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

10th century (source section) · Historical source

Source: Martyrs’ Mirror. Original heading: FURTHER OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING THE DEPLORABLE STATE OF THE WORSHIP OF GOD IN THIS CENTURY.

Century of containing source section; exact event date not assigned

“As far as regards the preceding century, I cannot
speak of any improvement, inasmuch as the
secular affairs manifested themselves with much
commotion, strife, misery, and distress. Papal dominion
prevailed more and more. The idolatrous
ceremonies were very prolific; the baptismal water
was consecrated; the oil was prepared by the bishop
alone, two days before Easter, as well as imparted
to others; the Supper, or sacrament, was administered
nearly every Sunday, at an altar or table prepared
for this purpose. Excommunication or the
ban of the church was used very frivolously, not
only against common people, but also against emperors,
kings, and princes. The punishment imposed
upon penitents consisted much in abstaining
for seven years from certain food, meat and wine,
or in the giving of alms, building of churches, founding
of cloisters, and other like inventions and burdens,
240
according to the ability and mind of each
respective individual.

“It was taught, that the saints must be worshiped;
not that they should save the supplicants,
but that they should intercede, and ask God for
help for them.

“Holy people were presented, who had died before
the time of Christ, in the Old Testament, and
who, as it was said, had been in hell, yet without
pain—a strange notion and wicked doctrine respecting
the holy fathers.

“It was said that there was a purgatory, where
men had to atone after this life, and wash away sin
by suffering.

“The canonizing of ecclesiastical persons was
very common. The holidays instituted in honor of
the saints, were very many, and took away nearly
one half of the year. The images and graves of the
saints were greatly esteemed. Kings, princes, lords,
ecclesiastics, and laymen, made pilgrimages to
Rome, St. Jago, Jerusalem, and other places, where
the bodies or bones of the saints were buried or preserved,
as though dead bones without spirit, could
impart life or benefit.

“The sick would confess to the ear of the priest,
and thereupon receive the sacrament of the unction;
after which they departed in full assurance, though
without any good resulting from it.

“The dead were buried with the ringing of bells,
with tapers and torches, with much singing, with
masses, vigils, and prayers for their souls, etc.”
P.J. Twisck, Chron., 10th book, page 361.

Thus, the tenth century was utterly corrupted
through the superstitions of popery; but, as in the
dark midnight the stars still sometimes give their
light, so it was also here; for, that the marks of the
true church might not be swallowed up entirely in
the darkness, some, though but few, manifested
themselves, who, in one and the other point, but
principally in the matter of baptism, showed, that
they, as regards the matter itself, did not differ from
the institution of Christ and the practice of his holy
apostles; which can be gathered from the writings
they have left.

About A. D. 910.—Or very close to the beginning
of this century, the ancient writers place Giselbert,
a man of learning, but accused of strange
opinions by his adversaries; whom the emergency
of the time compelled to stoop and hide, under the
ravages of popery. He, though others have regarded
him as a member of the Roman church,
opposed, apparently as much as lay in his power,
the Pope and the Roman church, and this not a
little in the matter of baptism. For, while the Pope
and the Roman church generally taught that it was
necessary, yea, upon pain of damnation, to baptize
the infants, notwithstanding they have not, and
cannot have, either true regeneration or a good will
[intention], which are nevertheless required of candidates
(Matt. 3:7,8), he taught that it is indeed
necessary to salvation, to be baptized, but that said
baptism must be connected with regeneration, and
a good intention; which things, besides the grace of
Christ, he considered the chief means to salvation,
so much so, that any one who had these virtues,
though he were not baptized (that is, if there had
been no opportunity), could nevertheless be saved
because of the grace and power of God. Of this,
there is, among others, the following annotation in
Jacob Mehrning’s History of Baptism, page 567.

Of the necessity of baptism.—Giselbert (Alter. 1),
says: “It is true, God can save; yet, man cannot
be saved without baptism; (that is, that baptism
which is accompanied with regeneration, as the following
words declare), for thus says the author of
this sacrament himself: ‘Except a man be born of
water and of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom
of God.’ It is, however, not in the power of man,
to reject this way, and to choose to salvation another.
However, it is in God’s power, if man cannot
obtain this means (baptism), to accept graciously
his good will.” Cent. Magd. X., cap. 4.

Hence, when he here speaks of the good will of
man, it is quite evident, that he treats neither of
infants nor of infant baptism, seeing infants have no
knowledge of either a good or a bad will, nor of
baptism, nor of regeneration, to which said passage
of Giselbert also has reference; much less have they
the ability to worthily begin and execute all this,
for the proper reception of baptism. He intends
simply to say, that baptism is indeed necessary, yet
not without regeneration; which regeneration he
regards as the most important of all, according to
John 3:5,7, from which he concludes that it is not
in the power of man to reject this way, namely, to
separate regeneration from baptism, or baptism from
regeneration, which is a stricture upon those who
were wont to reject the baptism of the regenerated
or penitent, and to go another way, as did the Pharisees
in the days of John the Baptist; who, rejecting
the counsel of God against themselves (namely,
the baptism of John), were not baptized of him.
Luke 7:30.

But, in order that no one need sorrow, who, having
attained to regeneration, could not receive baptism,
on account of serious obstacles or the want of
a fitting opportunity, and, hence, might imagine
that there was no grace or mercy of God for him,
he adds this consolation, namely: “That it is in
God’s power, if man cannot obtain the means (baptism),
to accept graciously his good will.”

Whatever others, especially papistic writers, may
have recorded of Giselbert’s belief, detrimental to,
or, at least, against the point in view, we let them
be responsible for it; this is certain, that we have
not as yet been able to find anything to the contrary,
in any authentic writer.

About A. D. 925.—Shortly after, or very near
the time of Giselbert, Ansbert is mentioned, who,
writing on several matters of faith, or articles of
religion, also makes mention of baptism, approaching
herein very closely the language, or, at least, the
sense of the holy apostles, which appears from the
following testimonies:

Bapt. Hist., page 568. Ansbert (on Rev. 19),
says, according to the words of Christ, John 1:13:
“Which were born not of blood . . . but of
God.” “Of God, that is, through the preached
word and the washing of regeneration, by which
mysteries (namely, preaching and the washing of
241
regeneration, that is, baptism) Christ still daily begets
and brings forth unto himself heirs.”

He here connects the word of God, or preaching,
with the washing of regeneration, or baptism, and
says that by them Christ begets and brings forth unto
himself heirs. How could anybody more plainly
declare: 1. what true baptism is; 2. what belongs
to it; and 3. what fruit proceeds from it. For,
firstly, what true baptism is, he expresses by these
words: Washing of regeneration, according to Tit.
3:5, indicating thereby, that true baptism is peculiar
only to the regenerate; that is, to the penitent.
Secondly, what belongs to baptism he expresses by
these words: The preached word; for, as the apostle
declares, “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing
by the word of God,” Rom. 10:17. The preached
word is therefore the means by which to attain to
the faith, and faith is the foundation upon which
truly to receive baptism. As necessary, then, as
faith is, in order to be truly baptized, upon it, so
necessary also is the preached word, in order to
truly believe; consequently, Ansbert has justly joined
the preached word to baptism, as a proof that it
belongs to it, according to the words of Christ
(Mark 16:15,16): “Preach the Gospel . . . he
that believeth and is baptized.” Thirdly, what fruit
proceeds from such baptism, when it is accompanied
with regeneration and the preached word of God,
he expresses with these words: “By which mysteries
Christ still daily begets and brings forth unto
himself heirs,” which well agrees with the words of
Paul, Gal. 3:26,27: “Ye are all the children of
God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you
as have been baptized into Christ have put on
Christ.” These, then, who by this means become
children of God, also become his heirs and joint
heirs with Christ. Rom. 8:17. Hence, said words
of Ansbert are conformable to the holy Scriptures,
and speak of the baptism of the regenerate, but in
no wise of infant baptism.

Page 569. Ansbert (on Rev. 21) teaches: “The
trinity of the Godhead we dare not, and shall not
pass by unnoticed, especially when we are baptized
upon the confession of the holy Trinity, and are
saved in the faith of the unity of the same.”

Here he again connects baptism with confession
and faith, yea, he says that we are baptized upon
confession, and saved in faith. Certainly, there is
not a letter in the above passage, which savors of
infant baptism, but every word denies, yea, opposes
it, inasmuch as here such a baptism only is spoken
of, as is received with faith and the confession of
the same; but that this can be done by infants,
militates not only against the holy Scriptures, but
also against nature.

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.

Moreover, Smaragdus required of the candidates
for baptism, not only the truth of the faith, but also
regeneration, as appears from his comments on
John 3, where he says: “He that is regenerated
through water and the Spirit, is invisibly changed
into a new man, and from a carnal man is made a
spiritual man; and he is therefore rightly called,
not only spiritual, but also spirit.” B. H., p. 573,
num. 11.

In this passage again there are several things
mentioned, which indicate nothing else than that
he is speaking of the baptism of adults. For, besides
that the words, John 3, were not spoken to
an infant but to Nicodemus, a master in Israel, the
circumstances adduced by Smaragdus in regard to
it also indicate, that it is to be understood of none
but adult persons. For, what else does he mean to
say by the word regenerated, than that the baptized
person who has previously truly prepared himself for
baptism, gives up his old, earthly birth, and becomes
a new creature? Thus also, when he says
that the baptized person is changed into a new
man; for, how shall any one be changed into a new
man, who was not an old man before? And also,
when he adds, that such an one, from a carnal man
is made spiritual; for, how is it possible, from a
carnal man to become spiritual, if one has not previously
been carnal or lived after the flesh? Therefore,
to become spiritual, does not simply mean, to
receive the Spirit of God, but to live after the Spirit,
in the fear of God, and in all the Christian virtues.
Gal. 5:21–24.

This being so, we will leave the testimony of
Smaragdus and proceed to others of his cotemporaries,
who held the same belief and left it to us in
their writings.

A. D. 952.—It is stated that in the time of the
Emperor Otho the Great there lived and wrote, in
Greece, a very virtuous and learned man called Theophilact,
who, writing on various matters of faith,
also makes mention of baptism, not differing herein,
as far as we have been able to ascertain, from the
Anabaptists of the present day, but agreeing with
them very well on the subject of baptism upon
faith.

Bapt. Hist., page 571, Theophilact on Luke 15,
says: “As many of us as have been baptized have
put on Christ.”

These are the words of Paul, Gal. 3:27, which
the apostle does not speak to infants, but to the
believing saints of the Galatian church, namely, that
they had indeed, become children of God by faith,
but had put on Christ by baptism.”

Continuing he says: “Then he puts on our hand
(namely, to us who through baptism have put on
Christ) the ring, the seal of Christianity, which
works in us.” Again: “Every one that is baptized,
is also made a child of God, yea, readopted
as such; he is also, when he is washed from sin,
made a partaker of the fatted calf, and becomes the
joy of the Father and his servants, the holy angels
and men, even as one that has arisen from the
dead, and who was lost, and is found.”

He here compares the candidates to the prodigal
son who, repenting of his evil life, arose to go to
his father, to seek grace, and was received by him
with outstretched arms. Thus, he would say, it is
also in baptism: The sinner seeks grace, confesses
his sins, manifests sorrow for them, yea, prays and
supplicates for forgiveness. God, the Lord, who is
the true Father of all men by reason of creation,
meets him, embraces him with the arms of his grace,
yea, pardons all his past sins, and, in token thereof,
commands one of his servants to baptize him. This
he compares to the putting on of the ring, saying:
“Then he puts on our hand the ring, the seal of
Christianity.” What he further says concerning the
killing of the fatted calf; and the joy of the Father
and his servants, has regard to the joy that is in
heaven over the repentance of such a penitent (and
thereupon baptized) sinner, which is greater than
over ninety and nine just persons, which need no
repentance. Luke 15:7.

Hence, when Theophilact compares the candidate
for baptism to the prodigal son, in the manner
shown above, it is evident enough, yea, as clear
as midday, that he is treating of no other baptism
than the baptism of adults, and this of such adults
as manifest sorrow for their past sins.

Page 572. Theophilact on John 8, says: “Since
Christ came to take away the sins of the world, we
can obtain remission of sins in no other way than,
by means of baptism (however properly speaking
243
the blood of Christ is the effective cause of the
remission and taking away of sins), yet it is impossible
that he that has not believed, be baptized
(aright); hence, the unbeliever must afterwards die
in his sins, for he has not put off the old man, because
he has not been baptized.”

Though several things are said here, which confirm
our preceding explanation of the words of Theophilact,
we shall nevertheless notice only these
words: “It is impossible that he that has not believed,
be baptized (aright);” for here certainly
every baptism which is not received with faith is
denied; hence, infant baptism cannot be admitted
here, because it is without all faith, yea, it is utterly
denied here. And thus, the words of Theophilact
concerning baptism, are not only clear, but also
Christian-like and apostolical.

Page 572. Theophilact on 2 Cor. 3, says: “Even
as silver, exposed to the sun, does itself emit rays,
because the sun shines upon it; so also we, when
we are purified in baptism, by the Holy Ghost, and
illumined by his rays, emit a spiritual radiance, perceived
only in the soul, and are changed into the
same image, by the Spirit of the Lord, to our
glory.” And, a little further on: “All believers are
illumined in baptism by the Holy Ghost, that their
souls shine (or, emit radiance) thereby.” Again:
“As we are all dead by one sinner, even so we are
all made alive, and are risen through Christ, in baptism;
and we justly recognize no one as believing,
who lives after the flesh, that is, who leads the old,
carnal life; but all who are regenerated by the Spirit,
begin a new, spiritual life.”

The words which Theophilact speaks from or on
2 Cor. 3, concerning the candidates, Paul speaks
of believers; and the simile borrowed by the aforementioned
writer from the silver, which, when the
sun shines upon it, reflects his rays, which he applies
to the candidates, who become illumined by
the Holy Ghost, and reflect a spiritual radiance of
virtues, confirms, in a good degree, that he is
speaking of such candidates as can be illumined by
the Holy Ghost, and live virtuously, to the honor
of God, the edification of their neighbor, and to the
salvation of their own souls. What he says after
that, fully confirms our opinion, namely, that he is
speaking of believing candidates; for, this he clearly
expresses with these words: “All believers are illumined
in baptism by the Holy Ghost.” What he
adds finally, tends in the same direction, for he says
that, “As we are all dead by one sinner (Adam),
even so we are all made alive and are risen, through
Christ, in baptism.” Who does not see that this
making alive and rising (in baptism) has respect to
the renewing of the old life, according to the teaching
of Paul (Rom. 6:4): “Therefore we are buried
with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ
was raised up from the dead by the glory of the
Father, even so we also should walk in newness
of life.” That this is his meaning, he indicates by
the following words, when he calls those whom
he has previously termed candidates, believers and
regenerated persons, saying: “We justly recognize
no one as believing, who lives after the flesh;
but all who are regenerated (thus he calls the
candidates or the baptized) by the Spirit, begin a
new, spiritual life.”

Page 573. Philophilact on 2 Tim. 1, says: “The
Holy Ghost hovers over us at baptism; now, if we
keep this Spirit, and do not drive him away by
wicked works, he keeps us and what we have received
from God; therefore, use all diligence, that
you keep the Holy Ghost, and he, who has been
given you, will also keep you.”

It seems that in the days of Theophilact there was
a failing among some of the candidates, or, at least,
among the unbaptized Christians, that, instead of
stirring up the grace of the Spirit of God, which
had been given them (after baptism), and thereby
increasing and proceeding in virtues, they decreased
and retrograded, yea, fell into wicked works. This,
Theophilact opposed, warning them to be careful
not to drive the good Spirit of God away from them
by wicked works, seeing he will not dwell in a
malicious soul, nor in a body that is subject unto
sin. Wisdom of Sol. 1:4.

Secondly, he admonishes them affectionately and
consolingly, to keep the gift of the Holy Ghost (after
baptism), pointing out also, the means by which
this could be done, namely, by avoiding wicked
works, and using diligence, that is, such diligence
by which the worship of God and the common edification
could be promoted. The consolation which
he, for such, adds to his admonition, is expressed in
these words: “Therefore, use all diligence, that you
keep the Holy Ghost, and he . . . will also keep
you.” But, what fruit his warning, and consoling
admonition had on those persons, is not stated
there; hence we will take our leave, and proceed to
other writings which he has left.

Same page as above. Theophilact on John 3,
says: “It is not enough for the preservation of purity,
to be baptized; but one must also use great
diligence, that the image of the sonship of God,
which is represented in baptism, is kept unspotted.
There are many who have received, in baptism, the
grace of adoption as children of God, but who,
through negligence, have not remained children
of God unto the end.

Here he greatly laments the apostasy of the children
of God, namely, of those who, having been
baptized, and having received the grace of adoption
as children of God, but through negligence had
apostatized so that they, as he calls it, had not
remained children of God. Certainly, this was a sad
matter; but notwithstanding we rejoice that in those
times people were baptized upon faith (as has been
shown above), that they might receive the grace of
adoption as children of God; and that there were
yet persons (as appears from Theophilact) who taught
this doctrine and reproved the opposing abuses; to
which, has been our sole aim.

Page 575. Theophilact (on 1 Tim. 6, where the
apostle says: “Thou hast professed a good profession
before many witnesses”), writes: “This profession
takes place at the instruction of those who
are to be baptized; and we profess by it that we will
forsake Satan, and pitch our tent with Christ, that
we may fully adhere to him.”

244

How could any one speak more clearly and truly
of baptism according to the institution of Christ and
the practice of the apostles? He says here, that the
good profession of which Paul writes (1 Tim. 6:12),
took place at the instruction of those who were to
be baptized; by which he indicates that in his time
the candidates were not only instructed at and before
baptism, namely, in the Christian faith, but that
they were also required to make a profession of
what they believed, which consisted (as can be
gleaned not only from Theophilact, but also from
other writers of that time) of two parts: firstly, in
the confession of faith in God and in his Son Jesus
Christ; and secondly, in the renunciation of Satan,
the world, the flesh, and all its lusts.

Same page as above. Theophilact on Mark 1,
says: “All who came to be baptized by John, were
delivered through repentance from the bond of their
souls, if they believed on Christ.”

He says of those who came to John’s baptism,
that they were delivered through repentance from
the bond of their souls (that is, from sin), if they
believed on Christ; by which he indicates that two
things were required of those candidates, in order
that they might be delivered from sin; 1. repentance;
2. faith in Christ. Which things, since he
adduces them for the instruction of his cotemporaries,
were also required of the candidates of his
time, namely, that they had to repent and believe
on Christ. For, to what purpose should he otherwise,
by way of instruction, have adduced them?

Page 581. D. J. Vicecomes (lib. 3, cap. 3, on
Heb. 6), quotes from Theophilact: “When you
were to be baptized, you repented of dead works,
that is, rejected the works of Satan.”

In Lib. 5, cap. 37, Vicecomes expresses the opinion,
that in the time of Theophilact the holy Supper
was still administered to the baptized, after baptism.

Whether we cast our eyes upon the words of
Theophilact, or upon those of Vicecomes, we see
that both tend in the same direction. As regards
the words of Theophilact, he informs us concerning
the candidates of his time, that they, before baptism,
or, at least, when they were about to be baptized,
repented of dead works, which, as every one knows,
can only be done by adults, and not at all by infants;
for, one that is to desist from dead works, and repent,
must first have committed dead works; this
is incontrovertible.

As to the words of Vicecomes, they confirm the
foregoing; for, if the holy Supper was then administered
to the baptized after baptism; which Supper,
as is taught in 1 Cor. 11:27, had to be received with
proper examination, and qualification, as, according
to history, was then still done, it follows that
the baptism of infants could not have been maintained
among those who practiced this, seeing infants
are unfit for such examination and qualification,
and, consequently, also unfit to become partakers
of the holy Supper, which Vicecomes also notices;
for, referring, in the same place, to some among the
Romanists, he says: “But when the baptism of infants
was introduced, they [the infants] did not
understand the virtue of the heavenly food, the
church abolished this custom (namely, of administering
the Supper to the baptized), that this holy
sacrament might not be dishonored thereby.”

From this it is quite evident, that at that time,
not only some who had separated from the Roman
church, but even some who belonged to the Roman
church (perhaps, whole churches of the Romanists),
still had the custom of administering the holy Supper
to all that had been baptized, and this with all
proper devotion; so that in those churches, it seems,
nothing was known, even as late as that time, of
infant baptism, or, at least, that it was not observed
there, until the Pope, or some council ordained
otherwise; for this is clearly expressed in the words:
“But when the baptism of infants was introduced,
the church abolished this custom.”

Touching what is adduced (B. H., p. 308, from
D. Vicecomes, lib. 5, cap. 37), concerning the infant
Supper, as though it might have obtained in the
time of Theophilact, it is refuted by the writer himself,
in said passage; for he explains it as having
reference to the Supper of believing, baptized Christians,
saying, that it was administered to the baptized
till infant baptism came into vogue, and that
it was then (because infants were unfit for it) abolished.

In regard to this, the writer who records it, has
the following words to the shame of those who did
so: “Cannot these foolish saints,” says he “for the
same reason, also abolish infant baptism, which is
not a less, but, on account of the effectual regeneration,
a greater sacrament, than the Supper?”
B. H., page 308. He means to say: If the Supper,
which it was customary to administer to believers
after baptism, was abolished, when infant baptism
came into vogue, because infants have not the ability
to worthily prepare themselves for the Supper; how
great a folly is it, then, that infant baptism was not
also abolished for the same reason; seeing that not
less, but more, is required for baptism than for the
Supper, namely, an effectual regeneration? For
which reason also baptism is a greater sacrament
than the Supper. Certainly, this was a forcible
argument in refutation of those who, having introduced
infant baptism, had therefore abolished the
Supper which used to be administered after baptism;
and who considered infants better qualified for baptism
than for the Supper.

About A. D. 980.—Bapt. Hist., pages 578, 579.
Vicecomes quotes from Simon Metaphrastes, lib. 1,
cap. 5, the following occurrence: “That Theridates,
with his wife and the chief persons of the land were
baptized in the river Euphrates.”

Page 580. “Greg. Martyr enjoined upon Theridates
and those who desired to be baptized, a fast
of thirty days, then instructed them one after another,
and thereupon baptized them in the Euphrates.”
From Vicecom., lib. 3, cap. 6.

D. Vicecomes (lib. 1, cap. 14), relates how
Namesius, came to the water, towards evening,
descended into it, and was baptized, in the name
of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. From
Metaphr., in vita Steph.

In lib. 3, cap. 3, he writes, how Olympius, with
his wife, Exuperia, and his only son, Theodulus,
in the night came to Sympronius, fell down at his
245
feet, and said: “We have recently learned to know
the power of Christ, that he is truly God. We
therefore pray thee, to see that we receive baptism,
in the name of Christ, whom thou preachest.”
Sympronius answered them: “If you repent with
your whole heart, God will be so gracious as to
receive you as penitents.” Then said Olympius:
“This we will immediately do.” From Metaphr.,
in vita Steph. B. H., page 579, num. 10.

Page 580, num. 14. “This same Olympius, when
he desired to become a Christian, was bidden to
break the idols with his own hands, to melt the
gold and silver of which they were made, with fire,
and to gather the poor, and distribute it among
them. This, the writer says, Olympius faithfully
did.” D. Vicecom., lib. 3, cap. 13.

Note.—Page 851, it is related of Placidus, his
wife Trajana, and his two sons, how they went to
the teacher, etc.; and how the latter instructed and
eventually baptized them; changed their names;
administered the Supper to them; wished everything
good to them, and said: “Depart! the true
peace of Christ go with you.” From Metaphr.,
according to Vicecom., lib. 5, cap. 45.

Still other similar examples, which it would take
too long to recount, are adduced in said place, and
elsewhere, in the History of Baptism. The persons
mentioned in all these examples, those who were
baptized as well as those who baptized, we pass by
without commenting on them; our object here being
simply to show that said Simon Metaphrastes, who
is stated to have lived and written about this time,
described the foregoing matters as good and praiseworthy
examples of the believing, baptized Christians,
and left them to posterity, for instruction.

About A. D. 1000.—Or at the close of the tenth
century, there is noticed in Jacob Mehrning’s History
of Baptism, Fulbertus Carnotanses, who compares
the descending in baptism to the burying of
Christ in the earth, and the arising from baptism
to the resurrection of Christ from the grave, or,
properly speaking, to the awakening of Christ to
life.148

His own words can be found, translated into
German, page 581, from Fulbert. Carnot. in Epist.
ad Adcodatum. Herewith we conclude our account
of baptism in the tenth century, and proceed to the
pious martyrs who suffered in those days for the
name of Jesus Christ.





---

Page: http://history.truechristian.church/stories/mm-further-observations-concerning-the-deplorable-state-of-the-worship-of-god-in-this-century/

[Contribute a correction or addition](https://github.com/trueChristian/history.truechristian.church/issues/new?title=Correction%3A+Further+Observations+Concerning+The+Deplorable+State+Of+The+Worship+Of+God+In+This+Century.&body=%23%23+Page+or+topic%0AFurther+Observations+Concerning+The+Deplorable+State+Of+The+Worship+Of+God+In+This+Century.%0A%0APage%3A+http%3A%2F%2Fhistory.truechristian.church%2Fstories%2Fmm-further-observations-concerning-the-deplorable-state-of-the-worship-of-god-in-this-century%2F%0A%0ARecord%3A+mm-further-observations-concerning-the-deplorable-state-of-the-worship-of-god-in-this-century%0A%0ADate+currently+shown%3A+10th+century+%28source+section%29%0A%0A%23%23+Correction+or+addition%0A%0A%0A%0A%23%23+Sources+and+evidence%0APlease+include+book%2Fpage+references%2C+archive+links%2C+or+first-hand+documentation.%0A%0A%0A%0A%23%23+Image+credit+%28if+applicable%29%0ACreator%2C+source%2C+and+permission+or+public-domain+basis.%0A%0A%0A%0ASubmitted+for+review%3B+this+issue+does+not+publish+changes+automatically.)