Chapter XLII: Conclusion: Of the Matters Here Related (16)

_About A. D. 682._--As the believers who strictly observed the baptismal ordinance of Jesus Christ, increased in no small degree, as can be inferred, in many countries, yea, even in the Roman church, so that, in regard to the time when baptism should be administered, they had, here and there, settled on a fixed time; namely, that it should take place on one of the two feasts, Easter or Whitsuntide, and that to this end, the catechumens should previously be notified and, in the weeks preceding said feasts, instructed in the faith; those of the Roman church, as may easily be judged, were not well satisfied with this, seeing it was a means to completely set aside infant baptism; and not only this, but to abolish entirely all other superstitions and human inventions, which, with so great labor and costs, by councils and otherwise, had been introduced into the Roman church, ostensibly for the best. It was therefore--in order to prevent this, it seems--deemed expedient to renew and republish the import of what had previously, A. D. 610, been decreed in the second Bracerensian council, namely: “That infants should be baptized, as necessary to their salvation,” that is, on pain of damnation. But what was really done in this matter, is not expressed in all its particulars; however, it has not been passed by unnoticed, seeing Pope Leo II., according to the Roman notation, the 82d, who then occupied the chair, ordained: That during mass the kiss of peace should be offered to the people, and that baptism might be administered any day. _P. J. Twisck, Chron., page 233, col. 1_, from _Hist. Georg., lib. 4. Chron., S. F., fol. 19._

From this it can be seen that the Pope’s principal concern was, not to lose the mass and infant baptism, both of which were chief points upon which rested the Roman church, as the temple of Dagon upon two pillars, which were threatened, now by this Sampson and now by another, by the arms of the Spirit and the word of God, yea, were in danger of being utterly pulled out and broken. Now, what does the Pope to prevent this? As regards the mass, he ordains that during mass the kiss of peace should be offered to the people. But how could he more insinuatingly and affably bind the common people to the superstition of the mass, than by offering to them the kiss of peace? But when the lion’s skin will not reach, that of the fox is brought into requisition.

As to infant baptism, what does he ordain to preserve it? This: that baptism might be administered any day. But some one may think: This does not concern infant baptism; consequently the latter is not confirmed by this decree. We answer, that the pope certainly sought to establish it thereby; for, inasmuch as infant baptism was weakened in no small degree by the practice of the believers who baptized their candidates only on Easter and Whitsuntide, as already stated, there was hardly another remedy to maintain infant baptism, than to ordain all times and days for baptism, for thus it could be administered to new born infants, who are born not only on Easter and Whitsuntide, but throughout the whole year, and who, according to his view, must then also be baptized.

_A. D. 699._--The decree of Pope Leo II., for the confirmation of infant baptism and the mass, as mentioned for the year 682, did not have the effect of causing the believers who had separated from the Roman church, and maintained the baptism upon faith, to swerve in the least from their faith and the practice of the same; on the contrary, it appears that still more, yea, even learned men, separated from the Roman church in this said article and joined the little flock of Christ, so that some of them who formerly had maintained infant baptism, the mass, the traditions, the meritoriousness of good works, and the seven sacraments, now taught differently, and opposed the Pope in these points. Of these, five persons are mentioned in the _Chronicles_, whom P. J. Twisck, in his seventh book, for the year 699, notes, saying: “Isidorus, Cesarius, Adelheymius, Agatho, and Julian Pomorius taught in opposition to the Pope concerning the holy Scriptures, justification, good works, that there are but two sacraments, and concerning the name of the church, which was not built upon Peter, but on Christ.” _Page 238, col. 1_, from _Joh. Munst., fol. 121_.

But preeminently is mentioned by other writers, Isidorus of Spain, who, having at one time been a strenuous advocate of infant baptism, now taught and wrote such things as could, with reason and judgment, in no wise be applied thereto. For, commenting on John’s baptism, which even our opponents admit to have been administered only to adult, penitent sinners, he compares it to the baptism of his own time, saying: “I hold that all who were baptized by John unto repentance, were patterns of the catechumens.” _Bapt. Hist., page 498_, from _Vicecom., lib. 2, cap. 4_, from _Isidorus of Spain, in lib. de Div. Officiis_.

What kind of persons these catechumens were, and how they were instructed before baptism in the doctrine of the faith, called the catechism, has already been sufficiently explained, and it is not necessary to repeat it here: yet, over and above this, we will adduce the man’s own words, as I have found them translated in _Bapt. Hist., page 499_. “After the catechumens,” he says, “there is the second grade--the applicants for baptism or fellow-prayers, that is, those who are striving for the doctrine of the faith, and sobriety of life, in order to receive the grace of Christ in baptism, and, hence, are called fellow-prayers, that is, such as pray for the grace of Christ.” _Lib. 2, de Div. Officiis, cap. 21._

What took place ultimately with these applicants for baptism, in his time, he indicates with these words: “On Palm Sunday (that is, the Sunday before Easter), the _Symbolium_ (that is, the twelve articles of faith) is delivered to the applicants for baptism, on account of the approaching glorious Easter feast, in order that they, as striving to receive the grace of God (that is, baptism) should first learn the faith which we confess.” _Bap. Hist., page 499_, from _Isid., lib. 2, de Div. Off., cap. 27_.

These words, compared with the preceding ones, clearly show, what custom as regards baptism, prevailed at that time in the church of which he speaks; namely, that the catechumens, or, at least, the novices, were first instructed in the catechism, that is, in the doctrine of the faith, until they were meet to be baptized; and that from that time on, they were called applicants for baptism, and fellow-prayers, because they desired baptism and prayed for it. This could certainly not be done by newborn infants.

As regards that which is noted elsewhere from Isidorus (_ex lib. de summo bono_), with reference to other views on baptism which he is said to have entertained, we do not accept it as having been written by him, and this for good reasons, which, however, it would require too much time to relate; unless it be said that he wrote it before he was converted, and had obtained light on the matter; and here we would let the matter rest.

_A. D. 700._--We come now to the last year of this century, in which we perceive that at that time not only those of Jewish or heathen parentage, but also those born of Christian parents, were instructed in the faith before they were admitted to baptism; so that the Christians who sought the salvation of their children, left them unbaptized, till they were able themselves to confess their sins, profess the faith, and thereupon desire baptism as a sign of the same. Among these, the two pious Christians, Lutgerus and his wife Libuga, are not considered of the least. It is stated of them, that they left their son Lutgerus unbaptized, till he, having learned and accepted the faith in Jesus Christ, in France, was baptized thereupon, A. D. 700. _P. J. Twisck, Chron., 7th book, page 239, col. 1_, from _Grondig. Bewijs., letter B_.

We now leave this account of baptism in the seventh century; in which, on the one side, the oppressed believers practiced the true ordinance of the baptism of Christ upon faith; while, on the other side, the oppressing Roman church deviated the longer the more from it, so that they not only forsook, but also opposed the command of Christ _to baptize only upon faith_.

On the other hand, infant baptism and many other superstitions were so firmly established, that almost no one except those who did not fear the anathema of the Pope, and death, dared oppose these things. It is truly astonishing, what P. J. Twisck writes, and truthfully, concerning this, in his conclusion to the seventh century, with which we will also conclude this: “The Pope of Rome, having been declared head of all the churches by the Emperor Phocas, gradually established the boundaries of his power, authority and jurisdiction, not only in, but also beyond, Italy, yea, beyond Europe, and this with exceeding haughtiness. The pomp and greatness became unendurable; yea, the avarice of the clergy generally was so great that they obtained ecclesiastical offices through presents, in order to derive temporal gain therefrom, and would scarcely baptize an infant, unless money was given them for it.”

Herewith enough has been said regarding this matter, and we will therefore turn to the martyrs who suffered at this time for the truth of Christ their Savior.

AN ACCOUNT OF THOSE WHO SUFFERED IN THE SEVENTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF THE MARTYRS OF THE SEVENTH CENTURY.

[After the oppression exercised by the heathen and Arians, the Roman Pope also began to direct his arrows against the orthodox Christians. This forms the beginning of our account.

Bishop Adrian, of whom we have already related that he refused baptism to infants, is now criminally punished for this cause, A. D. 606.

Concerning the chapter of criminal matters, some further observations are made; also, as to whether said Adrian really suffered corporal or capital punishment.

Thereupon follows a notice concerning the following martyrs, noted by P. J. Twisck for the years 614 and 628, and recorded by us.

Many Christians apprehended by the Longobards, and put to death, A. D. 614, because they refused to eat, in honor of the idols, food offered to idols.

Of the sufferings of the Christians in Persia, and how a great many of them were delivered from imprisonment, given for the year 628.

Mention made of eight severe persecutions instituted against Christian believers, from A. D. 622, to the close of the century; the places where these persecutions happened, and the names of some of the tyrants who originated them.

Further observations concerning said persecutions and martyrs, which concludes the account of the martyrs of this century.]

When first the heathen and then the Arians, the former by open, wicked violence, the latter by secret, tyrannical hypocrisy, had for a long time not only scattered the flock of Christ, but devoured with wolves’ teeth, as it were, many of its innocent and defenseless lambs, then, in this century (a thing almost unheard of), the Roman Bishop, now called Pope, began to arise as the forerunner of antichrist, seeking to destroy those who opposed the Roman church, not only by anathematizing, excommunicating, and awfully threatening them, which alone would have been sufficient to strike terror into the heart, but, besides this, it seems, by criminal and actual punishments, which generally touched the body or the life. Of this we hope presently to show an example from which the rest of his wicked deeds may be inferred.

ADRIAN, A CHRISTIAN BISHOP OR TEACHER, CRIMINALLY PUNISHED FOR REJECTING INFANT BAPTISM, ABOUT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR 606.

In our account of baptism for the year A. D. 606, we made mention of the celebrated teacher and Bishop Adrian, and stated, from a certain letter sent by Gregory the Great to John, bishop of Larissa, that Adrian was accused of having refused baptism to infants. But it seems it did not stop at said accusation, but that they, to all appearance, proceeded further and more severely and cruelly against him; for the above was imputed to him for a crime or a heinous sin. Hence he was criminally proceeded against, which criminal punishment sometimes related to property, but most frequently it was of a corporal, or capital nature.

Moreover, though said punishment was ordained for great crimes and criminals, yet in the case of Adrian, we can perceive, it was founded on nothing but his disregard and rejection of infant baptism, as appears from the sequel of Gregory’s letter to John, which reads thus: “Pursuant to the chapter of criminal matters, a charge was preferred against Bishop Adrian, or brought against him by way of punishment, concerning the children which, by his orders, had been kept from baptism, and died in darkness, unbaptized (or unwashed) from the filth of sin.” Compare with the account in _Bapt. Hist., page 546_.

If any one should object that said chapter of criminal matters, was not comprehensive and rigorous enough, and that therefore, Adrian was probably not really punished corporally or with death, by virtue of the same, with such a one we do not feel inclined to dispute. It suffices us, to have learned, on the one hand, that this teacher Adrian, did not hesitate, even though he should incur severe penalty, to speak against infant baptism, yea, what is still more, to reject infants from baptism, and to let them die unbaptized, as being under the grace of God; and on the other hand, that those of the Roman church were exceedingly dissatisfied with this, yea, to such a degree, that the chapter of criminal matters was opened and, apparently by form of sentence, set before this good man, either to send him (after preceding excommunication) into banishment, or to strip him of his property, or to punish him corporally or capitally. But whether said sentence was actually executed on him, is not clearly expressed; hence we commit the truth of the matter to God.

In the meantime, there appears what we have said before, namely, that the Pope or the Roman church did not hesitate, not only to anathematize, as had formerly been customary, their opposers, especially those who spoke against infant baptism, but to proceed against them criminally or by way of corporal punishment. This was done with the said teacher Adrian, concerning whose departure we have a good hope, whether he died a natural or a violent death. The Lord knows his own, and shall in the hereafter not leave them unrewarded, who have suffered for testifying to his truth, and opposing error.

NOTICE CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING MARTYRS NOTED BY P. J. TWISCK FOR THE YEARS 614 AND 628, AND RECORDED BY US.

We have not been able to obtain certain or clear information as regards the confession of faith of the martyred persons of whom we shall presently speak; hence we dare not reckon them all indiscriminately among the true and orthodox confessors of the true faith; the more especially, as the sword of persecution then came upon all who bore the Christian name (as had before, yea, frequently, been the case), in places where such persecutions occurred. Persons were also not examined so very closely with regard to this or that controverted point of the faith (I speak of those who were apprehended by the heathen), for these were things of which the persecutors knew nothing, while it was quite different with those who fell into the hands of the papists mentioned above. The people were simply asked whether they would sacrifice to the idols, renounce Christ, etc. Hence the reason, that in the confession of the martyrs who suffered among the heathen, but little is said regarding controverted matters of faith which are now discussed among Christians; but this is discussed more fully elsewhere.

The negligence of the writers of those times, the absence of the art of printing, and the violence of persecution, which caused people to flee and roam about, are also no small cause why so little can be adduced concerning the confessions of the martyrs. This has been more fully explained in our account of baptism.

Therefore we hold, according to the judgment and nature of love, that among the martyrs of whom we shall speak, there were, if not all, at least some, who viewed the matter aright, and whose martyrdom had for its foundation a good confession; but to accept them altogether, or to enter deeper and more fully into the matter, we do not deem advisable, for reasons already mentioned.

In order, then, to present the matter in the briefest and simplest manner, we shall follow the account of P. J. Twisck, as being a summary of what the ancients have recorded concerning it.

OF MANY CHRISTIANS WHO WERE APPREHENDED BY THE LONGOBARDS, AND PUT TO DEATH BY THEM, BECAUSE, IN HONOR OF THE IDOLS, THEY REFUSED TO EAT FOOD OFFERED TO IDOLS. A. D. 614.

“The Longobards,” says Twisck, “apprehended many Christians, and sought to compel them, to eat meat which they had offered to their idols; and when they refused, they put them to death. They also put to death four hundred who would not worship their gods.” _Chron., page 216, col. 1._

As to what might be adduced concerning the confession of faith of these slain persons, and how far we accept them as martyrs, see the foregoing notice.

OF THE SUFFERINGS OF THE CHRISTIANS IN PERSIA, AND HOW AFTERWARDS MANY OF THEM WERE DELIVERED FROM IMPRISONMENT, A. D. 628.

Continuing in his account, the above mentioned author finally speaks of the year 628, for which, in the beginning, he records these words: “About this time, the Christians had to suffer much also in Persia.” He then relates that the Emperor Heraclius, having come into Persia, liberated many of the imprisoned Christians; the number, however, of those who suffered, as well as of those who were delivered from imprisonment, is not expressed, and hence we can add no further explanation. _Chron., page 221_, from _Hist. Eccl. Hedio., lib. 5, cap. 18_ and _19_.

All explanation further necessary, concerning the imprisonment and the sufferings of said Christians in Persia, and how far they are recognized by us, must be looked for in the preceding notice.

OF EIGHT SEVERE PERSECUTIONS INSTITUTED AGAINST CHRISTIAN BELIEVERS, FROM A. D. 622 TO THE CLOSE OF THIS CENTURY.

It behooves us to record here, that from A. D. 622, to the close of this century, various other persecutions and severe oppressions were instituted against those who were called Christian believers, among whom, to all appearance, there were here and there, some who died upon a pure confession of faith; of which persecutions and oppressions of the Christian believers, among others, eight are enumerated, which we will briefly extract from A. Mellinus. Having spoken of the chronology of the Turks or Mohammedans, he proceeds to the year 622, and says:

1. “In Italy a new persecution arose against the Christians who resided there, under the Arian King of the Longobards.

2. “In France also some (namely, Christian believers) were made martyrs.

3. “Constantine, the son of Heraclius, having reigned four months, and Heracleonas six months, Constant, the son of Constantine, became Emperor, and reigned for twenty-seven years. He followed in the footsteps of his grandfather Heraclius, in espousing the cause of the Monothelites, and for the sake of this sect carried on a severe persecution (namely, against those Christians who held different views).

4. “In the twenty-eight years during which said three Emperors reigned, the Arabians or Saracens conquered many countries and cities, and put to death a countless number of Christians (namely, of those who lived under said reign). There was also considerable commotion in France and England (understand, on account of the Christian religion). He afterwards says:

5. “But in France, during the seventeen years of his reign several were put to death as martyrs.”

After this, he speaks of the persecutions which, during the twenty-seven years comprising the reign of Justinian II., and the time of Leontius and Tiberius Apsimarus, arose against the Christians, through the Longobards as well as the Saracens. Finally he says:

“Also in France, 6. in England, 7. in Germany, and in Spain 8. many became martyrs at this time.” _A. Mell., 2nd book, fol. 303, col. 1, 2._

What has been remarked concerning the martyrdom of those slain in the years 614 and 628, applies also to the eight persecutions just mentioned; hence, see the above mentioned notice.

FURTHER OBSERVATIONS TOUCHING THE ABOVE MENTIONED MARTYRS.

Here we are compelled to leave our account of the martyrs of this century, since the ancient writers have left us no further information respecting this matter; at least we have not found anything more that would shed light on the subject. However, it will be sufficient for the defense of the cross-bearing church of the Anabaptists and defenseless Christians; for, though among the great number of martyrs that have been noticed by us there are found but few open professors of the faith, but this diminishes neither the respectability nor the verity of said cross-bearing church; since already in our account of baptism throughout this century various, yea, many, professors of said faith have been presented, to prevent and oppose whom divers means were frequently resorted to. See the account of baptism for the years 610, 682, 699, etc.

Moreover, it seems hardly possible that all those who were, in such great numbers, it appears, designated Anabaptists, in the fifth century, and against whom bloody decrees were ordained, A. D. 413, should all have been slain and exterminated so that none were left remaining. This, we say, seems hardly possible, since even in the severest persecutions the persecuted, especially if their number is great, cannot be spied out so closely as to make it impossible for any to escape, or that not one or the other will be able to conceal himself. This being the case, those remaining (for it can scarcely be otherwise) allowed the living faith which was in them, to manifest and work out its power, in order to implant in the people of that age, but especially, in their children and descendants, the belief and doctrine which they themselves professed, and for the sake of which they had imperiled their lives, escaping death however, through the grace of God.

It certainly appears that in the following (sixth) century there were again people of such belief and doctrine; and not only that, but such as to honor Christ their Savior, did not hesitate, as true martyrs, to pour out their blood like water. Concerning this, both with respect to the confession and the martyrdom, our observations on the sixth century may be referred.

Is it a matter of surprise, then, that we hold it for certain, that the seventh century also was not destitute of persons who, having professed a good confession of faith, had to taste death thereupon? Certainly, we have no reason to doubt it; or the ancients must not have well instructed their cotemporaries and descendants, or there must have been no persecutions in this century. As regards the former, the very nature of love will lead us to believe otherwise; while the latter has already been sufficiently refuted, seeing we have shown that various persecutions occurred during that time. We will now conclude, since our object has been sufficiently explained above; besides, many of the confessors and martyrs noted for this century, will bear testimony to it.

AN ACCOUNT OF THE HOLY BAPTISM IN THE EIGHTH CENTURY.

SUMMARY OF BAPTISM IN THE EIGHTH CENTURY.

[The example of Lutgerus (adduced in the last year of the preceding century) is rehearsed, by way of introduction, in the beginning of this; to which is added an account of Herinigild, who was baptized by Leander, after previous instruction:

Germanus, a father at Constantinople, states that it was customary to make confession of sins before baptism.

Bede the presbyter treats of the baptism of the apostles; of the baptism of the Angles who were baptized in the Rhine and Swalbe; of the catechumens, to whom, before baptism, the confession of faith was delivered; of four things which do not apply to infant baptism; of Paulinus, the teacher at York, and how he baptized Eadfrid and Offrid, the sons of Edwin; that there can be no baptism without water and the word; that all believers must be baptized; that the bread of the holy Supper is a figure of the body of Christ; which latter is further explained in the margin.

Amalarius Fortunatus states that the newly planted or, newly baptized, Christians were led to the church for eight days; he admonishes the candidates to fast for several days before baptism; and, in the margin, it is stated that he taught against transubstantiation, etc.

The views of Antharitis, who refused baptism to the infants of the Christians, are presented.

Of some among the Romanists, who held that fasting, reading, and praying must be connected with baptism; that the teachers should first baptize the men, and then the women; what prayer should be spoken over the men and women to be baptized; that the baptized must kneel down and pray to God, etc.

Wittikind becomes a catechumen, is instructed in the faith, and then baptized together with Albion.

The baptism of the son of Carloman, and of his daughter Gisla; what we think of it.

Albinus requires faith at baptism, that is, that baptism must be received with faith; he also says that with baptism there are connected three visible and three invisible things; of which the visible are: 1. the body of the candidate; 2. the baptizer; 3. the water; and the invisible are: 1. the soul; 2. faith; 3. the Spirit of God; that baptism without the invocation of the holy Trinity is void; that not only the creed, but also the Lord’s prayer was said at baptism; that examination in the faith took place at baptism; which custom, however, according to Vicecomes, was abolished after infant baptism came into vogue; that the factitious practices of the papists commenced when baptism ceased to be administered to adults. Thereupon follows the opinion of Jacob Mehrning, that about the year 800, infant baptism was doubtful and hung by a thread.

Seb. Franck quotes the statement of Beatus Rhenanus (from Turtullian), saying that according to the usage of the ancients, the adults were baptized with the washing of regeneration; which is also confirmed by the testimony of Polydorus.

The conclusion taken from P. J. Twisck, is to the effect, that the ancient custom of baptizing adult, believing and penitent persons, seems to have still obtained in some measure, even with the general church. Conclusion for this century.]

* * * * *

As in winter the sun does not always, but only at times, send down his bright beams upon the earth, even though he has risen above the horizon, and even reached the meridian, so it was also in the eighth century, with the true faith, and the baptism which is administered upon faith. For although the light of the holy Gospel had at that time risen in the hearts of many pious persons, so that they apprehended the faith, and, in token of it, were baptized thereupon, yet, there were but few who exhibited to mankind, by their writings, the bright splendor of the evangelical truth; at least this is true, that but very little has come down to the present generation. Nevertheless, we have met with enough to prove that this dark age also was not entirely destitute of persons who shone forth as flaming torches in the midnight of papal error, and shed abroad the radiance of God’s truth, especially in the matter of baptism. To prove this will not be difficult for us; hence we begin.

_A. D. 701._--For the last year of the preceding century, that is, for A. D. 700, we showed that Lutgerus and Libuga, two Christian parents, left their son Lutgerus unbaptized till he, having accepted the faith, was baptized of his own accord. This occurred in France, at the time referred to, and it is also stated that the same year, in Spain, Herinigild, having attained to the faith through the instruction of Leander, was baptized; besides various other persons, both before and at that time, as the chronicles show.

From this it clearly follows that the people who held this belief must have existed also in the beginning of this century, since a religion that has once obtained a footing, cannot well be abolished in a year or two, especially if it is spread over different countries, and is zealously advocated, which latter, as has been shown, the true believers did. Hence we shall proceed to the persons who held this belief and whose names are mentioned in this century.

_A. D. 716._--_Bapt. Hist., page 534_, D. Vicecomes (_lib. 3, cap. 5_), quotes from Germanus, a father at Constantinople, who lived in the time of Leo Isauricus, that it was still customary then, to make confession of sins before baptism.

He speaks here of a general custom observed at that time in the East, in the Greek churches; which custom consisted in this, that confession of sins was made before baptism; which, as every one can judge, could not be done by infants, but only by adult persons.

If any one should object here, that this related only to the intelligent, but that infants were baptized, though they did not make such confession, we reply that this does not appear at all, nay, that the contrary follows clearly, since the custom spoken of was a general one, binding for all who were to be baptized; and as infants could not follow this custom, it is incontrovertible, that they were not admitted to the baptism which required it.

_From A. D. 724 to 736._--At this time there was conspicuous in the kingdom of England, Bede,[129] surnamed the Presbyter, who, having at one time maintained the Roman superstitions, and among these, infant baptism, now openly declared to hold different views in many points. Touching baptism, he is stated to have declared the following (_Bapt. Hist., page 532_, on Acts 19): “All who came to the apostles to be baptized, were first instructed and taught by them; and having been instructed and taught concerning baptism, they were baptized, by virtue of the apostolic office.” Compare with Mark 16:16.

[129] Venerable Bede.--_Transl._

_Page 533_, D. Vicecomes (_lib. 1, cap. 5_) quotes the following testimonies from Bede. He writes: “Bede says that the Angles were baptized in the Rhine and in the Swalbe.” Regarding the manner, compare this with Matt. 3:6: “And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.” Again: “And John also was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came and were baptized” John 3:23. This mode of baptism, as we have shown elsewhere, was not administered to infants, but only to adult and intelligent persons; nay, it is shown there, that this could not be otherwise.

Bede, in his exposition on the book of Esdras (_D. Vicecomes, lib. 2, cap. 3_), writes, “To the hearers of the new life (that is, the catechumens) we deliver the confession of faith as laid down by the twelve apostles.”

From the circumstance mentioned here, that the confession of faith was delivered to the catechumens, namely, that they might learn it, and be baptized thereupon, it appears that at the time and place of which he speaks, no such haste was made to have infants baptized, as had been done previously, and as was also done subsequently, by those of the Roman church. For these catechumens were certainly not baptized in their infancy, or presented for baptism by their parents; but, in order to be truly baptized, they first learned the catechism, which was the instruction in the faith of the Christians in those times; and in order that they might be perfectly instructed therein, the whole confession of faith was delivered to them, before they were baptized.

_Bede_ (_lib. 3, cap. 3_), on Hebr. 6, further says: “The separation from the Egyptians signifies the separation from sin, which those who are to be baptized (must) profess ... as Saint Peter has said, Acts 2: ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord;’ as though he would say: Depart from Egypt; go through the Red Sea. Moreover, in the epistle to the Hebrews, there is mentioned _before baptism_, repentance from dead works; but what else is repentance from dead works, than a being slain unto sin, that we may live unto God in holiness?” Here four things are mentioned which do not apply to the baptism of infants. 1. The separation from sin, which those who were to be baptized, must confess. 2. Peter’s exhortation, Acts 2: “Repent,” etc., which was not spoken to infants, but to intelligent, penitent sinners. 3. The passage of Paul, from the epistle to the Hebrews, chap. 6, verse 2, where before baptism repentance from dead works is mentioned. 4. Bede’s exposition of said passage: “What is repentance from dead works, but a dying unto sin, that we may live unto God in holiness?”

I feel confident that even our opponents will concur with us in saying that the conditions which Bede here joins to baptism, do not relate to infants, and, hence, cannot be applied to the baptism of infants.

_Bede_ (_in lib. 2, Hist. Anglic._), writes of Paulinus, the teacher at York: He preached the word of God from that time on for six years, and there believed and were baptized as many as were ordained (or destined) to eternal life, etc.; among whom there were Offrid and Eadfrid, the sons of King Edwin, who were both born to him in the misery of his exile, and were both taken out of this life while yet in their white garments.”

This is a noble example of Paulinus, who preached the word of God to the people, before he baptized them; nor is it less remarkable, that those who _believed_ were _baptized_, and that the sons of Edwin, though exiles, yet the scions of a great race, having accepted the faith, humbled themselves to baptism. It was to be lamented, however, that these two youths, who might long have been lights and ensamples in the church, were taken out of this life so suddenly, even while they yet had on their white garments, which it was customary to wear immediately after baptism, as a sign of purity.

In the mean time we must rejoice that even in those benighted times, so much light of the faith shone forth, that not only some of the common people, but also the children of the great were enlightened by it, so that they willingly bowed themselves under the yoke of Christ, through baptism.

Bede, on John 4, says: “Take away the water, and there is no baptism; take away the word of God, and there is also no baptism.” _Bapt. Hist., p. 505._

By this he indicates that the water cannot be separated from the word, neither the word from the water; that is, that the doctrine cannot stand without baptism, and baptism not without the doctrine; thus his meaning is, that both doctrine and baptism must go together. But how this applies to infant baptism, in which the word is separated from the water, or the doctrine from the baptism, any one that has understanding can judge.

That all believers must be baptized, Bede teaches in his exposition of Job 1: “Through the obedience of faith all believers must come to baptism,” and on chap. 2 he says: “No one is worthy to enter into the kingdom of God, unless he is born again of water and of the Spirit.”

In the first sentence he indicates that the believers must come to baptism; of others he makes no mention; even as Philip said to the Ethiopian: “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.” Acts 8:37.

In the second sentence he speaks of the regeneration of water and of the Spirit; concerning which Christ spoke to Nicodemus, who was not an infant, but a man of years, yea, a master in Israel. John 3:1,10. Hence, it can or should be sufficiently understood, what kind of a baptism it is of which he speaks in said place, namely, such a baptism as belongs not to children, but to the reasonable and regenerated.

That which is adduced, in _lib. 4, Cantic._, of his belief _respecting 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.”