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.
This doctrine, however, did not die with him, seeing mention is made
of his followers much later (namely A. D. 586), that they at that
time, under the leadership of one Peter, Bishop of Apamia, rebaptized
those who had been baptized by the orthodox (or Catholic) church. See
concerning this, P. J. Twisck, _Chron., 6th book, page 201, col. 1_,
from _Greg. lib._ _8, Merul., fol. 446_. Also our account for the year
548.
NOTE.---The followers of Donatus, of whom we speak here, have of old
been severely accused by their opponents of gross errors, tyranny, &c.,
but are acquitted thereof by other celebrated authors. Nevertheless,
we would not accept them in every respect, but only in those of their
teachings which are good and true.
H. Bullinger compares them throughout to the Anabaptists, or as he
calls them Baptists, saying: “Here our Baptists again disclose their
ignorance, when they teach that no one should be compelled to that
which is good, or to the faith;” and, continuing, he says: “They
resemble the ancient Baptists, the Donatists, in every respect.”
“These,” he writes further, “were of the opinion, that heretics should
be allowed to live without restraint and with impunity in their faith;”
that is, without persecution or blood shedding. They were opposed by
Augustine. _H. Bulling., lib. 5, fol. 216, 222_.[123]
[123] The writings of Bullinger against the said people are more
fully explained elsewhere.
As to the accusations formerly brought against their faith as well as
their life, these have been refuted by several prominent authors. “It
would be desirable,” writes P. J. Twisck, “if we ourselves had their
writings, doctrines, and deeds; for, if it is true, that they resemble
the Baptists in every respect, and are not willing that any one should
be compelled in matters of faith.” It is therefore sufficiently, as
Bullinger says, evident, that they were unjustly accused. _Chron., 5th
book, page 147, col. 2_. This is more fully spoken of in the account
for the year 317.
_About A. D. 600._--We will now bring the history of baptism in the
sixth century to a close. We would adduce more writers in confirmation
of said matter, but we fear that many authors of that time did
not write faithfully and uprightly; besides, that many of their
descendants, in order to give color to infant baptism and similar
doctrines, appear to have corrupted their writings, of which many
excellent men have complained.
Jacob Mehrning, in his _Indachtigmaeckinge over het Doopsel_, of the
6th century, says: “Thus the _Centuriatores Magdeburgenses_, also the
two doctors, Calixtus and Brandanus Detrius, in their disputations
about baptism, must themselves confess that in this century, and much
longer, the Christian novices were divided into two classes, as in the
primitive church, which observed a distinction between the catechumens
and believing applicants for baptism, or the “elect,” as they were
called by the ancients.
But continuing, he writes the following concerning the corruption
of the writings of the true teachers: “Here must also be taken into
consideration, that which the _Centuriatores Magdeburgenses_, Dr.
Calixtus, Dr. Meysner, Dr. Johan Gerhard, Dr. Guil. Perkins, in
_Ementito Catholicismo_, and many others so frequently complain of,
namely, that the writings of the fathers and the primitive teachers of
the church, have been so amazingly abused, in manifold ways, corrupted,
interpolated and mutilated. Pray, who indeed will be our surety, that
Augustine and others of the fathers have written and taught about
infant baptism, all that is ascribed to them.
However, the fathers and teachers of the church, whose writings are
extant, constitute but a very small part of the whole number. Were the
writings, books and testimonies of the countless hundreds and thousands
of other teachers of the church, bishops, and laymen experienced in the
word of God, who have written, preached, taught, and spoken against it,
in various parts of the wide world, to come to light, and could we also
have the original manuscripts of the fathers, namely, those who have
written against infant baptism, and compare them together, we would be
astonished to see how faithfully the truth has been maintained in all
ages, but also, how it has been suppressed by the innovators of baptism
(that is, those who baptized infants). Yet, however mutilated and
corrupted the writings of the fathers as we now have them, are, there
are nevertheless to be found in them many very excellent testimonies
respecting Christ’s true ordinance of baptism, and very confused ones
as regards infant baptism; for which we owe special thanks to God, and
to him only, who thereby mightily confirms us in the truth. _Bapt.
Hist., 2d part, pages 481, 482._
Thus, not we, but those who have unfaithfully dealt with the writings
of the fathers, are the cause that we must here close our account of
the baptism of this time; however, in some of the following centuries,
where we meet with more authentic writers, we shall be able to explain
and amplify this more conclusively.
AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE SIXTH CENTURY.
SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS OF THE SIXTH CENTURY.
[The verse of Alcimus, reserved in the preceding account of baptism in
this century, is now adduced, as the first proof of the martyrization
of this time, and circumstantially explained.
Mention is made of various severe persecutions that occurred about
this time, of which fifteen are enumerated; it is also shown in what
kingdoms, principalities, or countries they took place, as well as who
the tyrants were by whom all this was committed against the Christian
believers.
An explanation that it is hardly credible, that all the countries in
which the aforementioned fifteen persecutions occurred, were subject to
the Roman See; which is amplified, and its signification shown.
Arnold, a teacher of the Gospel, martyred in a forest, in France, and
buried by his wife, presented as a pious martyr in the year 511.