Summary Of Baptism In The Fifth Century.

In the first passage of Prosperus we see that faith, regeneration, baptism, forsaking of voluntary sins, etc., are all joined together, even as this is done in the holy Scriptures of the New Testament. Compare Mark, 16:16; Eph. 5:26,27; Tit. 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:21, with Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5; Luke 3:3; Acts 2:37,38; Rom. 6:4. Hence it is a scriptural confession; and there we will let it rest.

In the second passage the martyrs and the candidates for baptism are compared to one another; but who does not know that infants cannot be martyrs, seeing they can neither believe nor confess, much less can they voluntarily confirm said confessed faith with death, which, nevertheless, is the own work of all the orthodox and faithful martyrs. Now then, if infants are not qualified for martyrdom, they are not fit for baptism. Therefore judge whether this is not comprised in the words of Prosperus which we have just mentioned.

A. D. 418.—The doctrine of infant baptism having been openly controverted ever since the beginning of this century, its foundation, namely, original sin, being denied and refuted, it occurred, A. D. 418, that those of the Roman church in Africa, through the urgent request of Augustine and his fellow-bishops, obtained the convocation of a council or synod under Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, composed of two hundred and fourteen bishops; which council, in the name of the See of Rome, absolutely anathematized or condemned the views of those who did not admit infant baptism or recognize original sin in infants, as well as of those who, opposing predestination, held that the will of man was free. The 112th Canon contains the following resolution respecting original sin and baptism: “It is likewise thought proper, that every one who denies that infants who are baptized from their birth, are baptized for the remission of sins, and that they derive from the sin of the first father, Adam, that from which they must be cleansed through the washing of regeneration, be anathema, that is, accursed.”

It is true, this anathema was aimed particularly at Pelagius and Celestius, as being the ones who had shown themselves the principal rejecters of infant baptism, since they positively said (according to Seb. Franck, Chron., letter P.): “There is no original sin; hence, baptism is not needful for children, yea, is useless to them.” Again, article 7: “Children are born without original sin; baptism avails them nothing.” Again, article 13: “Though children be not baptized, they nevertheless have eternal life.”

But nevertheless this council, Canon 112, also anathematized or cursed all those who assented to these views (the rejection of infant baptism and original sin), for this is specially expressed with these words: “Every one who denies that infants who are baptized from their birth, are baptized for the remission of sins, be Anathema.” For, we know that the words every one do not mean any particular person, but many persons.

It appears therefore, that at that time many people separated from the Roman church, on account of this view respecting original sin and infant baptism. However, we would not defend the views of Pelagius and Celestius, concerning some other points; it suffices us, that there were people in those times, who, notwithstanding the excommunication of the pope, and the persecution of the councils, still opposed the Roman church, especially through 185 the rejection of infant baptism, and even, some of them, sacrificed their lives.

A. D. 419–421.—As the Anabaptists were not yet deterred by the above council, from maintaining their doctrine that baptism ought only to be administered upon true faith, therefore, in order to quench their doctrine, the authority of said council was confirmed A. D. 419, by the edicts of the Emperors Honorius and Theodosius, and A. D. 421, by the additional edict of Constantius; whereby said council forcibly prevailed throughout the entire Roman empire. See concerning this, H. Montan. Nietigh., page 79.

From this it appears that this doctrine of baptizing only upon true faith, was accepted by very many at that time; for otherwise it would not have been necessary for the Emperors to threaten its defenders with the great power of their edicts, and, as it appears, to persecute them even unto death.

A. D. 425.—Bapt. Hist., page 411, Maximus (Homil. 71, de Baptism. Christi) says: “Jesus was baptized, not for himself, but for us; not that he might be purified with the water, but that he (so to speak), might sanctify the water. The new man was baptized, that he might confirm the mystery of the new baptism.”

When, therefore, Maximus introduces here the baptism of Christ, which took place when the latter was about thirty years old, and says that it was not done for himself, but for us, that is, for an example to be followed, and that he thereby confirmed the mystery of the new baptism, he certainly indicates thereby, that he is not speaking of the baptism of infants, since Christ, who, through his baptism, confirmed baptism, was not a child when he was baptized, but an adult person. Moreover, as no other, contrary testimony concerning him is found in the history of holy baptism, it seems probable, that he was not acquainted with any other baptism, and, consequently, not with infant baptism, or, at least, did not observe it.