chapter of _Jacob Mehrn_. _History of Baptism_, who commences his
account of baptism at that time thus: “Henceforth we shall not dwell
upon quite so many testimonies taken from the ancient fathers and
church historians, as had necessarily to be the case in the preceding
centuries, in order to prove that during the first four centuries
after the birth of Christ, infant baptism had neither in the holy
Scriptures nor in the authentic books of the teachers of the church, a
firm foundation; that is, that it had been ordained by Christ, or that
it was an apostolic institution or tradition. But we shall in future
content ourselves with such testimonies and historical records as best
agree with the truth of the ordinance of the baptism of Jesus Christ,
in order that we may thereby strengthen ourselves in that truth and in
the true faith.” _Bapt. Hist., page 394._
_A. D. 401._--About the beginning of this century, opposition was made
against infant baptism and its advocates, among which advocates in
favor of infant baptism Augustine showed himself none of the least,
although he himself had been baptized upon faith, as has previously
been mentioned. He was opposed by a certain bishop, by the name of
Vincent Victor, who, notwithstanding Augustine’s authority, attacked
infant baptism, and, as it appears, withstood it with conclusive
arguments from holy Scripture. But how it finally ended between the two
parties, of this I find no account; mention is made, however, of the
matter itself, by Vicecomes (_lib. 2, cap. 1_), who says that Augustine
(_lib. 3, de anima, et ijus orig., cap. 14_), mentions a bishop called
Vincent Victor, who contended with him about infant baptism. _Bapt.
Hist., page 448._
NOTE.--Vincent taught that in the Supper the figures of the body and
the blood of Christ are administered. Also, that the bread and the
wine continue in their own substance. _Book of the two natures._ Also,
_Samuel Veltius_, in _Geslacht-register, page 124_.
_A. D. 402._--About this time, the very old and excellent orator
Victorinus was baptized on confession of his faith; of which we find
the following in the _2d chapter_ of the _8th book of Augustine’s
Confessions_: “O Lord God, who hast bowed the heavens under thy feet;
thou hast come down and touched the mountains, and smoke has issued
from them; how wonderfully hast thou long since come into the heart of
this Victorinus!”
“He read the holy Scriptures, as Simplician told me, and most
diligently examined and investigated whatever he found written
concerning the Christian religion. He then said to Simplician, not
openly, but secretly, as friend speaks to friend: ‘Know that I am now a
Christian.’ Simplician answered: ‘I shall not believe it, I shall not
count thee among the Christians, unless I see thee in the Christian
church.’ (A little further on:) But suddenly and quite unexpectedly
he said to Simplician, as the latter told me: ‘Come, let us go to the
church; I will become a Christian.’ Simplician, not knowing where he
was, for joy, accompanied him there.
“Having been instructed in the principles of the faith, Victorinus soon
after had his name registered, that he might be regenerated through the
sacrament of baptism.
“Finally, when the hour had come for him to make his confession
(for which confession, at Rome, a customary formula was learned,
and then delivered from an elevated place, in the presence of all
the Christians, by those who prepared themselves for baptism), the
overseers, as Simplician told me, offered to let him make it privately,
as was the custom to propose to those who it was feared might, through
diffidence, be unable to proceed. But he said that he would rather
profess his salvation in the hearing of all the Christians, than
otherwise.
“When he had ascended the elevated place to make his confession, all
who knew him pronounced his name with secret joy. But who was there
that did not know him? For, from the mouths of all that were assembled,
in mutual rejoicing with him, there arose the glad shout: Victorinus!
Victorinus!”
A brief account of this is also given in _Bapt. Hist., page 461_.
From the above words quoted by us from Augustine, it certainly appears
that at the time when said Vistorinus was baptized, there existed even
in Rome, where this baptism took place, churches which, notwithstanding
Antichrist began to lift up his head there in some measure, endeavored
with all diligence to observe the true baptism of Jesus Christ, which
is administered upon faith. For, the statement, that in Rome, that
is, in the church which is spoken of here, was the custom, that those
who prepared themselves for baptism, learned, for their confession, a
customary formula, and then delivered it from an elevated place in the
presence of all the Christians, incontrovertibly indicates that there
the pure doctrine of Jesus Christ was still observed in this respect.
Matt. 10:32: “Whosoever therefore,” says Christ, “shall confess me
before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in
heaven.” Again, Rom. 10:10: “For with the heart man believeth unto
righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.”
This faith and this confession are necessary to baptism. Acts 8:37;
22:16.
_Bapt. Hist., page 459; Vicecom., lib. 3, cap. 24._ At the time of
Augustine, that is, at the time of the aforementioned Victorinus, when
virtue and Christian simplicity were still reigning, the examinations
of the catechumens were conducted with much strictness, and great
frequency, in the night-watches of the believers, as is shown by his
words. _Lib. 2, de Symbola ad Catechum., cap. 1._
_A. D. 402._--Synesius Syrenus, an upright, pious man, became, from
a heathen, a Christian; was baptized by Theophilus, and afterwards
appointed by him bishop of Ptolemais. _P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th book,
page 138, col. 1_, from _Evagrius, lib. 1, cap. 15. Mer., fol. 334_.
It is true, that it is stated of Synesius Syrenus, that his faith was
not perfect with regard to all the parts of the Christian religion,
concerning which historians specially mention one particular point;
but it is also stated that Bishop Theophilus, who baptized him, was
in hopes, that, in the course of time, he would judge better on this
point, which, it seems was also the case, since, as it is stated,
Theophilus afterwards appointed him bishop of Ptolemais.
However, we would not commend this part of the matter, namely, to
baptize any one without perfect faith or confession, especially if an
essential point is wanting; but this we commend, that not children,
but adult persons, who are commended as pious are baptized, and, from
heathen, desire to become Christians, as is stated to have been the
case here.
_A. D. 406._--At this time it was resolved at Carthage, “That the
candidates shall give in their names, and after they shall have been
examined long, and diligently tried, with the imposition of hands,
they shall be baptized.” Also: “That a bishop, before he be allowed to
minister, shall be well examined in doctrine and life.” Also: “That
fellowship with the excommunicated shall be avoided, and the penitent
received back again.” _P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th book, page 139, col.
2_, from _Grond. Bew., letter B. B. Valent. Beyer, fol. 603_. Also,
_Bapt. Hist., page 447. ex Conc. Carth. 4, cap. 88_.
Here applies the annotation of _P. J. Twisck_, in _Chron., 5th book,
page 153, col. 1_: “In the fourth council of Carthage,” he writes, “it
was decreed, That applicants for baptism shall first be examined for
a long time, shall abstain for a time from wine and meat, and, having
been diligently tried with imposition of hands, shall be baptized.”
From _Chron., Seb. Franck_, of the Latin councils held in Africa and
Europe, _letter C_. The time of this council is fixed by P. J. Twisck
(from _Seb. Fr._) A. D. 436; but he has previously given A. D. 406 as
the date, and hence we leave it thus; others, however, give A. D. 416
as the date.
Beloved reader, this is a very different decree from an earlier one,
also one made at Carthage, in the time of Cyprian, about A. D. 250, by
sixty-six bishops, in which it was established, _Contra Fidum_, that
infants should be baptized immediately. This is certainly, we say, a
very different decree, since infant baptism is not confirmed, but, much
more, annulled by it; and thus we see that in the course of time some
had grown wiser. Not, that it is our purpose to prove by councils,
our view touching the true baptism, which must be administered upon
faith; not at all, for we find in nothing less pleasure, than in the
decrees of councils, in so far as they come short of the word of God.
Besides, this point needs not to be proved by councils, as it is
expressed in the holy Scriptures; we simply mean to show thereby that
also at that time there were persons who, even in the very place where
infant baptism had been ratified, confirmed the true baptism of Jesus
Christ, which must be administered upon previous examination, and has
its foundation in the holy Scriptures. As to this, that the candidates
were commanded, first to abstain for a time from wine and meat, we
leave that as it is, neither commending nor condemning it, as being
a thing which, without sin, may be observed or omitted, provided no
superstition is connected therewith.
_A. D. 410._--_Bapt. Hist., page 408._ Sedulius writes, on Rom. 5:
“No man suffers condemnation, except through Adam; from which men are
redeemed through the washing of regeneration.”
But what else is the washing of regeneration, than the death of the old
man, and the putting on of a new life, which is signified by baptism?
See Rom. 6:3,4; Eph. 5:26,27; Tit. 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21.
Again, Sedulius, on Rom. 6, says: “Paul would have baptism so sure and
perfect as to make it impossible for the recipient to sin any more.
When the grace of God came upon us through Christ, and the spiritual
washing reigned in us through faith, we began to live unto God, being
dead unto sin, that is, the devil. And thus, baptism is an earnest and
figure of the resurrection; and hence it is administered with water,
that, as water washes away impurities, and even so we through baptism,
we believe, are spiritually cleansed and purified from all sin.”
Further: “Know that through baptism you, who have become a member
of his body are crucified with Christ. He hung on the cross with an
innocent body, that you might hang on the cross the guilty one.”
Again, on 1 Cor. 5: “O that you may be a new leaven; that you may be
mixed with the grace of holy baptism, as flour is mixed with water.”
This he seems to speak to those, who, though they had reached adult
years, yet did not make any preparations, but deferred both their
baptism and their regeneration.
Again, on 2 Cor. 5: “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature:”
that is, he that is renewed through the sacrament of baptism.
We will not detain you, dear reader, with explanations on the above
passages of Sedulius, since they, without explanation, are so clear,
that even he that has but little understanding in divine things, can
manifestly see, yea feel, that the baptism described by Sedulius savors
not in the least of infant baptism, since the conditions he mentions in
connection with it, as faith, regeneration, crucifying the old man, can
not be comprehended, much less fulfilled by infants.
_A. D. 411._--_Bapt. Hist., page 444, ex Centuria 5. Magdeburgensis,
fol. 664._ Augustine writes that Hilarius, a teacher at Syracuse,
wrote: “When an unbaptized child dies, it can not justly be damned,
since it was born without sin.”
A person unacquainted with the condition of things at that time, may
perhaps think that with these words Hilarius of Syracuse, contributed
but little to the abolishment of infant baptism; but he that is
familiar with it, will instantly see that thereby he utterly denied
infant baptism, and stripped it of its virtues. It deserves mention,
that in those times infant baptism was based upon original sin, so that
it was thought that infants, for the removal of said original sin, must
necessarily be baptized; from which the conclusion was derived, that
infants that were not baptized, and, consequently (in their opinion),
not cleansed from original sin, must necessarily be damned, as is still
taught at the present day by the Papists.
Whenever then, any one denied original sin, the foundation of infant
baptism, he denied infant baptism itself, yea utterly annihilated it.
This did Hilarius of Syracuse, who denied original sin in newborn
infants, and, consequently, infant baptism; wherefore he, according
to Augustine, frankly said: “When an unbaptized child dies, it cannot
justly be damned, since it was born without sin.”
_A. D. 412._--_Bapt. Hist., page 407._ Theodoretus, in _chap. 10_,
says: “In the law they used sprinklings, and frequently washed the
body; but they who order their life according to the New Testament,
purify the soul by holy baptism, and free the conscience from previous
stains.”
Again, in _Epist. Divin. Decret._: “But instead of those sprinklings,
the gift of holy baptism is sufficient for those who believe; for it
grants not only remission of old or previous sins, but it also implants
(that is, into those who are thus baptized), the hope of promised good
things; it makes us partakers of the death and resurrection of the
Lord; it imparts the communion and gifts of the Holy Ghost; it makes
us children of God, and not only children, but also heirs of God, and
joint heirs with Christ.”
Again, _quaest. 19 on Levit._: “He that believes in Christ the Savior,
when he is sanctified by the water of holy baptism, is also cleansed
from the stains of sin.”
Again, _quaest. 1 on Jos._: “As the priests who bore the ark, went
first into Jordan, whereupon all the people, with Joshua, the princes,
and the prophets, passed through; even so, when John began to baptize,
Jesus the Savior hallowed, as it were the nature of the water; and the
believing people entered through holy baptism into the kingdom of God.”
Who does not see that Theodoretus who wrote A. D. 412, and afterwards,
indicates with all the circumstances, that he recognized no baptism,
than that which is accompanied with faith and repentance; for when, in
the first place, he says: “Those who order their lives according to
the New Testament, purify the soul by holy baptism,” and then says:
“Instead of those sprinklings, the gift of holy baptism is sufficient
for those who believe,” and finally adds: “The believing people
entered, through baptism, into the kingdom of God,” he certainly
indicates that he does not in any wise speak of the baptism of infants,
since they have neither the knowledge nor the ability, to order their
lives in accordance with the New Testament, or to believe, which are
here put down as absolute conditions in the candidates for baptism.
NOTE.--Theodoretus taught that the figures of the Supper, namely,
the bread and the wine, in no wise change their nature, but remain
as they are, after consecration. _Dialog. 2, Sam. Velt._, in
_Geslaght-register, pages 123, 124_.
_A. D. 413._--As those Christians greatly increased, who valued only
the baptism which is administered upon faith, and, consequently
rebaptized (as not having been baptized aright) those who had been
baptized by unbelievers or in infancy, when they attained to the
true faith, the Emperor Theodosius, A. D. 413, issued an edict,
against the Anabaptists, commanding that they should be put to death.
_Introduction, page 47, col. 2, from Chron. Baron., num. 6._
But lest any one should think that the people who, under the name of
Anabaptists, were threatened with death by the Emperor Theodosius,
held, with regard to this point, views different from those maintained
by the Baptists of the present day, who are likewise called
Anabaptists, it is expedient to mention what was said about their views
by the inquisitor of Leeuwærden, in opposition to one of our latest
martyrs, namely, Jagues d’Auchi. When Jagues wanted the inquisitor,
who appealed to the Emperor’s edict, to prove that said edict was just
or founded on holy Scripture, the inquisitor made this reply to him:
“I believe you think that all our fathers were deceived, and that your
sect is saved: what do you say? It is now 1200 or 1300 years since the
Emperor Theodosius issued an edict, that the heretics should be put to
death, namely, those who were rebaptized like your sect.” See the year
1558, and, in the index, the name Jagues d’Auchi.
When, therefore, the inquisitor says that they “were rebaptized like
your sect,” he certainly indicates thereby, that they were people like
Jagues d’Auchi was, and, consequently, like the Anabaptists who at that
time, namely, A. D. 1558, gave their lives for the truth.
_A. D. 415._--_Bapt. Hist., page 407, Prosperus, Resp. 2, ad Object.
Gallorum_, says: “Every one who, believing on the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost, is regenerated in baptism, is freed from his own,
voluntary and actual, sins, as well as from original sin.”
_Page 413._ Prosperus, in his Epigrams, puts the martyrs and the
candidates for baptism on an equal footing, when he says:
“Sanctify, baptism will indeed;
But the martyr’s crown doth all complete.”
In the first passage of Prosperus we see that faith, regeneration,
baptism, forsaking of voluntary sins, etc., are all joined together,
even as this is done in the holy Scriptures of the New Testament.
Compare Mark, 16:16; Eph. 5:26,27; Tit. 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21, with Matt.
3:6; Mark 1:5; Luke 3:3; Acts 2:37,38; Rom. 6:4. Hence it is a
scriptural confession; and there we will let it rest.
In the second passage the martyrs and the candidates for baptism are
compared to one another; but who does not know that infants cannot
be martyrs, seeing they can neither believe nor confess, much less
can they voluntarily confirm said confessed faith with death, which,
nevertheless, is the own work of all the orthodox and faithful martyrs.
Now then, if infants are not qualified for martyrdom, they are not fit
for baptism. Therefore judge whether this is not comprised in the words
of Prosperus which we have just mentioned.
_A. D. 418._--The doctrine of infant baptism having been openly
controverted ever since the beginning of this century, its foundation,
namely, original sin, being denied and refuted, it occurred, A. D. 418,
that those of the Roman church in Africa, through the urgent request
of Augustine and his fellow-bishops, obtained the convocation of a
council or synod under Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, composed of two
hundred and fourteen bishops; which council, in the name of the See of
Rome, absolutely anathematized or condemned the views of those who did
not admit infant baptism or recognize original sin in infants, as well
as of those who, opposing predestination, held that the will of man
was free. The 112th Canon contains the following resolution respecting
original sin and baptism: “It is likewise thought proper, that every
one who denies that infants who are baptized from their birth, are
baptized for the remission of sins, and that they derive from the
sin of the first father, Adam, that from which they must be cleansed
through the washing of regeneration, be anathema, that is, accursed.”
It is true, this anathema was aimed particularly at Pelagius and
Celestius, as being the ones who had shown themselves the principal
rejecters of infant baptism, since they positively said (according to
_Seb. Franck, Chron., letter P_.): “There is no original sin; hence,
baptism is not needful for children, yea, is useless to them.” Again,
article 7: “Children are born without original sin; baptism avails them
nothing.” Again, article 13: “Though children be not baptized, they
nevertheless have eternal life.”
But nevertheless this council, Canon 112, also anathematized or cursed
all those who assented to these views (the rejection of infant baptism
and original sin), for this is specially expressed with these words:
“Every one who denies that infants who are baptized from their birth,
are baptized for the remission of sins, be Anathema.” For, we know
that the words _every one_ do not mean any particular person, but many
persons.
It appears therefore, that at that time many people separated from
the Roman church, on account of this view respecting original sin and
infant baptism. However, we would not defend the views of Pelagius and
Celestius, concerning some other points; it suffices us, that there
were people in those times, who, notwithstanding the excommunication of
the pope, and the persecution of the councils, still opposed the Roman
church, especially through the rejection of infant baptism, and even,
some of them, sacrificed their lives.
_A. D. 419–421._--As the Anabaptists were not yet deterred by the above
council, from maintaining their doctrine that baptism ought only to
be administered upon true faith, therefore, in order to quench their
doctrine, the authority of said council was confirmed A. D. 419, by
the edicts of the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius, and A. D. 421, by
the additional edict of Constantius; whereby said council forcibly
prevailed throughout the entire Roman empire. See concerning this, _H.
Montan. Nietigh., page 79_.
From this it appears that this doctrine of baptizing only upon true
faith, was accepted by very many at that time; for otherwise it would
not have been necessary for the Emperors to threaten its defenders with
the great power of their edicts, and, as it appears, to persecute them
even unto death.
_A. D. 425._--_Bapt. Hist., page 411_, Maximus (_Homil. 71, de Baptism.
Christi_) says: “Jesus was baptized, not for himself, but for us; not
that he might be purified with the water, but that he (so to speak),
might sanctify the water. The new man was baptized, that he might
confirm the mystery of the new baptism.”
When, therefore, Maximus introduces here the baptism of Christ, which
took place when the latter was about thirty years old, and says that
it was not done for himself, but for us, that is, for an example to be
followed, and that he thereby confirmed the mystery of the new baptism,
he certainly indicates thereby, that he is not speaking of the baptism
of infants, since Christ, who, through his baptism, confirmed baptism,
was not a child when he was baptized, but an adult person. Moreover,
as no other, contrary testimony concerning him is found in the history
of holy baptism, it seems probable, that he was not acquainted with
any other baptism, and, consequently, not with infant baptism, or, at
least, did not observe it.
_A. D. 428._--There were many persons accused, through the writings of
Augustine, of being Anabaptists, or at least, of defending Anabaptism,
inasmuch as they maintained that baptism administered by heretics
or unbelievers was not to be regarded as true baptism, and that,
therefore, those who had been baptized by such persons, ought to be
rebaptized; in short, that there was no true baptism except that
administered in the true church, and upon true faith. Among those thus
accused Cresconius was not one of the least; in Augustine’s writings
the following things are laid to his charge:
_Bapt. Hist., page 416_: “That there is but one true baptism; for it is
written: One God, one faith, one baptism, one undefiled, true church:
those who are not in it, the same cannot have any baptism.”
Again: “In baptism, regard is had to the certainty that he who
administers it is such a one that does it in a holy manner; but this
certainty respecting the one who baptizes, is not judged by the
uprightness of his heart, which cannot be seen, but according to his
good reputation, and the respect in which he is held.”
Again: “It is written: ‘The oil of the sinner shall not anoint my
head’: hence it follows it is not the will of God, that an open sinner
shall baptize.”
Again: “In view of this passage, can anything more absurd be said, than
that one polluted person should purify another? that one impure person
should wash another? that one unclean person should cleanse another? or
that a blasphemer should make any one innocent?”
Again: “You, our gainsayers, do not distinguish between a believer and
an unbeliever.”
Again: “If it were wrong [what we confess], and baptism may not be
annulled [or re-administered], no matter who has administered it, then
the apostles would not have baptized those who had been baptized by
John; but the contrary is seen,” Acts 19:5.
Again: “In Acts 2:38, Peter commands every Jew to be baptized upon (or
in) the name of Christ, though their forefathers had been baptized in
the Red Sea (1 Cor. 10:2); hence, the previous baptism (that is, the
one which has not been administered rightly), may justly be annulled or
changed.”