Further Observations Concerning The Deplorable State Of The Worship Of God In This Century.

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

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 242 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.