WHO CONTROLLED BAPTISM AND THE LORD’S SUPPER?
WHEN OVERSIGHT BECAME AUTHORITY OVER ACCESS
We have followed a developing pattern.
In the New Testament, local churches had elders who were also called bishops or overseers.
By the early second century, Ignatius described one bishop distinguished from the presbyters.
Later, bishops of important cities gained influence and recognized authority beyond a single congregation.
We also examined the growing importance of apostolic succession.
But now we come to something that affected ordinary Christians very directly.
Who could baptize?
Who could preside at the Lord's Supper?
Who could receive it?
And who could be excluded from it?
These questions matter because baptism and the Lord's Supper are not merely administrative matters.
They concern a Christian's obedience to Christ and fellowship with His people.
When these practices came to be placed under the recognized authority of a particular office, that office gained considerable influence over the religious life of the congregation.
Let us begin with the New Testament.
1. BEGIN WITH BAPTISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
Jesus commanded His disciples:
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
— Matthew 28:19
On Pentecost, Peter said:
“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins.”
— Acts 2:38
Those who received the message were baptized (Acts 2:41).
When Philip preached in Samaria, men and women believed and were baptized (Acts 8:12).
Philip later baptized the Ethiopian (Acts 8:36–38).
Ananias told Saul:
“Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
— Acts 22:16
When Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit, Peter asked:
“Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized?”
— Acts 10:47
Then he commanded them to be baptized.
Notice what these passages do not say.
They do not state that baptism is valid only when a bishop performs it or authorizes it.
That is an observation about what the passages say—not proof that the earliest Christians had no expectations about who ordinarily performed baptisms.
We must distinguish an instruction that is absent from these accounts from a claim about every practice in the early church.
2. PAUL DISTANCED HIS OWN IMPORTANCE FROM THE ACT
The Corinthians had begun attaching themselves to prominent teachers.
Some said they followed Paul.
Others followed Apollos.
Others followed Cephas.
Paul rejected that division.
Then he said:
“I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius.”
— 1 Corinthians 1:14
He also remembered baptizing the household of Stephanas.
Then he said:
“For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.”
— 1 Corinthians 1:17
Paul was not belittling baptism.
He was addressing the Corinthians' tendency to attach themselves to particular teachers.
He did not want people treating the person who baptized them as the basis of their Christian identity.
They belonged to Christ, not to the person who performed their baptism.
This passage does not settle every question about who may administer baptism.
But it does warn us against giving the human minister a prominence that belongs to Christ.
3. THE DIDACHE GIVES EARLY INSTRUCTIONS ABOUT BAPTISM
The Didache is an early Christian document that gives instructions about Christian life and worship.
Chapter 7 discusses baptism.
It directs Christians to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
It expresses a preference for living, or running, water but allows other water.
If neither running water nor other suitable water is available, the Didache permits pouring water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
It also discusses fasting before baptism.
These instructions are valuable evidence of how at least some early Christians understood and practiced baptism.
But notice something.
The Didache's baptismal instructions do not say that a bishop must perform or authorize the baptism.
Later, in chapter 15, the document instructs its readers to appoint bishops and deacons.
So the document knows about bishops, but chapter 7 does not expressly reserve baptism to them.
We should not turn that silence into proof that no bishop had any responsibility for baptism in the communities reflected by the Didache.
What we can say is that the requirement Ignatius later states is not stated in the Didache's baptismal instructions.
That makes the two documents worth comparing.
4. THE DIDACHE ALSO DISCUSSES THE EUCHARIST
The Didache contains prayers associated with the Eucharist.
Chapter 9 restricts participation to those who have been baptized in the name of the Lord.
Chapter 14 instructs Christians to assemble on the Lord's Day, break bread, give thanks, confess their sins, and be reconciled with one another.
Notice that the Didache already recognizes a boundary around participation.
Not everyone is invited to eat and drink without distinction.
Baptism matters.
Reconciliation matters.
The congregation's fellowship matters.
But the Didache does not expressly state that the Eucharist must be administered by a bishop or someone he authorizes.
That is the distinction we need to keep before us.
The absence of such a statement does not prove that every Christian could preside whenever he wished.
It does mean that the document's instructions do not establish the particular requirement we will encounter in Ignatius.
5. THEN IGNATIUS SAYS SOMETHING DIFFERENT
Early in the second century, Ignatius wrote to the church at Smyrna.
We examined his statement in an earlier study.
Now we need to consider its practical importance.
Ignatius urged Christians to follow the bishop, respect the presbytery, and honor the deacons.
Then he wrote:
“Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.”
— Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans 8
He continued by saying that the proper Eucharist was the one administered by the bishop or by someone to whom the bishop had entrusted it.
Then he said:
“It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast.”
— Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans 8
These statements are important.
Ignatius is not merely describing a bishop who teaches and cares for the congregation.
He is saying that important acts of Christian worship and fellowship are to take place under the bishop's authority.
In the arrangement described by Ignatius, the bishop's authorization was required for these activities.
But let us be precise.
Ignatius does not say that the bishop must personally administer every Eucharist.
He expressly allows someone authorized by the bishop to do so.
Nor does this passage say that a bishop may refuse baptism or communion to anyone for any reason he chooses.
What it does say is that these activities are not to take place independently of the bishop.
That is a substantial responsibility.
And it raises a question:
Where do the apostles assign this particular authority to one bishop standing above the presbyters?
6. WHY WOULD IGNATIUS INSIST ON THIS?
We should understand his circumstances and concerns.
Ignatius was deeply concerned about division and false teaching.
He wanted Christians to remain united.
In his letters, the bishop serves as a visible center of that unity.
Ignatius did not want rival groups forming separate assemblies while claiming to represent the same church.
His instructions about the Eucharist and baptism were connected with that concern.
We can understand the reasoning.
One congregation.
One recognized bishop.
One united fellowship.
Christians who affirm this arrangement understand it as a way to protect the unity and integrity of the church's worship.
Others question whether making baptism and the Eucharist dependent upon one bishop's authorization goes beyond the arrangement described by the apostles.
Both positions need to be examined in light of the texts.
But the historical observation remains:
Ignatius explicitly connects baptism and the Eucharist with the authority of the bishop.
That is more than a change in title.
It concerns the organization of Christian worship itself.
7. JUSTIN MARTYR GIVES US ANOTHER SNAPSHOT
Around the middle of the second century, Justin Martyr described Christian worship in his First Apology.
His account is especially valuable because he explains Christian practices to readers outside the church.
Justin says that after baptism, the new Christian was brought to the assembly.
The Christians prayed together.
Bread and a cup of wine mixed with water were brought to the one presiding over the brethren.
He offered thanksgiving.
The people responded:
Amen.
Then the deacons distributed the bread and wine and carried portions to Christians who were absent.
Justin also explains who could participate.
A person had to believe the Christian teaching, have been baptized, and live according to Christ's commands.
See First Apology 61 and 65–67.
This tells us that participation in the Eucharist was already connected with recognized membership and conduct within the Christian community.
But Justin's description is worth comparing carefully with Ignatius.
Justin speaks of the person presiding and of the deacons.
He does not identify the presiding person by the title bishop in this account.
That does not prove the presiding person was not a bishop.
It tells us what Justin's account actually says.
Ignatius, by contrast, explicitly connects the Eucharist with the bishop or someone he authorizes.
8. COMMUNION ALSO MARKED THE BOUNDARY OF FELLOWSHIP
Now think about what participation in the Lord's Supper meant.
Christians gathered to remember Christ and share in His fellowship.
Paul wrote:
“For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.”
— 1 Corinthians 10:17
The Lord's Supper expressed the unity of believers.
It was not merely an individual religious activity.
The early Christian documents also show that participation was not entirely unrestricted.
The Didache connects it with baptism.
Justin connects it with Christian belief, baptism, and conduct.
And Ignatius connects the proper administration of the Eucharist with the bishop.
As these practices became closely associated with recognized church fellowship, exclusion from communion carried serious consequences.
A person who was not admitted to the Eucharist was publicly excluded from an important expression of the congregation's fellowship.
That is why questions about admission, exclusion, and restoration became so important.
But before examining later history, we must remember something.
Church discipline did not begin with bishops.
It is already present in the New Testament.
9. DISCIPLINE IS BIBLICAL — BUT WHO EXERCISES IT?
Jesus gave instructions about a brother who refused to repent (Matthew 18:15–17).
Paul instructed the Corinthians to discipline a man who was living in serious sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 5).
Notice Paul's language:
“In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together...”
— 1 Corinthians 5:4
Paul addresses the congregation and describes its assembly.
The church was involved in the disciplinary action.
At the same time, the New Testament gives elders real responsibility for guarding the flock.
Paul instructed the Ephesian elders to watch over themselves and the church (Acts 20:28–31).
So we should not draw a false choice between congregational responsibility and responsible leadership.
The New Testament teaches both church discipline and pastoral oversight.
But it does not explicitly describe the later arrangement in which one bishop has a distinct office over the presbyters and exercises the particular authority over the Eucharist described by Ignatius.
That is the question we are examining.
We must not confuse a biblical responsibility to maintain discipline with the claim that a particular later office has exclusive authority to administer it.
10. BY CYPRIAN'S TIME, THE BISHOP'S ROLE IS MORE CLEARLY DEFINED
Move forward another century.
Cyprian became bishop of Carthage in the third century.
During persecution under the Roman emperor Decius, some Christians denied Christ or participated in pagan sacrifices.
They became known as the lapsed.
After the immediate danger passed, a serious question arose.
Could these people return to communion?
And if so:
Who would decide when and how they could return?
Cyprian's letters allow us to see the dispute.
Some presbyters were restoring the lapsed to communion before the process Cyprian considered necessary had been completed.
Cyprian objected.
He insisted upon an orderly process of repentance and reconciliation involving the bishop and clergy.
His concern was not simply that someone had failed to obtain his personal permission.
He believed that premature restoration could undermine repentance, church discipline, and the unity of the congregation.
Nevertheless, the dispute shows how important the bishop's recognized authority had become.
Restoration to communion was closely connected with episcopal leadership and the church's established disciplinary process.
Cyprian's letters also show that this process involved other church leaders and members of the congregation. His recognized authority as bishop did not mean that every decision was made by him alone.
That is a significant historical development.
11. AUTHORITY OVER COMMUNION HAS PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES
Consider the practical consequences.
If participation in the Eucharist expresses recognized fellowship with the church, then a decision to exclude someone from it affects that person's standing within the congregation.
And if the bishop has a recognized role in making or confirming that decision, his office carries substantial responsibility.
He may help determine when a person is excluded.
He may help determine when repentance has been demonstrated.
He may participate in the person's restoration to communion.
That is real authority.
But we must distinguish recognized church fellowship from God's final judgment of a person's soul.
A bishop or congregation may make decisions about participation in its worship.
That does not mean a human leader possesses God's authority to determine, with final certainty, whether a person belongs to Christ.
Our question is not whether Christians should abandon discipline.
It is whether the particular authority claimed for a bishop can be established from the apostolic teaching.
12. BAPTISM ALSO BECAME CONNECTED WITH THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CHURCH
Cyprian went further in another controversy.
He argued that baptism performed outside the true church by heretics or schismatics was not valid Christian baptism.
Therefore, he believed that people coming from such groups needed to be baptized when entering the church.
His reasoning connected valid baptism closely with the unity of the true church and its legitimate ministry.
Not everyone agreed with him.
The disagreement became serious enough to involve questions of communion and episcopal authority as well as baptism.
Stephen, bishop of Rome, opposed Cyprian's practice of baptizing those who came into the church after having already received baptism in another Christian community. Stephen maintained that such people should be received rather than baptized again.
This disagreement is important.
Prominent bishops did not agree on every question about baptism and church authority.
It also shows that a bishop's claim to authority was not always accepted by other bishops.
But both sides of the controversy reveal how the questions had developed.
Christians were now debating:
Who performed the baptism?
In what community did it take place?
Was that community part of the true church?
Should the baptism be recognized?
Those questions went beyond the simple description of baptism in the conversion accounts of Acts.
We should not assume that the New Testament accounts answer every later question automatically.
But neither should we read later requirements into those accounts without examining the evidence.
13. RETURN TO PHILIP AND THE ETHIOPIAN
Go back to Acts 8.
Philip meets an Ethiopian on the road.
Philip preaches Jesus.
The man sees water.
He asks what prevents him from being baptized.
Philip baptizes him.
The account does not mention a bishop being present.
It does not describe a separate process of episcopal authorization.
It presents the man's response to the gospel and his baptism.
Now compare that account with Ignatius' instructions and the later disputes involving Cyprian and Stephen.
We find questions about:
Authorized ministers.
Recognized bishops.
Baptism within or outside church fellowship.
Admission to communion.
Restoration after discipline.
These questions show that the church's practices and organization became more fully defined over time.
The historical question is how and why that happened.
The biblical question is whether the authority claimed in those later arrangements can be established from the teaching of Christ and His apostles.
14. WHY THIS MATTERS
This is not merely an argument about ancient church organization.
It concerns the location of spiritual authority.
Suppose someone hears the gospel, believes in Christ, and asks:
“What prevents me from being baptized?”
What does the New Testament say?
What responsibility does the congregation have?
What responsibility do its leaders have?
And does baptism require authorization from a bishop holding a distinct office above the elders?
Likewise, suppose Christians gather on the first day of the week to remember Jesus in the breaking of bread.
Must a bishop authorize the gathering?
Must an ordained priest administer the Lord's Supper?
If a church teaches that such authorization is required, we should ask:
Where does that requirement come from?
Is it stated in the New Testament?
Is it inferred from the apostles' teaching about leadership and church unity?
Or is it a practice documented in the generations after the apostles?
Those are different kinds of claims.
We should not treat them as though they were identical.
15. THIS IS WHERE AUTHORITY BECOMES VERY PRACTICAL
A title by itself may not seem important.
Call someone:
Elder.
Bishop.
Pastor.
Priest.
Ordinary Christians may notice little difference if the responsibilities remain the same.
But when a particular office has recognized authority over:
Baptism,
the Lord's Supper,
restoration to communion,
discipline,
ordination,
and recognition of church membership,
the office has a substantial role in the religious life of the congregation.
We are no longer examining only the names given to church leaders.
We are examining the authority attached to those offices.
That is why this historical development matters.
PUT THE EVIDENCE SIDE BY SIDE
NEW TESTAMENT
People hear the gospel, believe, repent, and are baptized.
Christians gather for the Lord's Supper.
Church discipline exists.
Elders shepherd the flock.
But the passages we have examined do not explicitly say that baptism or the Lord's Supper is valid only when authorized by one bishop holding a distinct office over the elders.
DIDACHE
Detailed instructions are given for baptism and Eucharistic fellowship.
The document also instructs its readers to appoint bishops and deacons.
Its baptismal and Eucharistic instructions do not expressly reserve these practices to a single bishop.
IGNATIUS
The Eucharist is to be administered by the bishop or someone he authorizes.
Baptism is not to take place without the bishop.
Ignatius connects these requirements with the unity of the church.
JUSTIN MARTYR
The baptized Christian joins the assembly.
A person presiding offers thanksgiving.
Deacons distribute the Eucharist.
Participation is limited to those who accept Christian teaching, have been baptized, and live according to Christ's commands.
CYPRIAN
The bishop has a recognized role in discipline and restoration to communion.
Cyprian also argues that baptism outside the true church is invalid.
His disagreement with Stephen of Rome shows that early bishops did not agree on every question of baptism and church authority.
These documents allow us to compare what the apostles wrote with what later Christians practiced and taught.
They do not answer every question automatically.
But they give us evidence we can examine.
THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER ORDER IS GOOD
Order is good.
Paul said:
“Let all things be done decently and in order.”
— 1 Corinthians 14:40
Elders have real responsibility.
Church discipline is biblical.
False teaching must be opposed.
Unity matters.
But none of those truths, by itself, answers this question:
WHO GAVE ONE OFFICE AUTHORITY OVER BAPTISM AND THE LORD'S TABLE?
That question deserves an answer grounded in Scripture.
If Christ gave that authority, we should recognize it.
If the apostles established it, we should examine where and how they did so.
If particular requirements were first stated in surviving documents after the apostles, we should recognize that historical fact rather than silently place those requirements into earlier passages.
And if later Christians understood those requirements as legitimate applications of apostolic teaching, we should examine their reasoning fairly.
Read the text. Examine the history. Distinguish what is stated from what is inferred.
That is our purpose.
READ IT FOR YOURSELF
Begin with these New Testament passages:
Matthew 18:15–20
Matthew 28:18–20
Acts 2:37–42
Acts 8:4–13
Acts 8:26–40
Acts 10:44–48
Acts 20:17–32
1 Corinthians 1:10–17
1 Corinthians 5
1 Corinthians 10:16–17
1 Corinthians 11:17–34
Then compare these early Christian writings:
Didache 7, 9–10, 14–15
Ignatius, To the Smyrnaeans 8
Justin Martyr, First Apology 61, 65–67
Cyprian's letters concerning the lapsed and baptism
Then ask:
Who administered baptism in the New Testament?
Who presided at the Lord's Supper?
Who exercised church discipline?
What responsibilities were given to the elders?
And most importantly:
Can we find the later requirements in the apostolic text, or do we first encounter them in documents written afterward?
That distinction matters.
Because when authority over baptism, communion, and recognized church fellowship became closely connected with the office of bishop, church leadership had a more extensive role in the everyday lives of Christians.
And that developing organization was about to encounter something that would change church history dramatically:
The power of the Roman Empire.
That is where we go next.
TEXT B4 TRADITION
Read First. Conclude Later.
RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: One Church, So Many Divisions
NEXT STUDY: WHAT CHANGED WHEN THE EMPEROR ENTERED CHURCH AFFAIRS?