the faith of children_, we do not accept as his work, but as the
production of some one who chose to publish it under his name; because,
in the first place, its tenor throughout does not accord with the style
of his writing; and in the second place, because we know neither the
writer nor the authenticity of said work.
We will conclude this subject with the account given by P. J. Twisck,
in his _Chronijk., 8th book, page 254, col. 2_: “Bede, formerly a
learned priest[130] and monk in England, died this year, A. D. 736
(Merula says A. D. 734), aged 70 years. He wrote many good books,
as history testifies. He says: “All who came to the apostles to
be baptized, were instructed and taught by them, and having been
instructed and taught concerning the sacrament of baptism, they
accepted the holy administration of baptism.” On Acts 19, _Histor.
Vinc., lib. 24, Leonh., lib. 2, Grond. Bewijs., letter A_.
[130] In what Bede’s priesthood or monkhood consisted, is not
expressed; hence nothing can be concluded regarding it.
Again: He calls the Lord’s bread a sacrament and figure of the body and
blood of Christ, and says: “Since bread sustains the body, and wine
makes blood, Christ has compared the bread to his body, and the wine to
his blood.”[131] From _Seb. Franck, fol. 65_.
[131] He calls the bread of the Supper a figure, which does not
accord well with the priesthood or monkhood.
Thus Bede declared against the Pope and the Roman church, and, as can
be inferred, in favor of the belief of the Anabaptists, not only in the
matter of baptism, but also in regard to the holy Supper, and other
points, which we have not mentioned.
NOTE.--_A. D. 732._ Bede taught at this time, that Christ instituted a
sacrament as a memorial of redemption. On Luke 22.
Isidore explained the words of Christ: “Thou art Peter,” etc., thus:
“Upon this rock which thou hast confessed, I will build my church. For
that rock,” he says, “was Christ, upon which foundation also Peter was
built.” _Lib. 7, Etim., cap. 9, Samuel Veltius, Geslacht-register, page
126._
_About A. D. 760._--D. Vicecomes (_lib. 1, cap. 35, Bapt. Hist., page
523_), records that Amalarius Fortunatus,[132] a learned man of this
period, writes the following concerning the newly-baptized Christians:
“Our newly-planted Christians are led to the church for eight days, by
their leaders.”
[132] The life of Amalarius Fortunatus is described in history
shortly after the middle of the eighth century, or about A. D.
760, though P. J. Twisck refers him to the year 836, the time of
Ludovicus Pius, which is 76 years later; however, both may be true,
if Amalarius wrote from his youth to old age, which may easily have
been the case. As regards his belief, Twisck gives this account:
“Amalarius Fortunatus, at this time, in the reign of Ludovicus Pius,
wrote several excellent treatises against transubstantiation and the
corporeal presence of the body of Christ, of the internal sacrifice
of believers, and other fine things, as can be seen in _Catal. Test.,
fol. 161, P. J. Twisck, Chron., 9th book, page 285, col. 1_.
This, as every one knows, can not be done with or by infants.
Continuing, Vicecomes (_lib. 3, cap. 6 and 7_) writes what advice
Amalarius Fortunatus gave to those who wished to be baptized, saying:
“He that desires to be baptized, must fast for several days previous
to it, according to the example of Cornelius, who, in order to receive
baptism worthily, prayed at the ninth hour, and fasted in his house.”
He does not speak of such candidates as had no knowledge, and to whom
baptism was administered without their knowing and wishing it, but of
such as had come to knowledge, and desired to be baptized. Hence his
words are: “He that desires to be baptized.”
The example of Cornelius, adduced by him in order to teach the
candidates to fast and pray before baptism, confirms our preceding
view, namely, that he is not treating of infants, but of intelligent
persons.
Amalarius (_lib. 1, de Offic. Eccles., Vicecomes, lib. 3, cap. 14, page
524_), writes: “The second meeting of the catechumens takes place four
weeks from the time of fasting; then, on the fourth day of said week is
held the third examination; they are then instructed in the beginning
of the four evangelists, and receive on that day the Lord’s Prayer and
the apostles’ creed, which they recite (or profess) on holy Easter Eve.
Concerning what is related between, and which we have not noticed,
namely, how the teacher would touch the ear of the novices with his
finger, this we leave as it is, neither commending nor condemning it,
seeing it is of small importance. In the mean time, it is gratifying to
us, that the novices were then examined in the faith before baptism,
which is a proof that the example of the first church, yea, of the holy
apostles, was still followed. See Acts 8:35,36,37.
Besides the above, D. Vicecomes (_lib. 5, cap. 39_) quotes the
following from Amalarius: “On holy Easter and Whitsuntide, the church
(of God) has always been want to gather unto God new members, through
baptism, and we justly rejoice over their salvation, since the white
garments worn by them indicate the brightness of their purified minds.”
_Bapt. Hist. page 524._
As regards the custom of baptizing on Easter and Whitsuntide, and the
white garments then put on the candidates, an explanation has been
given elsewhere, namely, that this was done to none but believers. With
this we leave the testimony of Amalarius Fortunatus.
NOTE.--It is stated that about the same time there lived an eminent man
and defender of the Christian religion, named Antharitis, who, however,
was opposed to the Roman church, and particularly to the baptism of
infants, holding the opinion that they should not be baptized; on
account of which it was reported of him that he rejected baptism
entirely; or, at least, that he said, no baptism should be taught;
which is to be understood of the baptism administered to infants.
Concerning this, I find this annotation: “Gregory, in the Register of
the Longobards, writes that Antharitis refused baptism to the children
of Christians.” _Seb. Franck, Chron., Rom. Kett., fol. 74, col. 2._
_About A. D. 768._--We find that at this time even among some of the
Romanists, instruction in the faith was practiced before baptism,
so that to this end they established certain rules, by which infant
baptism was weakened not a little, and baptism upon faith, according
to the ordinance of Christ, greatly strengthened. Touching the rules
established at said time, the following, among other things, is
recorded in _Bapt. Hist., page 527_, from _Vicecom., lib. 1, cap. 26_:
“On the Sabbath (or Sunday) of holy Whitsuntide they shall all fast,
and observe all the divine services, with reading and praying as well
as with baptism.” _Cap. 27._ Those who desire to be baptized, shall
come to church (or to the assembly) with their leaders, after the third
hour, on the Sunday before Easter. _Cap. 29._ Here it is taught, how
the teachers are to descend to the baptismal water, and how they are to
baptize first the men and then the women.
Having noted these things, D. Vicecomes (_cap. 6_) writes concerning
it the following: “The men and the women were separately admitted to
the catechism, that is, to the instruction in the faith; first the men,
and then the women. Hence, in the ordination (for this purpose) there
occurs the prayer: Almighty, eternal God, and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, behold with gracious eyes these thy servants, whom thou hast
made worthy to be called to the first principles of the faith.” A like
prayer was pronounced over the women.
A little further on he writes: “When this was done, he (the teacher)
went among them, and laid his hands upon their heads, saying: Sing with
a loud voice, ‘I believe in one God the Father.’ Turning then to the
women, he did the same.”
This, the author says, was done for the sake of discipline and virtue,
that these might be implanted together with the doctrine of the faith,
in the catechumens; for Christ said to his apostles (Matth. 28): “Teach
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost;” adding: “Teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you.”
Understanding this to be the best course, the apostle Peter (Acts 2)
first enlightened the people by preaching, and taught them to repent of
their former wicked life; whereupon those who with eager ears heard the
word of God, and had derived profit therefrom, were baptized.
“Would to God,” says the writer who has quoted this, “that the Roman
church had continued in the baptismal ordinance of Christ and his holy
apostles; never would there have become of it such an absurd infant
baptism, and, thence, such a grossly barbarous and ignorant Christendom
in Europe.” _Bapt. Hist., page 528._
Those who had been baptized thus (that is, upon faith), were then
exhorted several times by a deacon, to pray on their bended knees.
_Bapt. Hist., page 532, ex Ord. Rom., and Amal. Fort._
Who will believe that these persons, who have thus written on baptism,
were members of the Roman church? I say nothing of the many other
points which they, as can be inferred, maintained in opposition to the
common Romanists. Who would not hold it certain, that these people
were entirely separated from the papists, who observed the Roman
superstitions? Yea, that at the present day they would be declared
heretics by the Pope, and, should persecution arise, be placed at
stakes and burned alive? as has occurred not long since, yea, recently,
to many of our fellow-believers, on account of the same belief, as will
appear more fully in the sequel of this history.
We shall, therefore, commit these people to God. Whether they agreed in
all other points with the common Anabaptists, we are not able to show;
it suffices us that they, though called Romanists, opposed the belief
of the common Romanists, and that they approached very near the truth
in important points, especially in the article of baptism. With this we
will leave them, and proceed to other testimonies.
_About A. D. 772._--We quote the following from _Bapt. Hist., page
515_: “Those who had come to adult years, had to be instructed first in
the Christian doctrine, and were then examined before baptism.
“Wittikind became a catechumen, was instructed in the faith, and then
baptized with Albion.
“They had to say the creed and the Lord’s Prayer.” _Syn. Aug., cap. 2._
“The teachers had to instruct the people, how to renounce (Satan) at
baptism, and what to believe.” _Syn. Turon., cap. 18._
_Page 516_: “They had to be tolerably instructed in the doctrine of
Christ, and be given to godliness, for (in the council of Arles) it was
enjoined upon the leaders to teach them.”
“They used to renounce the devil and his works; which works
are--murder, fornication, adultery, drunkenness, and such like; the
pomp is pride, presumption, vanity, vain-glory, temerity.” _Syn. Tur._
Certainly, these were all wholesome and good rules, approaching
very near the apostolical teachings; hence we accept them as good
instruction in this iron and corroded age. It is achieving a good deal,
if one who stands at the point where many crooked roads meet, takes the
right, or, at least, the best one. That these people who observed said
rules, were entirely free from error in other points, it is not our
intention to maintain. He that walks amidst the darkness of night, can
easily miss the way; so also they, living as they must, in the darkness
of popery, could easily be misled in this or that point. We let God
judge them, being content with this, that through the darkness we have
seen the rays of their knowledge and good practice.
_A. D. 781._--This is the year which is mentioned by different writers
as the one in which the far-famed Carloman, though he had accepted the
Christian faith himself, presented his son, who was then several years
old, and whom he had up to this time left unbaptized, for baptism,
which was administered to him in the city of Rome, on Easter; likewise
his daughter Gisla, of whom it is stated that she was baptized the same
year, at Milan, by the Bishop or teacher Thomas. _Bapt. Hist., page
523, H. Montan. Nietigh., pages 80, 81_, from _Centur. 9, Magdeb.,
cap. 4, Annal. Francor. Regino., lib. 2, Adon. Aetate, 6_.
From this manner of proceeding it appears, that at this time no such
reasoning obtained, as was afterwards, and had also previously been,
resorted to by those of the Roman church, who commanded parents, on
peril of their salvation, yea, on pain of damnation, to have their
children baptized. But those who took a proper view of the matter, and
esteemed the command of Christ more than the decrees and statutes of
men, did not allow themselves to be intimidated by these threats, but
deferred the baptism of their children, till they, having grown up,
accepted the faith, and themselves desired to be baptized thereupon.
We say nothing respecting Carloman, the father here spoken of, neither
of him who baptized his son, and would conclude neither this nor that
touching their life and faith; we simply commend their action in this
matter; on the one hand, that the father, though he had professed
Christ, and was called a member of the church, left his son and
daughter unbaptized, as an evidence that he considered infant baptism
(as a human invention) useless; on the other hand, that those who
baptized them, did not censure this course, but rather assented to and
confirmed it with the deed, which is the more evident from the fact
that the ordinance was administered with great pleasure, yea, joy, as
history tells us.
_About A. D. 792._--Albinus teaches on John 1 (_Bapt. Hist., page
505_), that baptism is to be received with faith. He writes: “It is
aptly said that the forerunner of our Lord baptized in Bethabara; for
Bethabara signifies a house of obedience, that they should all, through
the obedience of faith, come to the baptism of Christ.”
This Albinus, surnamed Flaccus, was a remarkably learned and beloved
man of that age, but nevertheless called ignorant, and hated, by his
adversaries. In his confession he was greatly opposed to the common
belief of the Roman church, especially in the matter of baptism. In
baptism he required faith, regeneration, and newness of life, declaring
that these were the means to receive it worthily; which things, though
highly spoken of with the mouth, yet in infant baptism are practically
ignored.
In the defense of his belief he was bold, regarding, it seems, neither
the hatred nor the favor of the people, so that, besides what we have
just mentioned, he left various excellent things concerning the baptism
of adults; of which we will present a few instances.
On John 15 (_page 509_) he says: “Why does not the Lord say: Ye are
clean because of the baptism in which ye are washed? but says: _Through
the word which I have spoken unto you_. For, take away the word, and
what is the water, but water? When the word meets the element, then it
becomes a sacrament. Whence derives the water the power, that, though
it wets the body, the soul is purified, if the word does not effect
this? But this is not effected, because it is spoken, but because it is
believed.
In baptism there are three visible things: 1. the body (of the one
baptized), 2. the water, 3. the teacher; and three invisible things: 1.
the soul, 2. faith, 3. the Spirit of God.”
We can almost see with our eyes, and feel with our hands, that this
man here intended to oppose the belief of the common Romanists. He
makes use of two special arguments, with which he sufficiently denies,
yea, refutes, the Roman infant baptism. His first argument opposes
the belief of those who were wont to tie salvation to the elementary
water of baptism, and, consequently, to save them, as it were, baptized
the infants; in opposition to which he averred that the element of
water without the word of God is merely an element, and no sacrament;
but that the water becomes a sacrament through the word of God, not
because the latter is spoken, but because it is believed. And thus he
removes with his first argument also another error of the Romanists,
who imagined that in baptism, through the saying of a few words, the
water was consecrated and made a means of salvation; which he refutes,
however, by the declaration that the consecration is not effected by
the speaking of the word, but because it is believed.
If then, in baptism, the water is ineffectual without the word, and
the word has no virtue unless it is believed, as Albinus declares, he
flatly opposes infant baptism, since there the water only is used,
without the instructing word, and without the latter being believed by
the infants.
His second argument is a sufficient refutation of those who
administered baptism to infants, without regard as to whether they had
intelligent minds, true faith, and the fruits of God’s Spirit, or not;
for, this belief he opposes when he says that in baptism there must
be not only three visible things, 1. the body, 2. the water, 3. the
teacher, but also three invisible things, 1. the soul [mind], (that
is, an intelligent soul, for otherwise the soul cannot properly be so
called); 2. faith (that is, that which consists in a sure confidence,
for this is peculiar to true faith, Hebr. 11:1); 3. the Spirit of
God (that is, that which is fruitful in virtues), for the Spirit of
God is known by its fruits, Gal. 5:22. But who has ever been found
that was able to discover such works of the soul, of faith, and of
the Spirit, in infants? without which, indeed, baptism has no virtue,
as conclusively follows from the arguments of Albinus, which are
in accordance with the teachings of the holy word of God. How this
harmonizes with infant baptism, the impartial may judge.
Of regeneration, Albinus, in the 7th penitential psalm (_page 510_),
says: “Thou art my God; thou hast created me. I can be re-created by no
one but thee, by whom I have been created. Thou hast created me by thy
Word, which, O God, abideth with thee. Thou createst me again by the
Word, which has become flesh for our sakes.”
The Romanists were accustomed sometimes to call baptism, by which they
meant infant baptism, a regeneration, without respect to newness of
life, merely on account of the water, which, with the speaking of a
few words, was administered to the infants. But Albinus here declares
that as he was created by the word, even so he is re-created and
regenerated by the word. He says nothing at all about the water; not
to depreciate the outward administration of water baptism, but to show
that recreation or regeneration does not lie in it; for, that the same
must be effected by the word, whereupon the administration of water
baptism follows, as a sign of it, seems to be the burden of his whole
argument.
Moreover, it is also deserving of notice, that in the above passage,
touching the incarnation of Jesus Christ, he says, that the Word
(namely, by which all things were made) became flesh for our sakes,
which accords with our confession, and also agrees with John 1:14.
Albinus (_lib. 3, de Trin., cap. 17, page 512_) says: “We are not to
believe that he (Christ) then received the gifts of the Holy Ghost;
he who from his birth was always full of the Holy Ghost; but that the
mystery of the Holy Trinity might be declared unto us in baptism, the
Son of God was baptized, being a man; the Holy Spirit descended as a
dove; God the Father was heard in a voice, without the invocation of
which, no baptism can avail anything. Therefore, the Son of God wished
to signify by his own baptism, that the whole Trinity was present; who
commanded the stewards of his mysteries (the apostles): “Go, teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost.”
Again: Why did the Lord have himself baptized? Namely, that no one,
though he might possess great gifts and power, should despise to be
baptized.
He makes use here of three modes of speaking which are incompatible
with infant baptism. First, when he says that without the invocation
of the holy Trinity no baptism can avail anything; for, who knows not
that infants cannot invoke the Holy Trinity? Secondly, when he adduces,
as a foundation of baptism, the command of Christ: “Teach all nations,
baptizing them,” etc.; for there teaching and baptizing are joined
together, which, as even some pedobaptists declare, is inapplicable
to infants. Thirdly, when he shows why the Lord had himself baptized?
Namely, that no one, though he might possess great gifts and power,
should despise to be baptized. For, that this also cannot be understood
of infants, even nature teaches; since they have no great gifts or
power, and, consequently, can neither rely upon them nor despise
baptism.
D. Vicecomes (_lib. 1, cap. 32, page 535_) quotes the following from
Albinus Flaccus: “At baptism, on holy Easter-day, the catechumens (the
novices who have been instructed in the faith), if they desire baptism,
recite the Lord’s Prayer and the creed from memory.”
This is certainly clear testimony of the custom of the believers of
that age, from which it is evident, that their children and novices had
to know the Lord’s Prayer and the creed, yea, had to recite it from
memory, and must themselves desire baptism, before they were baptized.
Who would say that new-born infants can do this? Moreover, it was not
only required, to recite the Lord’s Prayer and the creed from memory,
but also to give reason for it, and this not only once, but several
times, on different days appointed for this purpose, in the weeks
before Easter and Whitsuntide, as shown above, to which we refer the
reader. See also, _G. Durand., lib. 6. Ration. Div. Offic. de 4. Feria
Hebel. 4. Quadrag, etc._
_Page 536_. Vicecomes (_lib. 3, cap. 21_), says: “He (Albinus) also
makes mention of the examinations (in the faith) of the elect, that
is, those chosen to be baptized, tracing them down from the times of
the apostles.” _Cap. 22_, he says: “Then took place the examinations
(in the faith), in order that it might be ascertained with greater
certainty, whether, after the renunciation of Satan, the word of God
and the faith promised to it, had taken deep root in the heart.” _Cap.
26_: “Albinus Flaccus, in the chapter on baptism, writes: ‘For the
baptism of the elect, who are examined (in the faith), according to
the rule of the apostles, consecrated by fasting, and instructed by
diligent preaching, two seasons are set apart, Easter and Whitsuntide.’”
To this, D. Vicecomes adds this comment: “If these examinations were
held according to the rules of the apostles, they must needs have been
observed by all; but subsequently, when infant baptism came into vogue,
this necessary practice was abolished (or discontinued) by the church,
A. D. 860, in the reign of the Emperors Louis the Pious and Lothaire;
of which abundant proof exists.”
What do you think, beloved reader, of this last testimony? to say
nothing of the testimonies of Albinus Flaccus. This Vicecomes was a
pedobaptist and strenuous maintainer of pedobaptism; yet he states
that the necessary (yea, apostolical) practice of examinations (in the
faith) was abolished or discontinued when infant baptism came into
vogue; he also indicates the time when this occurred, namely, A. D.
860. As to how he came at this, we leave to him to answer.
In the meantime, this is also quite a refutation of those who fix
the origin of infant baptism very early, indeed according to some,
in the time of the apostles. However, that infant baptism, together
with many other superstitions, originated soon after the death of the
apostles, they can, in some measure substantiate; but that it wavered
in the Roman church, for many centuries, till the year 900, yea, almost
1000, being now established, then abolished, adopted in one place, and
rejected in another, etc., appears sufficiently from the books in which
we have read the same.
We confine ourselves to the time of Albinus Flaccus, who lived about
A. D. 792, when this intrusion was already rapidly gaining ground,
which also D. Vicecomes has seen, for, when he mentions the chrism in
baptism, and some other factitious practices of the papists, he adds
that it is his opinion that all this did not begin until after the time
of Albinus Flaccus, when they ceased to baptize adults. _Lib. 5, cap.
5_ and _19_.