOSTAL CHARISMATIC RESEARCH, Issue #2, “WATER BAPTISM IN THE CHURCH FATHERS” by Dr. Martin Parmentier

By the way, Dr. Parmentier is a charismatic Catholic. You might find his entire article interesting, even if you are not Pentecostal or charismatic. Dr. Parmentier contradicts my earlier opinion that infant baptism did not exist in North Africa but please note that he also says that Tertullian opposed it. Your quote from Tertullian supports that opinion.

CYBERJOURNAL FOR PENTECOSTAL CHARISMATIC RESEARCH, Response to Martin Parmentier on Baptism and Spirit Baptism in the Church Fathers by Fr. Kilian McDonnell

Quote: “We know that Tertullian protested against the practice of infant baptism and wanted babies to come to be baptized when they were more mature. We also know that Origen thought that infant baptism was an apostolic tradition. Whether infants were baptized in New Testament times is a matter of dispute. But no one disputes that when the church was in a mission situation, and the followers of Christ went out to preach the gospel, they preached to adults, not to infants. And therefore most of the baptisms were adult baptisms. But later, when there was a more stable Christian population, infant baptism became more common. This may have contributed to less awareness of the charisms. But the many non-liturgical references indicate that the charisms were a fact of the life of the early church. The charisms, including the prophetic charisms, never died out completely. A church without charisms is a non-church.”

So I’ve got at least three scholars, two of whom are Roman Catholic, who agree that Tertullian opposed infant baptism, that Origen supported it on his belief that it was apostolic in origin. That means at least one point in favor of my argument — the Church Fathers are not uniform on this issue even if a majority of them did support infant baptism.

Sincerely in Christ,

Charlie Ray, Chaplain

1 Timothy 4:16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. (NIV).

* Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide.

* Origin: Get All Your Fido Here! telnet://docsplace.dynip.com (1:3603/140)

Date: 04-15-98 / From: MICHAEL BRAZIER / To: CHARLIE RAY / Subj: Tertullian

“For the Snark was CHARLIE RAY, you see.”

On Tuesday April 14 1998 09:30, CHARLIE RAY wrote to SEAN M. BROOKS:

SB> Misleading and incomplete. Tertullian did not REJECT infant baptism. I’ll quote the relevant text from his treatise BAPTISM (18,4, written inter AD 200-206): >>

CR> You’re splitting hairs, Sean. To say that Tertullian did not *specifically* condemn infant baptism begs the question when clearly he was against it as your quote shows. >>

The quote (I read it) shows that Tertullian thought it better to baptize in adulthood. It does not show that Tertullian thought baptizing infants was a bad idea. “A is better than B” does not condemn B. And given Tertullian’s general manner, if he had really condemned baptizing infants, he’d have done so with violent invective, not with moderation.

CR> In fact, the North African church believed that if one sinned after baptism that salvation was lost!! So why risk the eternal salvation of infants by baptizing them? >>

Which means they weren’t at all Calvinist in North Africa.

Michael Brazier

* Origin: Bellman’s Island (1:397/6.4)

Date: 04-19-98 / From: SEAN M. BROOKS / To: CHARLIE RAY / Subj: Tertullian

Greetings, Mr. Ray. Hope you’re well.

=> Quoting CHARLIE RAY to SEAN M. BROOKS <=

SB> Misleading and incomplete. Tertullian did not REJECT infant baptism. I’ll quote the relevant text from his treatise BAPTISM (18,4, written inter AD 200-206) >>

CR> You’re splitting hairs, Sean. To say that Tertullian did not *specifically* condemn infant baptism begs the question when clearly he was against it as your quote shows. >>

I dissent. Tertullian was NOT unqualifiedly opposed to infant baptism. All he said was that it MAY be better to postpone baptism. As Michael Brazier put it, “A is better than B,” is not the same as CONDEMNING B. Given Tertullian’s notorious reputation for often uncharitable invective, he would certainly have made sure the entire Roman Empire knew of his rejection of paedobaptism if that was truly what he thought. Take note of the striking restraint he showed in his treatise BAPTISM 18, 4.

CR> In fact, the North African church believed that if one sinned after baptism that salvation was lost!! >>

Which does not change the fact that infant baptism was most emphatically practiced in North Africa. OTHER north African Catholics like St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage; and St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo certainly approved of infant baptism and baptismal regeneration. I’ll quote from St. Cyprian’s “Letter of Cyprian and his Colleagues to Fidus,” 64 (or 59), 2 (AD 251-252):

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: you said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judged that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born.”

A very significant text. Note how a council of bishops presided over by St. Cyprian denied that infant baptism should be delayed. Again, note the implication: paedobaptism was already an old and widespread practice. Note how the council insisted that baptism/baptismal regeneration should not be denied to anyone. Including infants!

Sorry, but your notion that the Catholic Church in Roman Africa reprobated infant baptism is simply not true.

CR> So why risk the eternal salvation of infants by baptizing them? Most of the Christians at Carthage waited until they were very old or on their death beds practically before they would receive baptism because of the extreme emphasis on holiness and good works — legalism. >>

A custom which came to be criticized and reprobated very strongly in the fourth century.

CR> Sorry, but Origen supported infant baptism while Tertullian rejected it as your *own* quote below proves. >>

Wrong. Tertullian did NOT reject or condemn infant baptism in his treatise BAPTISM 18,4. Again, he only ADVOCATED in MILD terms DELAYING baptism.

CR> Origen, according to Jaroslav Pelikan, endorsed infant baptism but had no anthropological understanding of original sin to justify it >>

Again, I dissent. Origen had a sound understanding of Original Sin. As evidence, I’ll quote from his HOMILIES ON LEVITICUS 8,3 [post AD 244]:

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. ...And if it should seem necessary to do so, there may be added to the aforementioned consideration the fact that in the Church, Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous.”

Note the implication, infant baptism is taken almost for granted as a widespread and old practice. And, yet again is baptismal regeneration stressed.

CR> while Tertullian on the other hand had an excellent understanding of original sin and it’s corruption of human nature. Tertullian’s weakness was his rejection of infant baptism, according to Pelikan. (See THE EMERGENCE OF THE CATHOLIC TRADITION (100-600): THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION: A HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE. Jaroslav Pelikan. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1971). page 290-91 >>

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.