Summary Of Baptism In The Sixth Century.

Perhaps some one may think, in which of the preceding words is infant baptism spoken against? which is nevertheless so distinctly asserted by Jacob Mehrning and H. Montanus. We reply, that they do not express it in formal words, but indicate it by the circumstances which they adduce. For, when they, in the first place, speak of the fourth canon of the council of Gerunda, in Spain, in which it was decreed that catechumens should be baptized on Easter and on Whitsuntide, they thereby indicate that the baptism of new-born infants cannot have been practiced there, because infants are born not only on Easter and Whitsuntide, but throughout the whole year; and in another place it is stated that not only no catechumens, but no one else, should be baptized at any other time than Easter and Whitsuntide.

In the second place, when they declare that by the catechumens here spoken of, there are to be understood not only such youths, or scholars, as were of heathen descent, but also those born of Christian parents, as is proved by the example of Ambrose, Satyrus, &c., it shows that many Christians, at that time, left their children unbaptized till they, after sufficient instruction, as was given to the catechumens, were baptized of their own accord, on either of the two feasts, Easter or Whitsuntide.

Sebastian Franck calls the catechumens, of whom the aforementioned council speaks, scholars of the faith, and relates the decree of said council, as well as the time when the same was held, on this wise: “The council of Gerunda, held in the seventh year of King Theodoric, passed, among nine decrees, also this: That the catechumens, that is, the scholars in the faith, should be baptized only on Easter and Whitsuntide, except imminent death should require it otherwise.” Chron. Rom. Council., fol. 73, col. 1.

About A. D. 525.—Or in the 15th year of Theodoric, King of France, those of the Roman church again found themselves in great embarrassment with regard to the so-called Anabaptists. The matter rose to such a pitch that it was thought well to assemble a council against them, as had been done by Pope Felix, A. D. 487, at Rome. Accordingly, about A. D. 525, the second council against the Anabaptists was convened, not at Rome, as the first, but at Ilerda, in Spain; to which there assembled, as was usually the case, many of the bitterest papistic bishops—in order to extirpate, or at least check, the heresy, as it was called—who made a 198 number of rules and laws, not only against the Anabaptists, but also against those who, having separated from the Roman church, had been rebaptized by them; of which rules, among others, the following are noted:

Canon 9. “Concerning those who through transgression have been rebaptized, and have fallen without necessity, it is our will, that the statutes of the Nicene synod be observed respecting them, which are considered to have been passed for such offenders: that they shall pray for seven years among the catechumens, and two years among the catholics, and then,” &c.

Canon 14. “Godly believers shall not eat with the rebaptized”. Bapt. Hist., pages 477, 478, from the 6th Cent. Magd,. cap. 9, fol. 240, ex Decret. Synod, Ilerdensis.

The 13th canon of this synod, also given in the same place, we suspect, has been misquoted; however, as it does not apply here, we leave it in its own merit.

That the 14th canon, however, which speaks only of the rebaptized, concerns the so-called Anabaptists, appears from the annotation of Sebastian Franck, of Wordens, in part 3 of his Chronijk, fol. 73, col. 1, who translates this canon thus: “The clergy and believers shall not partake of meals with the Anabaptists.”

From this it can be seen in what detestation, yea, abhorrence, the so-called Anabaptists in the time past, were held by the Romanists, inasmuch as they were not considered worthy to eat with, even as once the Samaritans, publicans, and sinners had been regarded by the Jews.

We will not investigate minutely, whether the so-called Anabaptists of that time held the same views, in regard to every article, with those who, at the present day, are designated by that name; nor will we, if perhaps in some points they did not teach aright, or were not fully enlightened, defend, much less, praise them; it suffices us, that they, besides other good and wholesome articles, mentioned by us in another place, held this in common with the Anabaptists of the present day, namely: That they did not approve of the baptism which by the Romanists is administered to infants, but rejected it, so that they baptized, or, at least, baptized aright at first, those who, having come to adult years, embraced their faith.

It also is praiseworthy in them, that they, notwithstanding the anathema of the Pope and the councils, yea, regardless of persecution, suffering, and death, as shall be shown in the proper place, maintained and manfully defended their views. We know of nothing further that we could say of them, from authentic writers, but will commend them, as well as ourselves, to God and his grace. As regards the manner in which they were proceeded against, in subsequent times, as well as how they conducted themselves herein, we shall show in the proper time and place.