Part 45
Perhaps some one may think, in which of the preceding words is infant baptism spoken against? which is nevertheless so distinctly asserted by Jacob Mehrning and H. Montanus. We reply, that they do not express it in formal words, but indicate it by the circumstances which they adduce. For, when they, in the first place, speak of the fourth canon of the council of Gerunda, in Spain, in which it was decreed that catechumens should be baptized on Easter and on Whitsuntide, they thereby indicate that the baptism of new-born infants cannot have been practiced there, because infants are born not only on Easter and Whitsuntide, but throughout the whole year; and in another place it is stated that not only no catechumens, but no one else, should be baptized at any other time than Easter and Whitsuntide.
In the second place, when they declare that by the catechumens here spoken of, there are to be understood not only such youths, or scholars, as were of heathen descent, but also those born of Christian parents, as is proved by the example of Ambrose, Satyrus, &c., it shows that many Christians, at that time, left their children unbaptized till they, after sufficient instruction, as was given to the catechumens, were baptized of their own accord, on either of the two feasts, Easter or Whitsuntide.
Sebastian Franck calls the catechumens, of whom the aforementioned council speaks, scholars of the faith, and relates the decree of said council, as well as the time when the same was held, on this wise: “The council of Gerunda, held in the seventh year of King Theodoric, passed, among nine decrees, also this: That the catechumens, that is, the scholars in the faith, should be baptized only on Easter and Whitsuntide, except imminent death should require it otherwise.” _Chron. Rom. Council., fol. 73, col. 1._
_About A. D. 525._--Or in the 15th year of Theodoric, King of France, those of the Roman church again found themselves in great embarrassment with regard to the so-called Anabaptists. The matter rose to such a pitch that it was thought well to assemble a council against them, as had been done by Pope Felix, A. D. 487, at Rome. Accordingly, about A. D. 525, the second council against the Anabaptists was convened, not at Rome, as the first, but at Ilerda, in Spain; to which there assembled, as was usually the case, many of the bitterest papistic bishops--in order to extirpate, or at least check, the heresy, as it was called--who made a number of rules and laws, not only against the Anabaptists, but also against those who, having separated from the Roman church, had been rebaptized by them; of which rules, among others, the following are noted:
_Canon 9._ “Concerning those who through transgression have been rebaptized, and have fallen without necessity, it is our will, that the statutes of the Nicene synod be observed respecting them, which are considered to have been passed for such offenders: that they shall pray for seven years among the catechumens, and two years among the catholics, and then,” &c.
_Canon 14._ “Godly believers shall not eat with the rebaptized”. _Bapt. Hist., pages 477, 478_, from _the 6th Cent. Magd,. cap. 9, fol. 240, ex Decret. Synod, Ilerdensis_.
The 13th canon of this synod, also given in the same place, we suspect, has been misquoted; however, as it does not apply here, we leave it in its own merit.
That the 14th canon, however, which speaks only of the rebaptized, concerns the so-called Anabaptists, appears from the annotation of Sebastian Franck, of Wordens, in _part 3_ of his _Chronijk, fol. 73, col. 1_, who translates this canon thus: “The clergy and believers shall not partake of meals with the Anabaptists.”
From this it can be seen in what detestation, yea, abhorrence, the so-called Anabaptists in the time past, were held by the Romanists, inasmuch as they were not considered worthy to eat with, even as once the Samaritans, publicans, and sinners had been regarded by the Jews.
We will not investigate minutely, whether the so-called Anabaptists of that time held the same views, in regard to every article, with those who, at the present day, are designated by that name; nor will we, if perhaps in some points they did not teach aright, or were not fully enlightened, defend, much less, praise them; it suffices us, that they, besides other good and wholesome articles, mentioned by us in another place, held this in common with the Anabaptists of the present day, namely: _That they did not approve of the baptism which by the Romanists is administered to infants, but rejected it_, so that they baptized, or, at least, baptized aright at first, those who, having come to adult years, embraced their faith.
It also is praiseworthy in them, that they, notwithstanding the anathema of the Pope and the councils, yea, regardless of persecution, suffering, and death, as shall be shown in the proper place, maintained and manfully defended their views. We know of nothing further that we could say of them, from authentic writers, but will commend them, as well as ourselves, to God and his grace. As regards the manner in which they were proceeded against, in subsequent times, as well as how they conducted themselves herein, we shall show in the proper time and place.
_About A. D. 530._--D. Joseph Vicecomes, in his treatise records (_Bapt. Hist., page 482_), the following testimonies from the sixth century.
Of the decree of the Christians, at Agathe, about A. D. 530, he says, _lib. 3, cap. 1_: “The council of Agathe, _cap. 13_, says: It is the will of all the church, that on the eighth day before Easter, the confession of faith be preached publicly in the church to those desiring baptism.”[118]
[118] Touching the Jews who embraced the faith, this rule was established: “A Jew shall be tried for eight months among the scholars of the faith, and then, if he assents to it, be baptized.” _Seb. Franck, Chron., Rom. Conc., fol. 72, col. 3._
We do not especially favor the decrees of councils; yet, when they agree with the word of God, we accept them, not because men have uttered them, but because they have been pronounced already in the word of God. Thus, when it is said of all the churches which existed at that time, that it was their will that the confession of faith should be publicly preached on the eighth day before Easter; and also that it was added, how and to whom it was to be preached, namely, before those desiring baptism, we find not only that it well accords with the word of God, Mark 16:15,16, but, moreover, that not only a few individuals, but all the churches, namely, those which dissented from the church of Rome, held that view, namely, to baptize after previous instruction.
In the second place, when it is said here, that the confession of faith should be preached to those desiring baptism (that is, not to infants), it clearly follows that the candidates here spoken of, had themselves to desire baptism, yea, that they themselves had to profess the confession of faith preached to them, else there would have been no reason to preach it to them.
_Vicecomes_ (_lib. 2, cap. 2, page 483_), quotes the following words from the _7th chapter of the first council of Constantinople_: “As many of the Eunomians and Montanists as desire to embrace the faith, we receive, as we do the Grecians; on the first day we instruct them in Christianity, on the second day we receive them as disciples, and on the third day we bless them (or require them to renounce Satan); and thus we instruct them, taking care that they walk in the church for a considerable time, and hear the holy Scriptures, and then, and not before, if they are found upright, we baptize them.
This first council of Constantinople is placed, according to the order of _D. J. Vicecomes_, in _Bapt. Hist._, immediately after the council of Agathe, held about A. D. 530; and although we have long searched for it, we have not been able to ascertain the correct date of it; hence we make no change in the order.
After this, Vicecomes places the sixth council of Constantinople, in which several things illustrating the point we have in view respecting baptism upon faith are presented; but since we find from other writers, that said council was not held in this century, but many years after, Vicecomes having greatly erred in this, we will not proceed further with it here, but reserve our account of it for the proper time and place. We therefore turn to what is quoted in the _7th chapter of the first council of Constantinople_, where it is said in regard to those of the Eunomians and Montanists who should desire to unite with that church, that they should not be baptized until they had been instructed one, two, or three days, yea, had walked for a considerable time in the church, and heard the holy Scriptures.
Take this matter, as you may, and it indicates that the Constantinopolitan teachers recognized no other baptism than that administered in their own church, namely, after previous instruction; notwithstanding the Eunomians and Montanists might have alleged that they had been baptized in their infancy; yet this was regarded as useless and of no value.
_About A. D. 538._--It is recorded that at the time of Justin and Justinian, the Roman Emperors, there were people, termed fanatics by their opponents, who brought over to them and persuaded the imperial councilors and ministers, that infant baptism should be abolished; against which the aforementioned Emperors set themselves to prevent it. Concerning this, _Jacob Mehrning_, in _Bapt. Hist._, _page 487_, says: “M. Rulichius, _page 249_, from whom M. Glaneus quotes this, acknowledges (_page 627_) that at that time there came forth many strange fanatics (he calls them fanatics, though they were far more pious teachers and Christians than Rulichius and Glaneus, and reproved, from the ordinance of the baptism of Christ, the encroaching abuses of infant baptism) who prevailed on and persuaded the imperial councilors and ministers, that infant baptism should be abolished. But Justin, and other Emperors would prevent the same by their authority and interdiction.”
He then relates, from the constitutions [laws] of the Emperors, Justin and Justinian, in what the interdiction, or, at least, the decree, ordained by these Emperors respecting this matter, consisted; from which it can be seen, that not only was infant baptism rejected and contemned by those contemptuously called fanatics, but that even by the adherents of the Roman church it was not looked upon as a command, but merely as a matter which was permitted; though at other times again, through the decrees of popes and councils, it exceedingly prevailed.
In the meantime, it is gratifying to us, that even our opponents, who were strenuous advocates of infant baptism, I mean M. Rulichius and M. Glaneus, confess that also at that time (about A. D. 538), there were persons who sought to abolish infant baptism; from which it appears that the truth of baptism upon faith could not be suppressed to such an extent that it did not, according to opportunity, manage to raise its head; and that, on the other hand, the error of infant baptism did not triumph to such a degree that it did not have its opponents when opportunity offered. Thus blooms the rose among thorns, Cant. 2:2. God remains faithful to his promises, Ps. 33:4. Christ is with his church even unto the end of the world, Matt. 28:20.
_About A. D. 542._--_Justus Origelitanus_ says (in _Cant._, _Bapt. Hist._, _page 469_): “They that are baptized in the name of Christ, are filled with the Holy Ghost.” Doubtless, this has reference to Acts 2:37,38, where Peter says to those who inquired what they must do to be saved: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ ... and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost;” which certainly was not spoken to infants.
Again: “The fair church of Christ,” says Justus, “is cleansed by the washing of water (that is, by baptism).”
Thus also Paul speaks, Eph. 5:26, saying that Christ has cleansed his church with “the washing of water by the word;” whereby he indicates that the believers of whom he speaks were cleansed not only with the washing of water (that is, baptism), but also by the word, that is, the doctrine of the Gospel; upon which passages Justus has based his declaration, though he, for the sake of being brief, it seems, is silent about the word.
Again: “They have ascended,” he says, “from the washing of water, when they, having received the forgiveness of sins by baptism, have increased in Christ.”
His speaking here of ascending, that is, climbing up from, the washing of water, and of increasing in Christ, clearly shows that he does not speak of infants, but of persons who have the ability to climb up from the washing of water, and to increase in Christ, which is peculiar to believers only.
He then gives some additional testimony, in the same place, corroborative of the point we have in view; but as it is expressed in almost the same language as that quoted above, we pass it by, so as not to repeat the matter.
_About A. D. 545._--Or immediately after Justus Origelitanus, Olympiodorus is placed, who speaking of baptism, says: “The spiritual birth, which is effected by the washing of regeneration, resembles the death (of Christ) in that those who are regenerated, in this divine washing, are buried with Christ in baptism.” _Bapt. Hist., 469_, from _Olympiodor._, in _Eccles., cap. 3_.[119]
[119] Olympiodorus (in _Eccles., cap. 9_), says: “Through the washing of regeneration white robes are also given us, which doubtless remain clean as long as we refrain from the evil of sin.” _Bapt. Hist., page 474._
Certainly, this is clearly following, though in other words, that which the apostle presents to the consideration of the believing Romans (Rom. 6:3), where he asks them whether they knew not that they all who were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so they also should walk in newness of life. We need not say anything further in regard to this, since the matter as to what persons and what baptism are here spoken of, is self-evident.
_About A. D. 548._--Or 550, it is related, that one Peter, as well as one Zoroaras defended Anabaptism; but as to how and in what manner it was done, whether they rejected infant baptism, or whether they recognized no other baptism than that upon faith and administered in their own church, or otherwise, of this I find no other account than that recorded in _Bapt. Hist., page 472_, from Nicephorus, where it is said: “Nicephorus writes (_lib. 17, cap. 9_): Peter, Bishop of Apamea in Spain, and Zoroaras, a Syrian monk, defended Anabaptism.”[120]
[120] P. J. Twisck, it appears, makes mention of this Peter, for the year 586, as we have also noted for that year.
But if these men have erred in other respects perhaps, which in that dark age could very easily have been the case, we would not justify it; it suffices us that they, as regards this article, dared oppose the common doctrine of the Roman church; which could not have been done without peril of life, or, at least, not without reaping calumny and obloquy.
_About A. D. 551._--That it was customary at this time, to baptize on Easter and Whitsuntide, is recorded from Gregory, who says that several Jews were baptized on Easter, and several on Whitsuntide. _Bapt. Hist., page 472_, from _Gregor., lib. 5, Hist. cap. 11_.
That this custom of baptizing on Easter and Whitsuntide, pertained only to believing penitents, and in no wise to children, we have previously sufficiently shown; to which we refer the reader. But to remove all doubt, mention is also made in the same place, in the _History of Holy Baptism_, of the preaching or doctrine of faith which it was then customary to present to the novices, who were to be baptized. As an example of this is adduced the wife of Sigibert, who, having been rightly instructed in the faith through such holy preaching, was ultimately baptized. _Bapt. Hist., page 472_, from _Greg. Turon., lib. 4, cap. 26_.
_About A. D. 553._--When, as it appears, the good old custom of renouncing and forsaking Satan, which was wont to be done publicly at baptism, in connection with the confession of faith, began to cease, or, at least, fall into neglect, it was revived and again brought to remembrance, by the teacher Vincent;[121] concerning which the following observation is found in _Bapt. Hist., page 473_, from _Vinc., lib. 21, cap. 6_: “It was the custom, to renounce (that is, forsake), before baptism, all pomp and the works of the devil, which can certainly not be done by children.”
[121] This Vincent is to be distinguished from Vincent Victor, who is spoken of in another place.
_About A. D. 556._--At this time white robes were put on the newly baptized, after baptism. Thus, Gregory Turon (_lib. 5, cap. 11_), says--that at Avernio five hundred Jews were baptized at once, and then went their way, clothed in white robes.
Gifts were also presented to the baptized; thus, Guentheramus gave presents to Clotharius, when the latter had been baptized. _Bapt. Hist., p. 484_, from _Gregor. Turon., lib. 10, cap. 27_.
This putting on of the white robes after baptism, signified that the newly-baptized, having put off the garment of sin, must henceforth be clothed in the clean white robe of true righteousness and holiness; to which applies Eccl. 9:8: “Let thy garments be always white;” and Rev. 3:4: “They shall walk in white;” also, Rev. 19:8: “And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.”
As to the gifts presented to the newly-baptized, this indicated that God thus imparts his heavenly gifts and blessings to them; as Peter said to those whom he exhorted to be baptized: “And ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost,” Acts 2:38.
However, if it should be, that with this putting on of white robes, and giving of presents, there was coupled any superstition (of which, however, we are not aware,), we would not commend, but rather speak against it. What we have in view here, is simply this, that such ceremonies were not, and could not be, performed with infants, inasmuch as the latter are too weak in understanding to comprehend, as well as in ability to perform, the same. Hence it follows, that such baptism, at that day, was not administered to infants, but to adult, reasonable, and believing persons.
_About A. D. 560._--It is stated, from _Adon. Aetat. 4_, and _Turon., lib. 4, cap. 26_, that Brunechildis, the daughter of Arthanagild, had been baptized, probably in her infancy, by the Arians, but that subsequently, having been married to Sigibert, she was rebaptized in the name of the Holy Trinity. This is related more fully by J. Mehrning, in _Bapt. Hist., p. 475_. But whether Brunechildis continued in the true footsteps of the faith, after her rebaptism, of this we have no account; it suffices us to know that having been baptized, probably in infancy, by the Arians, she was afterwards, in adult age, rebaptized, or, at least, baptized aright, upon confession of faith; the first baptism having no foundation.
_About A. D. 562._--Joseph Vicecomes (_lib. 5, cap. 53_), quotes Cyril Monachus, in the life of the Patriarch, Enthymius as follows: “When he had entertained for forty days, several persons that had been baptized, had admonished, and diligently instructed them in godliness, and inculcated in them, in various ways, the things necessary to their salvation, he let them depart in peace.” _Bapt. Hist., page 484._
In what place and manner, and under what circumstances, the aforementioned persons were baptized, is not stated; hence we must be content with what is shown, from which we can infer that those persons were baptized upon faith, seeing they were yet confirmed, after baptism, in the doctrine of faith and godliness; and thus it follows that the custom of baptizing upon faith was practiced at the place where this occurred.
_About A. D. 570._--Vicecomes (_lib. 4, cap. 12_), quotes, from Severus Alexandrinus, a certain prayer, which it was customary, at that time, for the teacher to pronounce over those who were baptized: “O God! take out from them the old man, which destroys himself through the lusts of error, and clothe them with the new man, which is daily renewed in thy knowledge.”
Again (_lib. 5, cap. 27_): “O Lord God! who hast imputed unto us redemption through Christ, and through the water, in the Holy Ghost, hast given to these thy servants, regeneration; thou, O Lord, who lovest light, confirm and uphold them in holiness, that they, illuminated by the light of thy grace, and standing before thy table, may be made worthy of thy eternal salvation.”
In _chap. 38_ he relates how the candidates, immediately after baptism, were brought to the holy Supper, and crowned with wreaths, and how the teacher then addressed them, exhorting them to joy and holiness of life, saying: “Dear brethren, sing a hymn of praise unto the Son of the Lord over all, who has crowned you with royal crowns. You have now, my beloved, received unfading crowns from the waters of Jordan, through the power of the Holy Ghost. Dear brethren, ye have put on to-day the glory of the baptism of the heavenly Adam.”
He finally adds the wish addressed by the teacher to God, saying: “The holy God give you holiness with this seal wherewith you are sealed, and mark you with the ring of a sweet-smelling anointing, by this baptism wherewith you are baptized; may he make you worthy of his kingdom, and crown you, instead of this perishable crown, with the crown of righteousness and every good work.”
Having quoted this much, Jacob Mehrning says: “All this is utterly inapplicable to infant baptism.” _Bapt. Hist., page 486._
_Same year as above._--It is stated that about this time there also lived Theophilus Alexandrinus, who, it appears, held views entirely different from those of the Roman church, with regard to baptism as well as to the holy Supper; so that he wrote against the manifold adjurations which were wont to be connected with the consecrating of the baptismal water, as also against transubstantiation or the essential change of the bread into the body of Christ, as follows: “A false Christian (namely, one who deems adjurations over the baptismal water necessary), does not consider that the water, in holy baptism, is sanctified by the word of God (which was wont to be spoken to the candidates who confessed the faith), and the advent of the Holy Ghost; and that the bread of the Lord, by which the body of our Savior is signified, and which we break for our sanctification, is consecrated through invocation of the Lord.” Observe he does not say, _transubstantiated_, but _consecrated_.[122] See _Bapt. Hist., page 486_, from _D. J. Vicecomes, lib. 1, cap. 14_.
[122] What he says about the water of baptism, is somewhat obscure, and hence every one may judge for himself; but that which he remarks about the bread of the Supper, is clearer.
_A. D. 586._--Long since, namely, for the year 317, we cited Donatus, and showed, according to Seb. Franck, _Chron. Rom. Kill., letter D._, that he was a very learned Bishop of Carthage, a native of Numidia, and that he taught that the Pope and his adherents did not have a Christian church, and, consequently, no true baptism; and hence held that those who had been baptized in the Roman church, needed to be rebaptized, saying that there was only one church, one baptism, one faith, one Gospel, and that no children should be baptized, but only believing adults who desired baptism. At first almost all Africa adhered to him. See the place indicated above.