While pagan rites and ceremonies were increasing in the church, the gifts and graces characteristic of apostolic times, seemed to have gradually departed from it. Protestant writers insist that the age of miracles closed with the fourth or fifth century, and that after that the extra-ordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost must not be expected. Catholic writers, on the other hand, insist that miracles have always continued in the church; yet those spiritual manifestations which they describe after the fourth and fifth centuries savor of invention on the part of the priests and childish credulity on the part of the people; or else what is claimed to be miraculous falls far short of the power and dignity of those spiritual manifestations which the primitive church was wont to witness. The virtues and prodigies ascribed to the bones and other relics of the martyrs and saints are purile in comparison with the healings, by the anointing with oil and the laying on of hands, speaking in tongues, interpretations, prophecies, revelations, casting out devils in the name of Jesus Christ; to say nothing of the gifts of faith, wisdom, knowledge, discernment of spirits, etc., common in the church in the days of the apostles.8 There is nothing in the scriptures or in reason that would lead one to believe that the miraculous gifts were to be discontinued. Still this plea is made by modern Christians—explaining the absence of these spiritual powers among them—that the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were only intended to accompany the proclamation of the gospel during the first few centuries until the church was able to make its way without them, and then they were to be done away. It is sufficient to remark upon this that it is assumption and stands without warrant either of scripture or right reason, and proves that men had so far changed the religion of Jesus Christ that it became a form of godliness without the power thereof.9
It appears to have been the custom of the apostles in the case of members of the church grievously transgressing the moral law of the gospel, to require repentance and confession before the church; and in the event of a stubborn adherence to sin the offender was excommunicated, that is, he was excluded from the communion of the church and the fellowship of the saints. For the crimes of murder, idolatry and adultery some of the churches excommunicated those guilty of them forever; in other churches they were received back, but only after long and painful probation.
The manner in which excommunication was performed in apostolic times is not clear, but there is every reason to believe the process was very simple. In the course of time, however, this simple form of excommunication was changed, by being burdened with many rites and ceremonies borrowed from pagan sources.10 It was not enough that the fellowship of the saints be withdrawn from the offender and he left to the mercy of God, or the buffetings of Satan, according as he was worthy of the one or the other; but the church must load him down with anathemas too terrible to contemplate. The power of excommunication, too, eventually, passed from the body of the church into the hands of the bishops, and finally into those of the pope. At first excommunication meant the loss of the fellowship of the saints and such other punishment as God Himself might see proper to inflict; the church leaving the Lord to be the minister of His own vengeance. But gradually it came to mean in some instances banishment from home and country, the confiscation of property, the loss not only of church fellowship, but loss of civil rights and the rights of Christian burial. In the case of a monarch, excommunication absolved his subjects from their allegiance; and in the case of a subject, it robbed him of the protection of his sovereign. No anathema was so terrible but it was pronounced against the excommunicated, until the sweet mercies of God were overshadowed by the black pall of man's inhumanity.
The outward ordinances of the gospel consisted of baptism, the laying on of hands for the imparting of the Holy Ghost, and the Lord's supper. The laying on of hands was also employed in ordaining men to the priesthood and in administering to the sick. In the latter case it was accompanied by anointing with oil.
Baptism was administered by immersing the candidate in water. The only pre-requisites were faith in Jesus Christ and repentance.
As soon as the candidate professed these he was admitted into the church by baptism.11 In a short time, however, the simplicity of this ordinance was corrupted and burdened with useless ceremonies. In the second century the newly baptized converts, since by baptism they had been born again, were taught to exhibit in their conduct the innocence of little infants. Milk and honey, the common food of infants, were administered to them, after their baptism, to remind them of their infancy in the church. Moreover, since by baptism they were released from being servants of the devil, and became God's free men, certain forms borrowed from the Roman ceremony of manumission of slaves was employed in baptism. As by baptism also they were supposed to be made God's soldiers, like newly enlisted soldiers in the Roman army, they were sworn to obey their commander.12 A century later (the third) further ceremonies were added. It was supposed that some evil spirit was resident in all vicious persons and impelled them to sin. Therefore, before entering the sacred fount for baptism, an exorcist by a solemn, menacing formula declared them free from the bondage of Satan, and hailed them servants of Christ.13 After baptism the new converts returned home "decorated with a crown and a white robe; the first being indicative of their victory over the world and their lusts, the latter of their acquired innocence."14 We have already noted the fact that baptism was administered in the days of the apostles as soon as profession of faith and repentance was made, but in the second and third centuries baptism was only administered twice a year, and then only to such candidates as had gone through a long preparation and trial.15 The times chosen for the administration of the ordinance were on the vigils of Easter and Whitsuntide,16 and in the fourth century it had become the custom to accompany the ceremony with lighted wax candles, to put salt—an emblem of purity and wisdom—in the mouth of the baptized, and everywhere a double anointing was administered to the candidates, the one before the other after baptism.17
It must have been early in the third century that the form of baptism began to be changed. Up to this time it had been performed only by immersion of the whole body. But in the first half of the third century, Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, during a controversy respecting the re-baptism of those who in times of persecution had denied the faith, decided that those whose weak state of health did not permit them to be immersed, were sufficiently baptized by being sprinkled.18 The first case of this kind of baptism is related by Eusebius. The person to whom it was so administered was Novatus, a desperate heretic, who created a schism in the church and became the founder of a sect. He was among the number of so-called Christians who put off baptism as long as he dared; in order to enjoy a life of sin and then through baptism, just before death, obtain forgiveness—a custom very prevalent in those times. Novatus being attacked with an obstinate disease, and supposed to be at the point of death, was baptized by having water sprinkled upon him as he lay in bed; "if indeed," says Eusebius, "it be proper to say one like him did receive baptism."19
This innovation continued to spread until now the general rule among Christians is to baptize by sprinkling or pouring. For this change there is no warrant of revelation. It destroys the symbol there is in baptism as taught by Messiah and his apostles—that of a burial and resurrection—of a death and birth—a death unto sin, a birth unto righteousness. It is one of those innovations which changed an ordinance of the everlasting covenant.20
About the same time that the form of administering baptism was changed it began to be misapplied, that is, it was administered to infants. Just when this custom came into vogue may not be determined, but clearly it has no warrant for its existence either in the doctrine or practice of the apostles or any New Testament writer. No truth is more plainly taught by the apostles than that baptism is for the remission of sins, and must be preceded by faith and repentance; and as infants are incapable of sin, and of exercising faith, or of repenting, evidently they are not fit subjects for baptism.
Still it became the custom in the latter part of the second century or early in the third to baptize infants. In the year 253 A. D., a council of sixty bishops, in Africa—at which Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, presided—considered the question whether infants should be baptized within two or three days after birth, or whether baptism should be deferred until the eighth day, as was the custom of the Jews in respect to circumcision. The council decided that they should be baptized at once, within a day or two after birth.21 It will be observed