Touching Some Other Points Of Cyril’S Faith, According To The Account Of P. J. Twisck, Chron., 5th Book, Page 152, Col. 1.

See, beloved reader, such is the power of truth, that even the mouth of the liar, yea, of antichrist, must confess it. But though Pope Leo confessed this, other popes declared those who confessed the same, heretics, yea, cursed, persecuted, and killed them, as shall be shown in the proper place.

At this time Fulgentius taught that the holy Scriptures contained all that was necessary for salvation—food for children, as well as for adults. S. Veltius, Geschlacht-register, 1649, page 123.

A. D. 500.—P. J. Twisck, in the conclusion of his account of the fifth century, complains of the desolation, both in civil and spiritual affairs, occasioned chiefly by the power of the Pope of Rome, saying: “In this time, and still longer, through the desolation caused in the lands by the invasion of many different armies, and by other destroyers, as well as through immorality and heresies, the best people and chiefest authors perished, piety and learning diminished, and whatever of good remained, became for the most part corrupted. For although the baptism of adults was still administered, and church history from the time of Christ up to about this period, does not in the least, as far as I know, mention infant baptism, the latter nevertheless, according to other writers, more and more lifts up its head, and this with papal pollution, is confirmed by a decree, and considered not necessary to salvation.” Chron., 5th book, page 174.

From this we may gather the reason why at times so few orthodox and good writers are found, and, hence, how it comes that in those early days, there was sometimes, for a long period, only one, or a few, who openly maintained baptism upon faith, and other wholesome articles of faith, of which we will not speak further now.

The statement, that church history, from the time of Christ up to about this time (A. D. 500), does not in the least mention infant baptism, gives rise to the grave suspicion, that the authors which appear to have written long before the year 500, were interpolated by some of their descendants who maintained infant baptism. A few instances of this kind we have already given, respecting the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, Justin, Origen, and others.

But be this as it may, posterity must make the best of the aforesaid writings, as we also must now do; and, according to their account, infant baptism obtained at this time, and long before, in many of the (Roman) churches, though many kept aloof from it, so that even with them, it was not generally adopted until about the year 900, yea, almost to the year 1000, as we hope to show in the proper place, and as may be seen in various prominent authors.

In the mean time we have shown (which suffices us) that the fifth century was not without men who, opposing infant baptism, maintained baptism upon faith, according to the teaching of Christ, and confirmed it by doctrine and example.

NOTE.—It is stated that about A. D. 500, Clodovius and his people were baptized upon faith, or the confession of the same, by Remigius, Bishop of Rheins. Bapt. Hist., page 435. But he did not show himself a Christian in every respect, which we would not commend. Moreover, his two sons were baptized before his conversion as Blondus writes (lib. 3, decade 1, also Bapt. Hist., page 436), notwithstanding their mother, Clotildis was a godly, Christian woman, as is stated in Bapt. Hist., page 435. From this it appears that at that time, even among the Romanists, it was not a general custom to baptize infants, but that some permitted their children to attain to the years of understanding, before they were baptized; however in other places, in the Roman dominion, infant baptism was strictly observed. In the mean time the true Christians kept quiet, and practiced baptism upon faith, as has been sufficiently shown.