Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 2 of 2)
XXI. What was the custom of the Church before Augustine
was born, may be collected from the ancient fathers. In the
first place, Tertullian says, “That it is not permitted for a
woman to speak in the Church, neither to teach, nor to baptize,
nor to offer, that she may not claim to herself the functions
of any office belonging to men, and especially to priests.”
The same thing is fully attested by Epiphanius, when he
censures Marcion for having given women liberty to baptize.
I am aware of the answer made to this by persons of opposite
sentiments—that there is a great difference between a common
usage, and an extraordinary remedy employed in cases of urgent
necessity; but when Epiphanius pronounces it to be a
mockery, without making any exception, to give women
liberty to baptize, it is sufficiently evident that he condemns
this corruption, and considers it inexcusable by any pretext
whatever; nor does he add any limitation, in his third book,
where he observes that this liberty was not granted even to
the holy mother of Christ.
XXII. The example of Zipporah is alleged, but is not applicable
to the case. Because the angel of God was appeased after
she had taken a stone and circumcised her son,[1161]
it is unreasonable
to infer that her action was approved by God. On the
same principle it might be maintained, that God was pleased
with the worship established by the nations who were transplanted
from Assyria to Samaria. But there are other powerful
reasons to prove the absurdity of setting up the conduct
of that foolish woman as a pattern for imitation. If I should
allege, that this was a single act, which ought not to be considered
as a general example, and especially as we nowhere
find any special command that the rite of circumcision was to
be performed by the priests, the case of circumcision is different
from that of baptism; and this would be sufficient to refute
the advocates of its administration by women. For the
words of Christ are plain: “Go ye, therefore, and teach all
nations, baptizing them.”[1162]
Since he constitutes the same
persons preachers of the gospel and administrators of baptism,
“and no man,” according to the testimony of the apostle,
“taketh this honour upon himself, but he that is called of God,
as was Aaron,”[1163]
whoever baptizes without a legitimate call,
intrudes into another person’s office. Even in the minutest
things, as in meat and drink, whatever we do with a doubtful
conscience, Paul expressly declares to be sin.[1164]
Female baptism,
therefore, being an open violation of the rule delivered
by Christ, is a still greater sin; for we know that it is impious
to dissever things which God has united. But all this I pass
over; and would only request my readers to consider that
nothing was further from the design of Zipporah, than to perform
a service to God. For seeing her son to be in danger,
she fretted and murmured, and indignantly cast the foreskin on
the ground, reproaching her husband in such a manner as to
betray anger against God. In short, it is plain that all this
proceeded from violence of temper, because she was displeased
with God and her husband that she was constrained to shed
the blood of her son. Besides, if she had conducted herself
with propriety in all other respects, yet it was an act of inexcusable
presumption for her to circumcise her son in the presence
of her husband, and that husband not a private man, but
Moses, the principal prophet of God, who was never succeeded
by a greater in Israel; which was no more lawful for her to
do, than it is for women now to baptize in the presence of a
bishop. But this controversy will easily be decided by the
establishment of this principle—that infants are not excluded
from the kingdom of heaven, who happen to die before they
have had the privilege of baptism. But we have seen that it
is no small injustice to the covenant of God, if we do not rely
upon it as sufficient of itself, since its fulfilment depends not
on baptism, or on any thing adventitious. The sacrament is
afterwards added as a seal, not to give efficacy to the promise
of God, as if it wanted validity in itself, but only to confirm it
to us. Whence it follows, that the children of believers are
not baptized, that they may thereby be made the children of
God, as if they had before been strangers to the Church; but,
on the contrary, they are received into the Church by a solemn
sign, because they already belonged to the body of Christ
by virtue of the promise. If the omission of the sign, therefore,
be not occasioned by indolence, or contempt, or negligence,
we are safe from all danger. It is far more consistent
with piety to show this reverence to the institution of God, not
to receive the sacraments from any other hands than those to
which the Lord has committed them. When it is impossible
to receive them from the Church, the grace of God is not so
attached to them, but that we may obtain it by faith from the
word of the Lord.
