improvement, inasmuch as the secular affairs manifested themselves
with much commotion, strife, misery, and distress. Papal dominion
prevailed more and more. The idolatrous ceremonies were very prolific;
the baptismal water was consecrated; the oil was prepared by the bishop
alone, two days before Easter, as well as imparted to others; the
Supper, or sacrament, was administered nearly every Sunday, at an altar
or table prepared for this purpose. Excommunication or the ban of the
church was used very frivolously, not only against common people, but
also against emperors, kings, and princes. The punishment imposed upon
penitents consisted much in abstaining for seven years from certain
food, meat and wine, or in the giving of alms, building of churches,
founding of cloisters, and other like inventions and burdens,
according to the ability and mind of each respective individual.
“It was taught, that the saints must be worshiped; not that they should
save the supplicants, but that they should intercede, and ask God for
help for them.
“Holy people were presented, who had died before the time of Christ,
in the Old Testament, and who, as it was said, had been in hell, yet
without pain--a strange notion and wicked doctrine respecting the holy
fathers.
“It was said that there was a purgatory, where men had to atone after
this life, and wash away sin by suffering.
“The canonizing of ecclesiastical persons was very common. The holidays
instituted in honor of the saints, were very many, and took away nearly
one half of the year. The images and graves of the saints were greatly
esteemed. Kings, princes, lords, ecclesiastics, and laymen, made
pilgrimages to Rome, St. Jago, Jerusalem, and other places, where the
bodies or bones of the saints were buried or preserved, as though dead
bones without spirit, could impart life or benefit.
“The sick would confess to the ear of the priest, and thereupon receive
the sacrament of the unction; after which they departed in full
assurance, though without any good resulting from it.
“The dead were buried with the ringing of bells, with tapers and
torches, with much singing, with masses, vigils, and prayers for their
souls, etc.” _P.J. Twisck, Chron., 10th book, page 361._
Thus, the tenth century was utterly corrupted through the superstitions
of popery; but, as in the dark midnight the stars still sometimes give
their light, so it was also here; for, that the marks of the true
church might not be swallowed up entirely in the darkness, some, though
but few, manifested themselves, who, in one and the other point, but
principally in the matter of baptism, showed, that they, as regards the
matter itself, did not differ from the institution of Christ and the
practice of his holy apostles; which can be gathered from the writings
they have left.
_About A. D. 910._--Or very close to the beginning of this century,
the ancient writers place Giselbert, a man of learning, but accused of
strange opinions by his adversaries; whom the emergency of the time
compelled to stoop and hide, under the ravages of popery. He, though
others have regarded him as a member of the Roman church, opposed,
apparently as much as lay in his power, the Pope and the Roman church,
and this not a little in the matter of baptism. For, while the Pope and
the Roman church generally taught that it was necessary, yea, upon pain
of damnation, to baptize the infants, notwithstanding they have not,
and cannot have, either true regeneration or a good will [intention],
which are nevertheless required of candidates (Matt. 3:7,8), he
taught that it is indeed necessary to salvation, to be baptized, but
that said baptism must be connected with regeneration, and a good
intention; which things, besides the grace of Christ, he considered
the chief means to salvation, so much so, that any one who had these
virtues, though he were not baptized (that is, if there had been no
opportunity), could nevertheless be saved because of the grace and
power of God. Of this, there is, among others, the following annotation
in _Jacob Mehrning’s History of Baptism, page 567_.
_Of the necessity of baptism._--Giselbert (_Alter. 1_), says: “It is
true, God can save; yet, man cannot be saved without baptism; (that is,
that baptism which is accompanied with regeneration, as the following
words declare), for thus says the author of this sacrament himself:
‘Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the
kingdom of God.’ It is, however, not in the power of man, to reject
this way, and to choose to salvation another. However, it is in God’s
power, if man cannot obtain this means (baptism), to accept graciously
his good will.” _Cent. Magd. X., cap. 4._
Hence, when he here speaks of the good will of man, it is quite
evident, that he treats neither of infants nor of infant baptism,
seeing infants have no knowledge of either a good or a bad will, nor
of baptism, nor of regeneration, to which said passage of Giselbert
also has reference; much less have they the ability to worthily begin
and execute all this, for the proper reception of baptism. He intends
simply to say, that baptism is indeed necessary, yet not without
regeneration; which regeneration he regards as the most important of
all, according to John 3:5,7, from which he concludes that it is not in
the power of man to reject this way, namely, to separate regeneration
from baptism, or baptism from regeneration, which is a stricture
upon those who were wont to reject the baptism of the regenerated or
penitent, and to go another way, as did the Pharisees in the days of
John the Baptist; who, rejecting the counsel of God against themselves
(namely, the baptism of John), were not baptized of him. Luke 7:30.
But, in order that no one need sorrow, who, having attained to
regeneration, could not receive baptism, on account of serious
obstacles or the want of a fitting opportunity, and, hence, might
imagine that there was no grace or mercy of God for him, he adds this
consolation, namely: “That it is in God’s power, if man cannot obtain
the means (baptism), to accept graciously his good will.”
Whatever others, especially papistic writers, may have recorded of
Giselbert’s belief, detrimental to, or, at least, against the point in
view, we let them be responsible for it; this is certain, that we have
not as yet been able to find anything to the contrary, in any authentic
writer.
_About A. D. 925._--Shortly after, or very near the time of Giselbert,
Ansbert is mentioned, who, writing on several matters of faith, or
articles of religion, also makes mention of baptism, approaching
herein very closely the language, or, at least, the sense of the holy
apostles, which appears from the following testimonies:
_Bapt. Hist., page 568._ Ansbert (on Rev. 19), says, according to the
words of Christ, John 1:13: “Which were born not of blood ... but of
God.” “_Of God_, that is, through the preached word and the washing of
regeneration, by which mysteries (namely, preaching and the washing of
regeneration, that is, baptism) Christ still daily begets and brings
forth unto himself heirs.”
He here connects the word of God, or preaching, with the washing
of regeneration, or baptism, and says that by them Christ begets
and brings forth unto himself heirs. How could anybody more plainly
declare: 1. what true baptism is; 2. what belongs to it; and 3.
what fruit proceeds from it. For, firstly, what true baptism is, he
expresses by these words: _Washing of regeneration_, according to
Tit. 3:5, indicating thereby, that true baptism is peculiar only to
the regenerate; that is, to the penitent. Secondly, what belongs to
baptism he expresses by these words: _The preached word_; for, as the
apostle declares, “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
God,” Rom. 10:17. The preached word is therefore the means by which
to attain to the faith, and faith is the foundation upon which truly
to receive baptism. As necessary, then, as faith is, in order to be
truly baptized, upon it, so necessary also is the preached word, in
order to truly believe; consequently, Ansbert has justly joined the
preached word to baptism, as a proof that it belongs to it, according
to the words of Christ (Mark 16:15,16): “Preach the Gospel ... he that
believeth and is baptized.” Thirdly, what fruit proceeds from such
baptism, when it is accompanied with regeneration and the preached word
of God, he expresses with these words: “_By which mysteries Christ
still daily begets and brings forth unto himself heirs_,” which well
agrees with the words of Paul, Gal. 3:26,27: “Ye are all the children
of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been
baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” These, then, who by this
means become children of God, also become his heirs and joint heirs
with Christ. Rom. 8:17. Hence, said words of Ansbert are conformable to
the holy Scriptures, and speak of the baptism of the regenerate, but in
no wise of infant baptism.
_Page 569._ Ansbert (on Rev. 21) teaches: “The trinity of the Godhead
we dare not, and shall not pass by unnoticed, especially when we are
baptized upon the confession of the holy Trinity, and are saved in the
faith of the unity of the same.”
Here he again connects baptism with confession and faith, yea, he says
that we are baptized upon confession, and saved in faith. Certainly,
there is not a letter in the above passage, which savors of infant
baptism, but every word denies, yea, opposes it, inasmuch as here
such a baptism only is spoken of, as is received with faith and the
confession of the same; but that this can be done by infants, militates
not only against the holy Scriptures, but also against nature.
_Page 574._ Ansbert (on Rev. 1) says: “He that has been washed in
baptism from dead works, and, after such washing, again commits sins
unto death, it avails him nothing that he was washed; hence, the Lord,
through Isaiah (chap. 1, verse 16), admonishes thus: ‘Wash ye, make you
clean.’ He washes and cleanses himself, who commits no new sins after
baptism. But he that conducts himself thus that after such washing, he
again pollutes the white robe with sin, let him still not despair of
remission, if he desires to be washed again; for there is yet another
baptism, with which publicans and harlots are always baptized--and what
other is it but the well-spring of tears? in which Mary Magdalene,
polluted with many a stain of vice, and Peter, when he had thrice
denied the Lord, washed themselves.”
This whole passage is a warning to those who, having committed sins
unto death, were baptized for the remission of the same, that they
should not rely upon this, otherwise they might be deceived; hence,
against such, there are spoken these words: “He that after such
washing again commits sins unto death, it avails him nothing that he
was washed.” Then follows an admonition, not to fall into new sins
after baptism; yet that any who had fallen into them, should still not
despair. But to such there is pointed out another baptism, namely, the
baptism of tears, that is, weeping and sorrowing for committed sins.
Then it is told what persons were once baptized with this baptism of
tears, namely, publicans and harlots, Mary Magdalene, and Peter, for
denying Christ.
Judge now, whether the above-stated things can be done by infants, or
whether they are peculiar only to the adult and intelligent, and we
are fully confident, that, if you are impartial, you will choose the
latter, and reject the former.
_About A. D. 938._--Very near the time of Ansbert, a place is accorded,
in this century, to Smaragdus, who, having, it seems, at some time
previous to his conversion, or, at least, to his enlightenment,
maintained infant baptism, now gave such testimony concerning baptism
as completely excludes infant baptism, inasmuch as he, writing of the
nature, virtue, practice, and benefit of baptism, very closely follows
the language of Christ and his holy apostles.[147]
[147] What Smaragdus has written on 1 Pet. 2, saying: “Such holy,
pure, and innocent childhood, the mother, the church of Christ, gains
through the grace of baptism,” gave cause to consider whether by the
word _childhood_ he meant infants of the cradle, and by the words
_grace of baptism_, infant baptism; but it is also interpreted as
having reference to the believing children of God, according to Gal.
3:26, and to the baptism of believers, according to Mark 16:16. As to
the exposition, however, which he is stated to have made on John 13,
it is held that it took place before his enlightenment.
This appears from his exposition of the institution of Christ
respecting baptism.
“First,” he writes: “all nations were taught, and then they were
baptized with water; for it is impossible for the body to receive the
mystery of baptism aright, if the soul has not previously accepted the
truth of the faith; for they were baptized in the name of the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” Again: “This excellent ordinance of
baptism commands the apostles, first to teach all nations, then to
incorporate them by the baptism of faith, and then, after faith and
baptism, to teach them what they were to observe.” _Smaragdus, on Matt.
28._
N. B. “Thus,” says the writer who has recorded this, “the light of
truth must shine forth in the midst of darkness; for, where did Christ
institute another ordinance of baptism, for infants?” _B. H., page 570,
num. 7._
Though this last passage is very acceptable and worthy of being
considered, and confirms in no small measure the point we have in view
we will nevertheless let the writer keep it to himself, it being only
a comment on the aforementioned matter.
We will, therefore, return to the matter itself, namely, to the words
of Smaragdus, and we shall soon find that his aim was, to connect
faith with baptism, yea, to admit no other baptism than that which is
accompanied with the truth of the faith. For, what else does he intend
to say with these words: “For it is impossible for the body to receive
the mystery of baptism aright, if the soul has not previously accepted
the truth of the faith?” May we not firmly conclude from this, that
this man knew nothing of infant baptism, or, at least, that he, when
he wrote this, utterly denied and rejected it? Certainly, no one could
oppose, or reject, infant baptism more flatly and plainly; for if it
is impossible, as he says, to receive baptism aright without having
previously accepted the truth of the faith, etc., he establishes that
it is impossible to baptize infants aright, seeing they, because of
their disqualification in regard to power as well as knowledge, cannot
previously accept the truth of the faith. Unless some one would say
that he held, that there is a certain faith, or germ of faith, as
others call it, in infants from their birth (as was afterwards advanced
by the Lutherans), upon which, some were wont to assert, they ought to
be baptized. But this is easily refuted; for, besides this, that in the
time of Smaragdus, as far as can be seen, they knew nothing of this
hidden faith, or germ of faith, in infants, much less baptized them
upon it, he plainly indicates that he is speaking of another faith,
which he calls _the truth of the faith_, that is, a true and genuine
faith; which true and genuine faith no one ever, to our knowledge, not
even to the present day, claimed for infants, in order to establish
infant baptism upon it.
Moreover, Smaragdus required of the candidates for baptism, not only
the truth of the faith, but also regeneration, as appears from his
comments on John 3, where he says: “He that is regenerated through
water and the Spirit, is invisibly changed into a new man, and from a
carnal man is made a spiritual man; and he is therefore rightly called,
not only spiritual, but also spirit.” _B. H., p. 573, num. 11._
In this passage again there are several things mentioned, which
indicate nothing else than that he is speaking of the baptism of
adults. For, besides that the words, John 3, were not spoken to an
infant but to Nicodemus, a master in Israel, the circumstances adduced
by Smaragdus in regard to it also indicate, that it is to be understood
of none but adult persons. For, what else does he mean to say by the
word _regenerated_, than that the baptized person who has previously
truly prepared himself for baptism, gives up his old, earthly birth,
and becomes a new creature? Thus also, when he says that the baptized
person is changed into a new man; for, how shall any one be changed
into a new man, who was not an old man before? And also, when he adds,
that such an one, from a carnal man is made spiritual; for, how is
it possible, from a carnal man to become spiritual, if one has not
previously been carnal or lived after the flesh? Therefore, to become
spiritual, does not simply mean, to receive the Spirit of God, but to
live after the Spirit, in the fear of God, and in all the Christian
virtues. Gal. 5:21–24.
This being so, we will leave the testimony of Smaragdus and proceed to
others of his cotemporaries, who held the same belief and left it to us
in their writings.
_A. D. 952._--It is stated that in the time of the Emperor Otho the
Great there lived and wrote, in Greece, a very virtuous and learned
man called Theophilact, who, writing on various matters of faith, also
makes mention of baptism, not differing herein, as far as we have
been able to ascertain, from the Anabaptists of the present day, but
agreeing with them very well on the subject of baptism upon faith.
_Bapt. Hist., page 571_, Theophilact on Luke 15, says: “As many of us
as have been baptized have put on Christ.”
These are the words of Paul, Gal. 3:27, which the apostle does not
speak to infants, but to the believing saints of the Galatian church,
namely, that they had indeed, become children of God by faith, but had
put on Christ by baptism.”
Continuing he says: “Then he puts on our hand (namely, to us who
through baptism have put on Christ) the ring, the seal of Christianity,
which works in us.” Again: “Every one that is baptized, is also made
a child of God, yea, readopted as such; he is also, when he is washed
from sin, made a partaker of the fatted calf, and becomes the joy of
the Father and his servants, the holy angels and men, even as one that
has arisen from the dead, and who was lost, and is found.”
He here compares the candidates to the prodigal son who, repenting
of his evil life, arose to go to his father, to seek grace, and was
received by him with outstretched arms. Thus, he would say, it is also
in baptism: The sinner seeks grace, confesses his sins, manifests
sorrow for them, yea, prays and supplicates for forgiveness. God, the
Lord, who is the true Father of all men by reason of creation, meets
him, embraces him with the arms of his grace, yea, pardons all his past
sins, and, in token thereof, commands one of his servants to baptize
him. This he compares to the putting on of the ring, saying: “Then he
puts on our hand the ring, the seal of Christianity.” What he further
says concerning the killing of the fatted calf; and the joy of the
Father and his servants, has regard to the joy that is in heaven over
the repentance of such a penitent (and thereupon baptized) sinner,
which is greater than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no
repentance. Luke 15:7.
Hence, when Theophilact compares the candidate for baptism to the
prodigal son, in the manner shown above, it is evident enough, yea,
as clear as midday, that he is treating of no other baptism than the
baptism of adults, and this of such adults as manifest sorrow for their
past sins.
_Page 572._ Theophilact on John 8, says: “Since Christ came to take
away the sins of the world, we can obtain remission of sins in no other
way than, by means of baptism (however properly speaking the blood
of Christ is the effective cause of the remission and taking away of
sins), yet it is impossible that he that has not believed, be baptized
(aright); hence, the unbeliever must afterwards die in his sins, for he
has not put off the old man, because he has not been baptized.”
Though several things are said here, which confirm our preceding
explanation of the words of Theophilact, we shall nevertheless notice
only these words: “It is impossible that he that has not believed,
be baptized (aright);” for here certainly every baptism which is not
received with faith is denied; hence, infant baptism cannot be admitted
here, because it is without all faith, yea, it is utterly denied here.
And thus, the words of Theophilact concerning baptism, are not only
clear, but also Christian-like and apostolical.
_Page 572._ Theophilact on 2 Cor. 3, says: “Even as silver, exposed to
the sun, does itself emit rays, because the sun shines upon it; so also
we, when we are purified in baptism, by the Holy Ghost, and illumined
by his rays, emit a spiritual radiance, perceived only in the soul,
and are changed into the same image, by the Spirit of the Lord, to
our glory.” And, a little further on: “All believers are illumined in
baptism by the Holy Ghost, that their souls shine (or, emit radiance)
thereby.” Again: “As we are all dead by one sinner, even so we are all
made alive, and are risen through Christ, in baptism; and we justly
recognize no one as believing, who lives after the flesh, that is, who
leads the old, carnal life; but all who are regenerated by the Spirit,
begin a new, spiritual life.”
The words which Theophilact speaks from or on 2 Cor. 3, concerning
the candidates, Paul speaks of believers; and the simile borrowed by
the aforementioned writer from the silver, which, when the sun shines
upon it, reflects his rays, which he applies to the candidates, who
become illumined by the Holy Ghost, and reflect a spiritual radiance
of virtues, confirms, in a good degree, that he is speaking of such
candidates as can be illumined by the Holy Ghost, and live virtuously,
to the honor of God, the edification of their neighbor, and to the
salvation of their own souls. What he says after that, fully confirms
our opinion, namely, that he is speaking of believing candidates;
for, this he clearly expresses with these words: “All believers are
illumined in baptism by the Holy Ghost.” What he adds finally, tends
in the same direction, for he says that, “As we are all dead by one
sinner (Adam), even so we are all made alive and are risen, through
Christ, in baptism.” Who does not see that this making alive and rising
(in baptism) has respect to the renewing of the old life, according to
the teaching of Paul (Rom. 6:4): “Therefore we are buried with him by
baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead
by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of
life.” That this is his meaning, he indicates by the following words,
when he calls those whom he has previously termed candidates, believers
and regenerated persons, saying: “We justly recognize no one as
believing, who lives after the flesh; but all who are regenerated (thus
he calls the candidates or the baptized) by the Spirit, begin a new,
spiritual life.”
_Page 573._ Philophilact on 2 Tim. 1, says: “The Holy Ghost hovers
over us at baptism; now, if we keep this Spirit, and do not drive him
away by wicked works, he keeps us and what we have received from God;
therefore, use all diligence, that you keep the Holy Ghost, and he, who
has been given you, will also keep you.”
It seems that in the days of Theophilact there was a failing among some
of the candidates, or, at least, among the unbaptized Christians, that,
instead of stirring up the grace of the Spirit of God, which had been
given them (after baptism), and thereby increasing and proceeding in
virtues, they decreased and retrograded, yea, fell into wicked works.
This, Theophilact opposed, warning them to be careful not to drive the
good Spirit of God away from them by wicked works, seeing he will not
dwell in a malicious soul, nor in a body that is subject unto sin.
Wisdom of Sol. 1:4.
Secondly, he admonishes them affectionately and consolingly, to keep
the gift of the Holy Ghost (after baptism), pointing out also, the
means by which this could be done, namely, by avoiding wicked works,
and using diligence, that is, such diligence by which the worship of
God and the common edification could be promoted. The consolation which
he, for such, adds to his admonition, is expressed in these words:
“Therefore, use all diligence, that you keep the Holy Ghost, and he
... will also keep you.” But, what fruit his warning, and consoling
admonition had on those persons, is not stated there; hence we will
take our leave, and proceed to other writings which he has left.