Back to History Reports

As best they could, they were trying to get at the Bible and to follow its light. Wolff, the Editor of ‘Photius,’ speaks of them as mightily affecting Apostolical things, because they changed their surnames to scriptural names, as Timothy, Titus and Sylvanus, and called themselves ‘Christians,’ as if Catholics were Roman and heathen; they also designated their Churches by New Testament titles, as Ephesians, Colossians, and the like. All this was of little account, but the future showed that this love of the Bible grew with them, for Siculus tells us of the manner in which Sergius one of their most successful defenders was converted to their views, about 810. A Paulician woman asked him: ‘Why do you not read the holy Gospels?’ He replied, ‘It is not lawful for us laymen, but only for the priests.’ She pressed him to the privilege, declaring that God desired all to be saved, and showed him his right to the Scriptures, as a good Quakeress or Baptist woman might; and being converted, he stirred Western Asia for more than a generation and brought nameless thousands to Christ.

It may be well to say, in closing, that some think the conversion of young Constantine a mere revival of this sect. Mosheim finds its origin in two brothers, Paul and John, natives of Samasoto, and Photinsin another Paul, who lived under the reign of Justinian II. Several state that this sect had been treated with great rigor in a number of imperial edicts, and had almost disappeared when Constantine revived it, only to be treated with greater barbarities. Be this as it may, he preached his doctrines with all his might for seven-and-twenty years, and they spread wide and fast, shaking the whole of Asia Minor, reaching to the Euphrates. Such vast numbers of Catholics were converted, that the Emperor sent Simeon, one of his officers, with a military force to Cibossa, to bring the guilty preacher to justice. Gibbon touchingly describes the scene, when he says: ‘By a refinement of cruelty, they placed the unfortunate man before a line of his disciples, who were commanded, as the price of their pardon and the proof of their repentance, to massacre their spiritual father. They turned aside from the impious office; the stones dropped from their filial hands, and of the whole number, only one executioner could be found, a new David, as he is styled by the Catholics, who boldly overthrew the giant of heresy. This apostate, Justus by name, again deceived and betrayed his unsuspecting brethren, and a new conformity to the acts of St. Paul may be found in the conversion of Simeon; like the Apostle, he embraced the doctrine which he had been sent to persecute, renouncing his honors and fortunes, and acquired amongst the Paulicians the fame of a missionary and a martyr.’

But, as is usual in such cases, the word of God grew more and more, and so prevailed. Such a change came over the spirit of the Eastern Church itself that Leo Isauricus the Emperor issued an edict, A.D. 726, prohibiting the worship of images; and in 754 his son called a council of three hundred and thirty-eight bishops, who condemned not only their worship but their use. The result was that the Churches were cleared of images, and pictures of the crucifixion only were left, the images being publicly burned. The Roman Pontiff resented this, and civil war followed, with all sorts of complications between the rulers, both of Church and State. Under the Emperor Nicephorus their religions liberty and privileges had been restored. But persecution broke out afresh under Michael Caropalatus and Leo the Armenian. Then their endurance failed. They rebelled, slew the tyrannical Bishop of Neo-Cesaraea, with the Emperor, magistrates and judges, and took refuge with the Saracens But one persecution followed another until the Paulicians allied themselves with the Mussulmans to save their people from total extermination. The Empress Theodora issued a fresh edict against them, and between A.D. 832 and 846 one hundred thousand of them were put to death in the most barbarous manner. Infuriated with their persecutors, they took up arms in self-defense, and the contest continued in one shape or another until, in 973, large numbers of them were transported to Philippopolis, south of the Balkan mountains, in what is now called Bulgaria. For more than a century the Paulicians stood with unshaken fortitude, which the sword was unable to suppress. Like men, they defended their rights to home, religion and liberty under the holy sanctions of rebellion against intolerable tyranny. And now they were accorded full religious freedom in their transportation, on condition that they would guard the borders against the pagans. But the conflict between them and the Greeks continued till the twelfth century. Alexius Comnenus put forth some kind efforts to reclaim them, but failed, and they finally took refuge in Europe, where we shall meet them again amongst the Albigenses. Anna Comnena tells the sad story in her great historical work. [Alexiados, L. v., p. 108] God wrought mighty things through the Paulicians.

BIBLE VERSIONS

In the sixth century, the PHILOXEMIAN (SYRAIC) version of the New Testament was produced by the Bishop of Hisrapolis, who was a thorough opponent of image worship. He was denounced as a Manichaean, and the Emperor Justin banished him into Thrace, where his enemies murdered him. In translating the word baptise he used the word ‘amad,’ immerse, as it was used in the Peshito. Mar Abba translated the Old Testament into Syriac about the same time. The ARABIC version was made in the seventh century, and employs two words for this purpose, ‘anada’ and ‘tsabagha,’ both of which give the sense of immerse and are used inter-changeably in the version. It may be noted here, that this period originated the practice of obliterating the manuscript text of Scripture from the face of vellum or parchment by some chemical process, by boiling, or the use of quick-lime. As this was done for gain in sale, the Council of Trullo, in canon lxviii, forbade the practice on pain of excommunication.

In the gloom of the eighth century the word of God shone here and there as in a dark place. The PERSIC VERSION, as now known, came into existence, rendering the words relating to baptism by the terms shustan, shuyidan, or wash. But in its influence upon modern Christianity, we have the much more important translation of the four Gospels into the ANGLO-SAXON. The Saxons from Northern Germany and the Angles from Denmark, who emigrated to Britain A.D. 449, spoke dialects of the same language, which in process of time blended and became known as the Anglo-Saxon in England; for the Angles gave their own name to their new home, En-gle-land. This work was executed by that great Saxon, the Venerable BEDE, who almost with his last breath dictated to his amanuensis the closing words of John’s Gospel. Lewis mentions a very ancient version of the four Gospels in the old Saxon, said to be made by one Alfred a priest as early as the year 680, but it is lost. Two days before Bede’s death he was taken suddenly ill; he breathed with great difficulty and Ins feet began to swell. He understood what this meant, and dictated all the day long, saying: ‘Make haste, I know not how long I shall hold out; my Maker may take me away very soon.’ His scribe remarked, ‘There is but one chapter more.’ The man of God replied, ‘It is easy; take your pen, dip it in ink and write as fast as you can.’ He did so, and coming to the end of the chapter, said: ‘Master, but one sentence is wanting.’ ‘Write it quickly,’ said the dying translator. ‘It is done,’ cried the amanuensis.’ ‘Thou hast well said the truth,’ rejoined the gasping bishop, ‘it is finished. Hold my head with thy hands; let me sit on the holy spot where I have so often prayed, and I will invoke my Father.’ When placed on the pavement of his cell, he sung ‘Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.’ And as the word ‘Spirit’ dropped from his lips he breathed his soul into the bosom of Jesus before the ink on the last chapter of John was fairly dry.

He rendered his work faithfully. The words used by him to express the Christian ordinance of baptism were dyppan, fullian, that is, dip, cleanse. There are three MSS. copies of the Saxon Gospels, and in cases which relate to this rite, depan, dyppan and fullian are used, the last word meaning to whiten; probably having reference to the idea of regeneration, as the effect of the dipping. There is no possibility of mistaking what he means when he uses ‘dyppan’ as the translation of baptizo in Matt. 3:11) and 28:19; for, in describing the rite as Jesus received. it in the depths of Jordan, he says, of that spot in the eighth century: ‘ n the-place where our Lord was baptized stands a wooden cross as high as a man’s neck, and sometimes covered by the water.’ From it to the farther, that is, the eastern, bank, is a sling’s cast; and on the nearer bank is a large monastery of St. John the Baptist, standing on a rising ground, and famous for a very handsome church, from which they descend to the cross by a bridge supported on arches, to offer up their-prayers. In the farther part of the river is a quadrangular church, supported on four stone arches, covered with burnt tiles, where our Lord’s clothes are said to have. been kept while he was baptized.’ [De Locis, Sane, Lib. Tom. iv, pp. 430,32]

The ninth century gave ALFRED to England, a prince who ranked with Charlemagne in ability, but was much his superior in gentleness and godliness. Under the influence of Alcuin his instructor, the great Emperor unwittingly prepared the Saxons whom he had conquered, and thus made Germany--the fruitful soil in which Baptist principles afterward flourished. Alfred, stimulated by the affection of Judith his step-mother, first acquired a thirst for knowledge and then a love for Christ. He gave the English the right of trial by jury, and said of them: ‘It is just that they should ever remain free as their own thoughts.’ But his great love for them is seen in his Christ-like design to give them the Bible in their mother tongue. The old Chronicle of Ely says that he succeeded in doing this, but this is doubted; it is more likely that William of Malmesbury gives the exact fact when he tells us that Alfred began a translation of the Psalms with his own hands, but left it unfinished, for he died at fifty-two. Still, Boston of Bury states that ‘he translated the whole of the Testament into the English tongue.’ Spelman thinks the same, and that he had commenced the Psalms when death stopped his work. It is clear, however, that he did one or both these forms of work, and was the first layman who made such an attempt.

Back to History Reports

Back to the Way of Life Home Page

Way of Life Literature Online Catalog

A HISTORY OF THE BAPTISTS

By Thomas Armitage

1890

[Note from the publisher. This valuable out-of-print book was scanned from an original printing and carefully formatted for electronic publication by Way of Life Literature. We extend a special thanks to our friend Brian Snider for his labor of love in diligently scanning the material so that it might be available to God's people in these days. For a catalog of other books, both current and old, in print and electronic format, contact us at P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061-0368, [e-mail] (e-mail), http://wayoflife.org/~dcloud (web site).]

[Table of Contents for "A History of the Baptists" by Thomas Armitage]

POST-APOSTOLIC TIMES

BAPTISM AND BAPTISTERIES IN THE MIDDLE AGES

The Emperor Justin crushed out the last right of conscience in the matter of baptism in the sixth century, by making it a special subject of civil legislation. He issued an edict commanding all unbaptized parents to present themselves and their children for baptism at once. Leo III issued another edict, A.D. 723, demanding the forcible baptism of the Jews and Montanists. Toward the close of the sixth century the baptism of infants was turned to gain, in the shape of fees paid for its administration; but the charges soon became so enormous that the poor could not pay them, yet, lest their children should die unsaved, the frightened parents strained every nerve to get them baptized. A few, and but a few, opposed these outrages. Stokes mentions Adrianus, a pastor at Corinth, who not only refused to baptize infants, but cast his influence against the practice; for which Gregory accused him to John of Larissa of the crime of turning young children away from baptism and suffering them to be lost. [Bap. Hist., p. 57]

As showing the religious greed of the times, it may be said here in passing, that both in France and Spain the sale of bishoprics became common in these centuries. The refinement and hospitality of the clergy may be inferred from the fact that A.D. 585 the Council of Macon decreed that bishops should not keep mastiffs to worry beggars. Many of these bishops, whose haughtiness was unendurable, could neither read nor write and their lives were given up to the most odious forms of iniquity. In 653 the Council of Toledo forbade the ordination of those who could not read the psalms and hymns used in the public service, with the ritual in baptism. In Britain the canon of Edgar required the priests ‘To take care of their churches, and apply exclusively to their sacred duties; and not to indulge in idle speech, or idle deeds, or excessive drinking; nor to let dogs come within their church inclosure, nor more swine than a man might govern.’ Besides this, the grave Council of Prague censured those of the higher clergy who whipped the inferior ministers, or compelled them to carry the bishop upon their shoulders. And as if these barbarities were not enough, in the seventh century the wine of the Supper was mixed with ink and the pen dipped therein, when a contract or covenant was signed. Such signatures were peculiarly holy, especially when made in the sign of the cross. When bishops wished to throw uncommon venom and gall into their curses and excommunications, they called for the consecrated cup, which was intended to commemorate the love of Christ, and dipped the pen in this fluid to strike the superstitious with double horror. Such absurdities readily prepare our minds for the many perversions to which baptism was subjected during the same period.

Infant baptism had about as severe a struggle to force itself upon the faith of men as had transubstantiation. In the fourth century we find Gregory of Constantinople obliged to defend it and publicly censuring parents who delayed it for their children. In his fortieth oration and in the pulpit of his cathedral, when preaching to many who did not believe in the absurdity, he said:

‘But, say some, what is your opinion of infants who are not capable of judging either of the grace of baptism, or of the damage sustained by the want of it; shall we baptize them, too? By all means, if there be any apparent danger. For it were better they be sanctified without their knowing it, than that they should die without being sealed and initiated. As for others, I give my opinion that when they are three years of age, or thereabouts (for then they are able to hear and answer some of the mystical words, and although they do not fully understand, they may receive impressions), they may be sanctified both soul and body by the great mystery of initiation.’

He gives this as ‘my opinion;’ and the value of his opinion is seen in its entire absence of reference to Bible authority, and in the fact that he was trying hard to drive Baptist notions out of ‘some’ of his hearers, who raised troublesome questions on the subject. His embarrassment can best be understood when we take into account that this primate of all Greece was born when his father was a bishop, and yet was not baptized himself at ‘three,’ but only at thirty years of age. Nay, his own Emperor, Theodosius, who was very likely one of his hearers, had just been baptized at the age of thirty-four or five years. Nectarine, who succeeded him as bishop in the same diocese and pulpit, was not baptized at all until after his election to fill Gregory’s place. All his surroundings made it a most interesting occasion for a controversial sermon on infant baptism from this great pedobaptist oracle.

Yet the Penny Cyclopedia says that some of the fathers of the fifth century did ‘not scruple, in spite of edicts and decrees, to condemn the practice of baptizing infants, as a deviation from Scripture and the early custom of the Church.’ In 858-882 infant baptism had become almost universal, to the exclusion of believer’s baptism, excepting in mission fields where new peoples were converted. Indeed, to deny infant baptism was considered, both by the ignorant and the learned, as the denial of infant salvation, and all dissidents were hated accordingly. Possibly it was on this ground that a synod of British prelates, held near Clonesho in 747, decreed that the clergy should take no money for baptizing infants. Charlemagne made baptism a political institution, and compelled the conquered Saxons to be baptized under pain of death. After this, political baptism and political Christianity soon became nearly universal. In 826 his son Lewis was asked to restore Harald, a petty king of Jutland, to his throne; he consented on condition that he would be baptized,and so Harald and his brother were baptized at Mentz. After that two priests accompanied him to his own country and baptized his subjects. Hence Christ’s simple institution was converted into a piece of political craft, a machine of State. Even good Alfred made it a condition of peace that the conquered Danes should be baptized; and Hume tells us that ‘Guthrun and his army had no aversion to the proposal; and without much instruction, or argument, or conference, they were all admitted to baptism. The king answering for Guthrun at the font, gave him the name of Athelstan, and received him as his adopted son.’ Thierry adds that the Dane promised Alfred that if he would desist from pursuing him, he and his army would be baptized and retire to East Anglia in peace; and Alfred, A.D. 879, not being strong enough to carry on the war, accepted the proposal. So this historian says that ‘Guthrun and the other pagan captains swore by a bracelet consecrated to their own gods to receive baptism faithfully.’ It may be well to remember that this beautiful arrangement was not made by Jesus and John at the Jordan, but by an English king and a pagan Dane, in the ninth century. Ridpath, speaking of this enforced treaty-baptism, says that to the Danes it ‘was no more than a plunge in the water. Sweyn himself had already received the rite at the hand of the zealous priests, anxious for the welfare of his barbaric soul. One of the other leaders made a boast that he had been washed twenty times?’[Cyclop. Universal Hist. ii, 213]

We have another case quite as interesting, in connection with Norway and Iceland, which is detailed in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Art. ‘Infant baptism,’ by T. M. Lindsay. D.D., Professor of Divinity and Church History in the Free Church College, Glasgow. He shows that infant baptism, as a pagan civil rite, existed for civil purposes in these two countries long before the introduction of Christianity. It was connected with the savage custom of exposing infants who were not to be brought up; much after the order of things in Africa. The Doctor says:

‘The newly-born infant was presented to the father, who was to decide whether the child was to be reared or not; if he decided to rear it, then water was poured over the child and the father gave it a name; if it was to be exposed, then the ceremony was not gone through. If the child was exposed by any one after the ceremony had been gone through, it was a case of murder; whereas it was not thought a crime if the child was made away with before water had been poured over it and it had been named. The same people, after the introduction of Christianity, turned this into a Christian rite called skero.’

Then the Doctor remarks that the analogy between the two ‘lies in the use of water, the bestowal of the name, and the entrance into civil life through the rite.’

This thorough and frank scholar might also have added the difference in the form of using the water between the ancient pagan rite and the so-called Christian rite of these centuries; for Christianity was introduced into Norway in the tenth and eleventh centuries, and its baptism was very different from that of the Apostolic age. However, if the ancient Norwegians and Icelanders had immersed their babes it would have made no difference, as Herzog says that ‘the people remained pagan at heart long after they bad officially become Christians.’ [Ency. Art. Norway] Well did Baronius speak of this as a ‘monstrous age’ for many other reasons; but what could be more ‘monstrous ‘than the enactment of Charlemagne, that all infants should be baptized before they were a year old, a nobleman being fined for neglect 120 shillings, a gentleman 60, and others 30. In those days a sheep, was bought for a shilling; so that a poor man must sacrifice a flock of 30 sheep and a nobleman 120, if he neglected to bring his babe to this Christian State-fold. [Labbe and Cossart, 1152] The Northumbrian law, A.D. 950 was in substance the same: ‘Let every infant be baptized within nine days, upon pain of six ores; and if the infant die a pagan within nine days, let his parents make satisfaction to God without any earthly mulet; if after he is nine days old, let them pay twelve ores to the priest besides.’ Whether the fine paid to the priest would rescue the deceased little pagan from its limfnis infantium does not appear. It is difficult to determine, at this distance of time, what the basis of ‘satisfaction to God’ might be, as between a babe of seven, nine and ten days; but there must have been some difference, as Elfric understood the matter, when he addressed the priesthood about A.D. 759, saying: ‘Ye should give the Eucharist to children when they are baptized, and let them be brought to mass that they may receive it, all the seven days that they are unwashed.’ Evidently these teachers were not troubled at all about the question of consciousness on the part of the child in either of the ordinances; for about 960 Pope John XIII baptized a bell in the Lateran, and named it John the Baptist; still the bell understood the matter quite as well as the babe.

The very enactment of these penalties, proves the existence of dissent from the custom of infant baptism in all the ranks of society, and in all places where they were imposed. Labbe and Cossart tell us that in 1022 ten priests at Orleans, France, were found who rejected the doctrine that baptism washes away sin, and that the real body and blood of Christ exist in the bread and wine. The king and queen and many bishops flew to the spot in alarm, accused, tried and burnt these holy men at once; the gentle queen keeping guard at the door of the cathedral where the proceedings were held, and in a most lady-like manner knocking out the eye of her own confessor, who was amongst those consigned to the flames. [ix, p. 836,842]

As for the method of baptism, there was no necessity for protest even in these dark centuries for Cardinal Pullus, in the twelfth century, describes it thus: ‘Whilst the candidate for baptism in water is immersed, the death of Christ is suggested; whilst immersed and covered with water, the burial of Christ is shown forth; whilst he is raised from the waters, the resurrection of Christ is proclaimed.’ [Patrol. Lat. v. 150]

But infant baptism was opposed at every step. Dr. Allix speaks of a people in Turin and Milan who vehemently condemned it as an error, and the Bishop of Vercelli sorely complained of them in 945. Dupin quotes Dachery as authority for saying that the canons of the cathedral in Orleans, mentioned above, suffered for their views of infant baptism. ‘They maintained that baptism did not remove original sin,’ which was the plea commonly used in its favor, in behalf of infants. Milner and Hawies tell us of Gundulphus, the leader of a people who were brought to trouble for the same views. They particularly objected to the baptism of infants, because they were altogether incapable of understanding or confessing the truth.’ [Hist. Ch. iii, p. 194] When Gerard, the Bishop of Cambray and Arras, cited Gundulphus to appear before a synod in St. Mary’s, at Arras, A.D. 1025, he seems to have become nearly wild on the subject. The same charge of heresy was brought against Berengarius by the Bishop of Leige, and also by the Bishop of Aversa; and Archbishop Usher thinks that ‘Several of the Berengarian sect had spread his doctrine in several of the Belgic countries, who upon examination did say that baptism did not profit children to salvation.’